Academic motivation scale revised. Inclusion of integrated regulation to measure motivation in initial teacher education

Revisión de la escala de motivación educativa. Inclusión de la regulación integrada para medir la motivación en la formación inicial del profesorado

Rafael Burgueño¹, Álvaro Sicilia¹, Jesús Medina-Casaubón², Manuel Alcaraz-Ibáñez¹ and María-Jesús Lirola¹

¹ Universidad of Almería (Spain).
² Universidad of Granada (Spain).

Correspondence

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to incorporate the integrated regulation assessment into the Academic Motivation Scale within the Spanish initial teacher education context. There were 496 student participants (233 men and 263 women; M_age = 25.70, SD = 4.23) from the Masters in Teaching for Compulsory Secondary Education, Upper Secondary School Education and Professional Education, and Language Teaching. The confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable fit-indexes for the eight-factor correlated structure and an invariant factor structure across genders. Internal consistency and temporal stability were satisfactory for each of the eight factors. The linear regression analysis indicated that integrated regulation was the strongest predictor of intention to become a teacher. This new instrument may contribute to a deeper understanding of the motivational processes involved in the initial teacher education context.

Key words: motivation; psychometric properties; self-determination theory; initial teacher education.

RESUMEN

El objetivo de este estudio fue incorporar la medida de la regulación integrada en la Echelle de Motivation en Education en el contexto español de la formación inicial del profesorado. Participaron 496 profesores en formación inicial (233 hombres and 263 mujeres; M_edad = 25.70, DT = 4.23) del master en formación del profesorado en educación secundaria y bachillerato, formación profesional y enseñanza de idiomas. El análisis factorial confirmatorio mostró aceptables índices de ajuste para la estructura de 8 factores, la cual permaneció invariante respecto al género. La consistencia interna y la estabilidad temporal fueron satisfactorias para cada uno de los 8 factores. El análisis de regresión lineal indicó que la regulación integrada fue el mayor predictor sobre la intención de convertirse en docente. El nuevo instrumento puede contribuir a una comprensión más profunda de los procesos motivacionales involucrados en la formación inicial del profesorado.

Palabras clave: motivación; propiedades psicométricas; teoría de la autodeterminación; profesorado en formación inicial.

Introduction

SDT recognises that a person can be motivated in three distinct ways when adopting a behaviour (amotivated, extrinsically motivated or intrinsically motivated). These three forms of motivation are located on an established continuum according to the level of self-determination implicit in each of them, reflecting to what extent the behaviour is voluntarily adopted and in accordance with the person's own interests. Representing the highest level of self-determination, intrinsic motivation would express that the activity is conducted for satisfaction and inherent pleasure in itself. Authors such as Vallerand (2000) have conceptualized intrinsic motivation as a global psychological construct that would include the intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation (the behaviour is adopted based on the stimuli generated during the activity), intrinsic motivation to accomplish (the behaviour is adopted based on the pleasure experienced on achieving a new level) and the intrinsic motivation to know (the behaviour is adopted based on the pleasure experienced during the learning process). Situated at the other extreme of this continuum, amotivation would reflect the absence of volition and intention in adopting the behaviour. In the central part of the continuum, it would be found extrinsic motivation, which contemplates four forms of regulation that would be ordered according to the level achieved in the internalization process; that is to say, the degree to which the person incorporates the social value attributed to a specific activity into their own identity (Deci & Ryan, 2000). From a lesser to a greater degree of internalization, external regulation (the behaviour is adopted to achieve rewards or avoid punishments, for which there is no internalization process), introjected regulation (the behaviour is conducted to avoid the sensation of guilt which would be produced by not carrying out it), identified regulation (the behaviour is conducted because the behaviour's social value is appreciated) and integrated regulation (the behaviour is coherently incorporated into the person's own identity and their personal values system) would appear.

The literature has positively related the most selfdetermined forms of motivation (i.e., integrated and identified regulations and intrinsic motivation) to diverse desirable behaviours within the educational setting such as persistence (Black & Deci, 2000), student's academic performance (Boiché, Sarrazin, Grouzet, Pelletier, & Chanal, 2008), cooperation and respect towards peers (Sanchez-Oliva, Viladrich, Amado, González-Ponce, & García-Calvo, 2014), or the teachers' performance (Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Haerens, 2016). Instead, the least self-determined forms of motivation (i.e., introjected regulation, external regulation and amotivation) have been positively related to undesirable behavioural outcomes; for example, school dropouts (Vallerand & Blassonnette, 1992), lack of attention in class (Stephens & Pantoja, 2016) or resentment towards equals and towards the teaching staff (Aelterman et al., 2016). In the initial teacher education context, Kim and Cho (2014) observed that while pre-service teachers' intrinsic motivation positively predicted teacher's sense of efficacy during teaching practice, introjected regulation predicted their expectation of reality shock.

In order to measure motivation in the academic context from the SDT perspective, one of the most-used instruments until this moment has been the Échelle de Motivation en Éducation (EME; Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989), also known as Academic Motivation Scale. This scale consists of 28 items that, distributed into four item for each of its seven factors, measure the 3 sub-types of intrinsic motivation (i.e., to experience stimulation, to accomplish and to know), the 3 types of extrinsic motivation (i.e., identified, introjected and external regulation) and amotivation. This instrument has shown adequate psychometric properties in different contexts (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2008; Barkoukis, Tsorbatzoudis, Grouios & Sideridis, 2008; Caleon et al., 2015; Can, 2015; Cokley, Bernard, Cunningham & Motoike, 2001; Davoglio, dos Santos & da Conceiçâo, 2016; Núñez, Martín-Albo & Navarro, 2005; Núñez, Martín-Albo, Navarro & Grijalvo, 2006; Núñez, Martín-Albo, Navarro & Suárez, 2010; Stover, de la Iglesia, Boubeta & Fernández-Liporace, 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992; Zhang, Li, Li, Li & Zhang, 2016). In this regard, the 7-factor correlated structure has been defended instead of diverse alternative models (Caleon et al., 2015; Cokley, 2015; Núñez et al., 2010; Stover et al., 2012). In addition, the EME factorial structure has been invariant across gender (Grouzet, Otis, & Pelletier, 2006; Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senécal, 2007); although this aspect was not tested by the work which originally adapted the instrument to the Spanish context (Núñez et al., 2005, 2010).

Despite the EME has shown its reliability and validity measuring academic motivation, this instrument does not contemplate the integrated regulation measurement; that is to say, the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation proposed by SDT. This limitation acquires special significance when considering the evidence that suggests that integrated regulation could contribute to the persistence of the behaviour even in situations characterized by the presence of a growing level of difficulty (Green-Demeirs, Pelletier, & Ménard, 1997). In this way, the study of integrated regulation could be of interest in the initial teacher education context, in which pre-service teachers frequently consider the possibility of leaving the formative process that leads to them becoming teachers (Mattos, Prados, & Padua, 2013). Indeed, it is be possible that, throughout their initial education period, pre-service teachers might retain their intention to become a teacher more for having integrated the meaning of its educational process into their identity and value system, as certain authors have proposed, than because they enjoy the experience in and of itself (Uyulgan & Akkuzu, 2014). Therefore, to have an instrument that might collect the totality of the motivational continuum proposed by SDT in this context, would allow one to study the differentiated influence of the distinct forms of motivational regulation on the acquisition and maintenance of pre-service teachers' behaviour.

In recent years, integrated regulation has been incorporated into instruments that measure motivation from the SDT perspective in contexts such as work (Hsu, 2013), exercise (Wilson, Rodgers, Loitz, & Scime, 2006), sports (Pelletier, Rocchi, Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan, 2013) and physical education (Ferriz, Gonzalez-Cutre, & Sicilia, 2015). These instruments have allowed to observe the predictive capacity of integrated regulation with respect to diverse adaptive behaviours, amongst which the practice of physical activity (Ferriz et al., 2015), the adoption of healthy eating habits (Ng et al., 2012), or the intention to commit to postdoctoral research (Litalien, Guay, & Morin, 2015). However, the measurement of integrated regulation has still not been incorporated into the instruments that measure motivation in the educational setting from the SDT perspective and, more specifically, in the initial teacher education context.

Taking into account the consideration undertaken, the objective of this study was to adapt and incorporate the items proposed by Ferriz et al. (2015) for the measurement of integrated regulation to the Spanish version (Núñez et al., 2005, 2010) of the EME (Vallerand et al., 1989). In response to the proposed objective, the instrument's psychometric properties were examined in a sample of pre-service teachers. In accordance with the results of previous research (Barkoukis et al., 2008; Guay, Morin, Litalien, Valois, & Vallerand, 2015; Núñez et al., 2010; Stover et al., 2012), the confirmatory factorial analysis, conducted to provide evidence of validity based on internal structure, considered the factor correlated model originally proposed by Vallerand et al. (1989), as well as, different alternative models that could be supported by the SDT postulates. Furthermore, the instrument's invariance across gender, its internal consistency and temporal stability were analysed. Finally, evidence of validity based on test content was obtained, as well as, on its relations to other variables (AERA, APA, NCME, & JCSEPR, 2014).

Method

Participants

Instruments

Academic Motivation Scale-Revised (EME-R)

Four items to measure integrated regulation, according to wording of Ferriz et al. (2015), were included in the Spanish version of the EME (Núñez et al., 2005). The final instrument was composed of 32 items grouped into 8 factors of 4 items each (i.e., amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, intrinsic motivation to know, intrinsic motivation to accomplish and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation). The sentence preceding the instrument was "I am carrying out this Masters/Degree...." For the answer a 7-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly).

Intention to Become a Teacher Scale

It was created for the present study, following the guidelines established by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980). This instrument assesses the student's future intention to dedicate to teaching. It is comprised of 3 items: "I intend to work as a teacher in the next 3 years", "I will try to work as a teacher in the next 3 years" and "I am determined to work as a teacher in the next 3 years". For the answer, a 7-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 (totally improbable) to 7 (extremely probable). The scale showed a Cronbach alpha value of .91.

Procedure

The items of the Perceived Locus of Causality Scale in Physical Education (Ferriz et al., 2015) measuring the integrated regulation were adapted; to the initial teacher education context, substituting the words "physical education" for "to study to become a teacher". In the same vein, the words "University" and "Vocational Education/ Upper Secondary School Education" in the Núñez et al. (2005) version were substituted with the words "Masters" and "Degree". Then a group of experts in SDT and teacher education analysed the items obtained to make sure that they represented the construct for which they were designed.

Subsequently, a pilot-study was carried out to check the correct understanding of the items, applying the instrument to a reduced group of students (N = 11) who were enrolled on the Primary Education Degree. The totality of the students who participate in the study indicated that they understood the wording of the proposed items.

As a prior step to administrate the questionnaire, we contacted both the coordinator and the teaching staff of the University Masters course on which the participants were studying. Once access to the classroom was obtained, one of the work's authors informed the potential participants who were present (N = 516, out of a total of 656 enrolled students) about the voluntary and anonymous character of participation in this study. Twenty students (3.88%) expressed that they did not wish to participate in the study, giving rise to the main sample previously described (N = 496). The same researcher, who had previously informed the participants about the study characteristics, made themselves available to resolve any doubts that might have arisen during the administration of the questionnaire. The average time employed to fill in the questionnaire was 15 minutes.

First, the descriptive statistics and the correlations between the EME-R factors were calculated. Second, validity evidences based on internal structure were obtained. In this sense, given that it corresponds to the adaptation of a scale (Lloret-Segura, Ferreres-Traver, Hernández-Baeza, & Tomás-Marco, 2014), whose factors have been precisely delimited to the theoretical level (Deci & Ryan, 2000), we chose to confirm the structure through a confirmatory factorial analysis, following the same procedure as previous works which incorporated the integrated regulation measurement to the scales evaluating motivation from the SDT perspective (Ferriz et al., 2015; González-Cutre, Sicilia, & Fernández, 2010). In concordance with the lack of multivariate normality (Mardia's coefficient = 197.44; p < .01), the confirmatory factor analyses were carried out using the maximum likelihood method along with the bootstrapping procedure (Byrne, 2010). To evaluate the model fit, different indexes were used: χ²/ df CFI (Comparative Fit Index), IFI (Incremental Fit Index), SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) with its 90% confidence interval (CI). Given that the χ² statistic is very sensitive to the sample size (Jöreskog & Sorbom, 1993), the χ²/ df index was used, which is acceptable with values below 5 (Bentler, 1989). CFI and IFI values above .90 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010) and RMSEA and SRMR values below .06 and .08, respectively, (Hu & Bentler, 1999), were considered indicative of adequate model fit to the data. Values equal to or above .50 in the standardised regression weights were considered adequate (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Third, a multi-group analysis across gender, following the methodological proposed by Milfont and Fisher (2010), was conducted to determine whether the instrument's factor structure was invariant according to this variable. It was considered that the null hypothesis of invariance should not be rejected where there are increases in the CFI and RMSEA value less than .010 and .015, respectively, in the successive restricted models (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

To provide validity evidence based on testing content, the correlations between the latent factors and their respective 95% CI were obtained. We considered that there is an absence of discrimination whether this included absolute values above the unit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Then, the internal consistency of the factors was determined using Cronbach's alpha (α), which is acceptable with values above .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Furthermore, the corrected item-total correlation coefficient (ITCC-c) was calculated, which is adequate with values above .30 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Subsequently, the scale's temporal stability was evaluated through a test-retest analysis using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and its 95% CI, which is suitable with values equal to or above .70 (Fleiss, 2011).

Finally, to provide validity evidence based on relations to other variables, a linear analysis in two steps was conducted, where the different motivational regulations were considered as independent variables and the intention to become a teacher as a dependent variable. To determine the incremental predictive capacity of integrated regulation, this variable was introduced in the second step. The analyses were carried out using the SPPS 21.0 and AMOS 19.0 statistical programmes.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Table 1 shows that, generally, the highest scores obtained by the participants corresponded with the items that measured identified regulation, while the lowest corresponded to items that measured introjected regulation.

Table 2 shows the existence of moderately high positive correlations between the three sub-types of intrinsic motivation (r = .73 to .78, p < .01). In general, correlations existing between adjacent factors were of greater magnitude to those existing between these factors and those further away on the continuum. However, two cases that did not follow this tendency were observed. First, introjected regulation correlated to a higher extent with factors further away on the continuum such as intrinsic motivation to accomplish (r = .66, p < .01) and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation (r = .47, p < .01) than with contiguous factors such as identified regulation (r = .39, p < .01) and external regulation (r = .42, p < .01). Second, even though the three sub-types of intrinsic motivation correlated negatively with amotivation, these values were weak and of lesser magnitude compared to those existing between amotivation and a closer theoretical factor on the self-determination continuum, such as integrated regulation (r = -.32, p < .01). (Figure 1)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Invariance Analysis, Internal Consistency and Temporal Stability

Table 4 shows the absence of increments of CFI value higher than .010, as well as increments higher than .015 for RMSEA in the successive restrictive models. Therefore, the null hypothesis of invariance could not be rejected. On the other hand, Table 2 shows that the internal consistency values (α) of the different factors oscillated between .70 (identified regulation) and .86 (intrinsic motivation to accomplish), while those for temporal stability (CCI) ranged between .73 (identified regulation) and .89 (external regulation). Consequently, and in accordance with the established criteria, it was estimated that the instrument had adequate levels of internal consistency and temporal stability.

Linear Regression Analysis

Table 5 shows that the model not including integrated regulation (Step 1) explained 14% of the variance in intention to become a teacher. In this model, only identified regulation (β = .26, p < .001) and motivation (β = -.24, p < .001) predicted the intention to become a teacher in a statistically- significant way. The inclusion of integrated regulation into the model (Step 2) made it possible to explain 19% of the variance of intention to become a teacher. In turn, in this model, integrated regulation was shown as the form of motivation with the highest predictive effects on intention to become a teacher (β = .24, p < .001).

Discussion and Conclusions

The objective of the present work was to incorporate integrated regulation into the EME of Vallerand et al. (1989), with the intention of obtaining an instrument that would allow to measure the totality of the motivational regulations proposed by SDT in the Spanish educational context. Thus, the items proposed by Ferriz et al. (2015) for the physical education setting were adapted to the initial teacher education context and included into the Spanish version of the EME (Núñez et al., 2005). The results of the different analyses provided evidences that suggest that, generally, the new instrument possesses adequate psychometric properties.

The correlational analysis showed that the different forms of motivation did not follow the simplex pattern structure proposed by Ryan and Connell (1989). Thus, in line with previous studies (Barkoukis et al., 2008; Núñez et al., 2005, 2010), the correlation between intrinsic motivation to accomplish and introjected regulation was of a higher magnitude to that existing between the latter and its adjacent theoretical factors (i.e. identified and external regulation). Despite it has been argued that the three intrinsic motivation sub-types present in the instrument could not have the necessary level of sensitivity and discrimination (Núñez et al., 2010), in the present study only intrinsic motivation to know positively and statistically-significant predicted intention to become a teacher. These results support the idea expounded by certain authors, according to whom the different motivational regulations ought to be considered more in terms of their singular characteristics than attending to their strict position on the continuum (Chemolli & Gagné, 2014).

The confirmatory factor analysis revealed acceptable fitindexes for the 8-factor correlated model, verifying the results of previous studies that considered this type of structure (Barkoukis et al., 2008; Caleon et al., 2015; Can, 2015; Cokley, 2015; Núñez et al., 2010; Stover et al., 2012). The fit-indexes for the model that grouped the three sub-types of intrinsic motivation were not satisfactory in this study, in contrast to previous studies that have suggested this possibility (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2008; Koludrovic & Ercegovac, 2015). Furthermore, the fit-indexes observed in the present work were similar to those previously obtained in the Spanish context (Núñez et al., 2005, 2010), although those works did not consider the measurement of integrated regulation. In spite of this, it is worth noting that to obtain an acceptable fit, it was necessary to correlate four pairs of residual errors. However, this number was less than the 6 in the original validation study (Vallerand et al., 1989), to the 26 in the English version (Vallerand et al., 1992) or to the 10 previously required in the Spanish context (Núñez et al., 2010). The need to correlate these error pairs suggests that future studies ought to improve the wording of some of the instrument's items.

The analysis of criterion validity evidence based on relations to other variables showed that integrated regulation was the form of motivation that best predicted the intention to become a teacher in pre-service teachers. Therefore, one could deduce that beyond the implicit satisfaction in their initial education period (Uyulgan & Akkuzu, 2014), the preservice teachers express their will to work as teachers from the internalization process by which the value attributed to the behaviour is integrated in the self. These results are in line with those obtained in other contexts, where integrated regulation has been shown as the motivational form with the highest predictive effect on adaptive behaviours, such as in the practice of physical activity (Ferriz et al., 2015) or the intention to devote oneself to research after following a doctoral programme (Litalien et al., 2015).

With respect to the complexity of the human cognitive processes, validation of a psychometric instrument should be understood as a continual process over time. Therefore, future research ought to address the unknowns arising from the limitations present in this work. First, using a sample of convenience makes it impossible to generalize the results. Future research could consider more heterogeneous samples based on their geographical and age characteristics, so that one can determine whether the instrument's factor structure remains invariant for both variables. Second, the study population was confined to the initial teacher education context. According to the relevant role performed by the motivational processes in predicting behaviour, and taking into account all the recent evidence that suggests the differentiated contribution of integrated regulation to these processes (Ferriz et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2012), future studies could consider the validity of the new instrument in educational contexts such as higher education and, compulsory and post-compulsory secondary education. In turn, future research could contribute to the instrument's development showing validity evidence from distinct psychometric perspectives. For example, it would be interesting whether future research studied the psychometric properties of EME-R using Item Response Theory, due to this approach allows to frame psychometric models within general probabilistic models in order to evaluate and measure non-observable variables (Edelen & Reeve, 2007).

The results of the present study indicate that the proposed instrument (EME-R) is both valid and reliable in measuring the motivational spectrum proposed by SDT in the Spanish initial teacher education context. This instrument has allowed us to compile evidence that suggests that the integration of the teaching-learning process within the student's value system and lifestyle could benefit their commitment to the educational process and their intention to persist in the teaching vocation. These results highlight the importance of considering integrated regulation when studying the motivational process that determines the adoption of human behaviour.

References

1. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., and Haerens, L. (2016). A dimensional and person-centered perspective on controlled reasons for non-participation in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23, 142-154. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.12.001.         [ Links ]

2. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.         [ Links ]

3. Alivernini, F., and Lucidi, F. (2008). The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS): Factorial structure, invariance and validity in the Italian context. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 15(4), 211-220.         [ Links ]

4. Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. http://doi.org/10T037/0033-2909T033.411.         [ Links ]

5. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175.         [ Links ]

6. Barkoukis, V., Tsorbatzoudis, H., Grouios, G., and Sideridis, G. (2008). The assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation: Validity and reliability of the Greek version of the Academic Motivation Scale. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 39-55. http://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701876128.         [ Links ]

7. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.         [ Links ]

8. Black, A. E., and Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740-756. http://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3.         [ Links ]

9. Boiché, J. C. S., Sarrazin, P. G., Grouzet, F. rederic. M. E., Pelletier, L. G. and Chanal, J. P. (2008). Students' motivational profiles and achievement outcomes in physical education: A Self-Determination perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 688-701. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.688.         [ Links ]

10. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2^nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.         [ Links ]

11. Caleon, I. S., Wui, M. G. L., Tan, J. P. L., Chiam, C. L., Soon, T. C., and King, R. B. (2015). Cross-cultural validation of the Academic Motivation Scale: A Singapore investigation. Child Indicators Research, 8, 925-942. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9298-7.         [ Links ]

12. Can, G. (2015). Turkish version of the Academic Motivation Scale. Psychological Reports, 116(2), 388-408. http://doi.org/10.2466/14.08.PR0.116k24w5.         [ Links ]

13. Chemolli, E., and Gagné, M. (2014). Evidence against the continuum structure underlying motivation measures derived from Self Determination Theory. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 575-585. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0036212.         [ Links ]

14. Cheung, G. W., and Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of- fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902.         [ Links ]

15. Cokley, K. O. (2015). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Academic Motivation Scale with black college students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48(2), 124-139. http://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614563316.         [ Links ]

16. Cokley, K. O., Bernard, N., Cunningham, D., & Motoike, J. (2001). A psychometric investigation of the Academic Motivation Scale using a United States sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 109-119.         [ Links ]

17. Davoglio, T. R., dos Santos, B. S., and da Conceição, C. (2016). Validação da Escala de Motivação Académica em universitários brasileiros. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, 24(92), 522-545. http://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-40362016000300002.         [ Links ]

18. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.         [ Links ]

19. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.         [ Links ]

20. Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.         [ Links ]

21. Edelen, M. O., and Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Pife Research, 16, 5-18. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0 Applying.         [ Links ]

22. Ferriz, R., González-Cutre, D., y Sicilia, A. (2015). Revisión de la Escala del Locus Percibido de Causalidad (PLOC) para la inclusión de la medida de la regulación integrada en educación física. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 24(2), 329-338. Opgehaal van http://www.rpd-online.com/article/view/v24-n2-ferriz-gonzalez-cutre-etal.         [ Links ]

23. Fleiss, J. L. (2011). Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118032923.         [ Links ]

24. González-Cutre, D., Sicilia, Á., y Fernández, A. (2010). Hacia una mayor comprensión de la motivación en el ejercicio físico: Medición de la regulación integrada en el contexto español. Psicothema, 22(4), 841-847.         [ Links ]

25. Green-Demeirs, I., Pelletier, L. G., and Ménard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioural difficulty on the saliency of the association between self-determined motivation and environmental behaviours. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29(3), 157-166. http://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.29.3.157.         [ Links ]

26. Grouzet, F. M. E., Otis, N., and Pelletier, L. G. (2006). Longitudinal crossgender factorial invariance of the Academic Motivation Scale. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 73-98. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_4.         [ Links ]

27. Guay, F., Morin, A J. S., Litalien, D., Valois, P., and Vallerand, R. J. (2015). Application of exploratory structural equation modeling to evaluate the Academic Motivation Scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 51-82. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.876231.         [ Links ]

28. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (7^th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.         [ Links ]

29. Hsu, L. (2013). Work motivation, job burnout, and employment aspiration in hospitality and tourism students-An exploration using the selfdetermination theory. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 180-189. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2013.10.001.         [ Links ]

30. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.         [ Links ]

31. Jöreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.         [ Links ]

32. Kim, H., and Cho, Y. (2014). Pre-service teachers' motivation, sense of teaching efficacy, and expectation of reality shock. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 67-81. http://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.855999.         [ Links ]

33. Koludrovic, M., and Ercegovac, I. R. (2015). Academic motivation in the context of Self-Determination in initial teacher education. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(1), 25-36. http://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v17i0.1488.         [ Links ]

34. Litalien, D., Guay, F., and Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Motivation for PhD studies: Scale development and validation. Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 1-13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.006.         [ Links ]

35. Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., and Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). Exploratory item factor analysis: A practical guide revised and up-dated. Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 1151-1169. http://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361.         [ Links ]

36. Mattos, B., Prados, E., y Padua, D. (2013). La voz del alumnado: Una investigación narrativa acerca de lo que siente, piensa, dice y hace el alumnado de Magisterio de Educación Física en su formación inicial. Movimento: Revista da Escola de Educação Física, 19(4), 251-269.         [ Links ]

37. Milfont, T. L., and Fisher, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111-121. http://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857.         [ Links ]

38. Ng, J. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thogersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-Determination Theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 7(4), 325-340. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447309.         [ Links ]

39. Nunnally, I. H., and Bernstein, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.         [ Links ]

40. Núñez, J. L., Martín-Albo, J., y Navarro, J. G. (2005). Validación de la versión española de la Échelle de Motivation en Éducation. Psicothema, 17(2), 344-349.         [ Links ]

41. Núñez, J. L., Martín-Albo, J., Navarro, J. G., y Grijalvo, F. (2006). Validación de la Escala de Motivación Educativa (EME) en Paraguay. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 40(2), 391-398. Opgehaal van =ehost-live.         [ Links ]

42. Núñez, J. L., Martín-Albo, J., Navarro, J. G., y Suárez, Z. (2010). Adaptación y validación de la versión española de la Escala de Motivación Educativa en estudiantes de educación secundaria postobligatoria. Estudios de Psicología, 31(1), 89-100. http://doi.org/10.1174/021093910790744590.         [ Links ]

43. Pelletier, L. G., Rocchi, M. A., Vallerand, R. J., Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2013). Validation of the revised sport motivation scale (SMS-II). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(3), 329-341. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.002.         [ Links ]

44. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667.         [ Links ]

45. Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., and Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734.         [ Links ]

46. Ryan, R. M., and Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749.         [ Links ]

47. Sánchez-Oliva, D., Viladrich, C., Amado, D., González-Ponce, I., and García-Calvo, T. (2014). Prediction of positive behaviors in Physical Education: A Self-Determination Theory perspective. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 19(2), 387-406. http://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.7911.         [ Links ]

48. Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (3^th ed). New York, NY: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202023.         [ Links ]

49. Stephens, K. K., and Pantoja, G. E. (2016). Mobile devices in the classroom: Learning motivations predict specific types of multicommunicating behaviors. Communication Education, 65(4), 463-479. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1164876.         [ Links ]

50. Stover, J. B., de la Iglesia, G., Boubeta, A. R., and Fernández-Liporace, M. (2012). Academic motivation scale: Adaptation and psychometric analyses for high school and college students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 5, 71-83. http://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S3318.         [ Links ]

51. Uyulgan, M. A., and Akkuzu, N. (2014). An overview of student teachers' academic intrinsic motivation. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 24-32. http://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.L2013.         [ Links ]

52. Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory: A view from the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 312-318.         [ Links ]

53. Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., and Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction et validation de l' Échelle de Motivation en Éducation (EME). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21(3), 323-349. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0079855.         [ Links ]

54. Vallerand, R. J., and Blassonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 599-620. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00922.x.         [ Links ]

55. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senécal, C., and Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 1003-1017. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025.         [ Links ]

56. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., and Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 671-688. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083.         [ Links ]

57. Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Loitz, C. C., and Scime, G. (2006). It's who I am... really! The importance of integrated regulation in exercise contexts. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 11(2), 79-104. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9861.2006.tb00021.x.         [ Links ]

58. Zhang, B., Li, Y. M., Li, J. L., Li, Y., and Zhang, H. (2016). The revision and validation of the Academic Motivation Scale in China. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(1), 15-27. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915575909.         [ Links ]

Correspondence:
Rafael Burgueño.
Departamento de Educación.
Universidad de Almería.
Ctra. Sacramento, s/n,
04120, Almeria (Spain). ]]> E-mail: rbm288@ual.es

Article received: 03-02-2016
revised: 24-09-2016
accepted: 30-09-2016