News

Treatment Motivation Questionnaire

The Self-Regulation Questionnaires

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser a few times if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The Concepts of Self-Regulation. SDT differentiates types of behavioral regulation in terms of the degree to which they represent autonomous or self-determined (versus controlled) functioning. Intrinsic motivation is the prototype of autonomous activity; when people are intrinsically motivated, they are by definition self-determined. Extrinsically motivated activity, in contrast, is often more controlled (i.e., less autonomous). However, SDT differentiates types of extrinsic motivation in terms of the degree to which it has been internalized, suggesting that the more fully it is internalized and integrated with one’s self, the more it will be the basis for autonomous behavior. There are four different types of behavioral regulation, defined in terms of the degree to which the regulation of an extrinsically motivated activity has been internalized and integrated. They are external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation, in order from the least to the most fully internalized (see Ryan & Deci, 2000, for more on this). Introjection refers to taking in a regulation but not accepting it as one’s own; identification refers to accepting the value of the activity as personally important, and integration refers to integrating that identification with other aspects of one’s self. External and introjected regulation are considered relatively controlled forms of extrinsic motivation, whereas identified and integrated regulation are considered relatively autonomous. Finally, within SDT there is a concept of Amotivation, which means to be neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated–in other words, to be without intention or motivation for a particular behavior.

The Self-Regulation Questionnaires assess domain-specific individual differences in the types of motivation or regulation. That is, the questions concern the regulation of a particular behavior (e.g., exercising regularly) or class of behaviors (e.g., engaging in religious behaviors). The regulatory styles, while considered individual differences, are not “trait” concepts, for they are not general nor are they particularly stable, but, neither are they “state” concepts, for they are more stable than typical states which fluctuate easily as a function of time and place. The format for these questionnaires was introduced by Ryan and Connell (1989). Each questionnaire asks why the respondent does a behavior (or class of behaviors) and then provides several possible reasons that have been preselected to represent the different styles of regulation or motivation. The first two questionnaires were developed for late-elementary and middle school children, and concern school work (SRQ-Academic) and prosocial behavior (SRQ-Prosocial). Their validation is described in the Ryan and Connell (1989) article. Since then, several others have been developed that are intended for adults. The Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire has been widely used in the study of behavior change in health care settings. A validation article of the TSRQ was published by Levesque, Williams, Elliot, Pickering, Bodenhamer, and Finley (2007). The following SRQs are displayed in this section of the web site.

They are:

Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A)

Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-P)

Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ)

Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L)

Exercise Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-E)

Religion Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-R)

Friendship Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-F)

Scoring the Questionnaires. Each participant gets a score on each subscale by averaging responses to each of the items that make up that subscale–for example, the average of all items representing introjected regulation would represent the score for that subscale. However, different of the self-regulation questionnaires have different numbers of subscales, depending on the following four considerations. First, fully integrating a behavioral regulation is very unlikely to have occurred during childhood or adolescence. Thus, the scales used with children do not have an integrated subscale. Second, some behaviors are not interesting in their own right, and thus would not be intrinsically motivated. Thus, questionnaires to assess regulatory styles for such behaviors (e.g., stopping smoking) do not have an intrinsic motivation subscale. Third, the concept of amotivation is relevant to some research questions and not to others, so the concept is included in some of the scales but not others. Fourth, some of the questionnaires, rather than having separate regulatory-style subscales have only two subscales: controlled regulation and autonomous regulation. This is done when the research questions being addressed can be adequately addressed with just the two “super” categories of regulation. In these scales, items representing external and introjected regulation make up the controlled subscale, and items representing identified, integrated, and/or intrinsic make up the autonomous subscale.

Relative Autonomy Index. Finally, it is worth noting that the subscale scores on the SRQ, regardless of the number of subscales in the particular scale, can be combined to form a Relative Autonomy Index (RAI). For example, the SRQ-Academic has four subscales: external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic. To form the RAI, the external subscale is weighted -2, the introjected subscale is weighted -1, the identified subscale is weighted +1, and the intrinsic subscale is weighted +2. In other words, the controlled subscales are weighted negatively, and the autonomous subscales are weighted positively. The more controlled the regulatory style represented by a subscale, the larger its negative weight; and the more autonomous the regulatory style represented by a subscale, the larger its positive weight.

Summary of the Scoring Procedures. We have used the self-regulatory style values in three ways in different analyses. First, we use each subscale score separately in the analyses so that participants have a score for each style. Second, we compute a Relative Autonomy Index by weighting the subscale scores and combining them (see, e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Third, we form a score for controlled regulation by averaging across external and introjected items, and a score for autonomous regulation by averaging across identified, integrated, and/or intrinsic items (e.g., Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996).

It should be clear that new research questions may require slight adaptations of the existing questionnaire, or that new SRQs may need to be developed for new behaviors or domains. The important point is to remain true to the concept and to validate the adaptations fully. We are in agreement with Loevinger (1957) that psychological tests and surveys should serve as an aid in theoretical development, so any construct is in need of continual “bootstrapping.” Scales may be in need of adaptation as the research question changes.

Note: The SRQ in the political domain is available from Gaetan F. Losier (by e-mail: [email protected]). Kennon M. Sheldon, University of Missouri, Columbia (e-mail: [email protected]) has developed a comparable approach to assessing self-regulation for personal strivings. Contact them for further information.

References

  • Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent style associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
  • Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, Monograph Supplement, 9 (1, Serial No. 3).
  • Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
  • Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight-loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115-126.
  • Levesque, C. S., Williams, G. C., Elliot D., Pickering, M. A., Bodenhamer, B., & Finley, P. J (2007). Validating the theoretical structure of the treatment self-regulation questionnaire (TSRQ) across three different health behaviors. Health Education Research, 21, 691-702.
    PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

 

 

 

Self-Regulation Questionnaires: Religious (SRQ-R)

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser a few times if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

[Also called Christian Religious Internalization Scale (CRIS)]

This questionnaire concerns the reasons why a person engages in religious behaviors. The questions were written for research with a Christian population, but could be easily adapted for other religions. The questionnaire asks why people engage in four religious behaviors, each of which is followed by three reasons. In all, there are 12 items on the SRQ-R. The questionnaire was developed and validated by Ryan, Rigby, and King, (1993). There is a long form of the questionnaire with 48 items, but analyses revealed that the current 12-item version is as psychometrically sound as the longer version and is far more economical. The scale has only two subscales: Introjected Regulation and Identified Regulation. Work with the longer scale revealed that these two subscales represented the dynamically meaningful reasons why people engage in religious behaviors and that the external regulation and intrinsic motivation subscales did not add to the validity of the scale. Below is the actual scale, followed by scoring information.

 

Validation article

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 586-596.

The SRQ-R is reviewed and reproduced in

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (Eds.) (1999). Measures of religiosity (pp. 124-127). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

 

Perceptions of Parents Scales (POPS)

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser a few times if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The Perceptions of Parents Scales concern the degree to which parents provide what SDT considers an optimal parenting context (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). The scales are completed by children to describe their mothers and their fathers.

The Child Scale

The child version of the POPS assesses children’s perceptions of the degree to which their parents are autonomy supportive and the degree to which their parents are involved. Involvement concerns devoting resources to their children–that is, being available to them, knowledgeable about their lives, and concerned about what is going on for them. Thus, mothers and fathers each get a score on the degree to which they are perceived as autonomy supportive and involved by their children. Factor analysis of the scale has revealed a clear four-factor solution with factors labeled mother involvement, mother autonomy support, father involvement, and father autonomy support.

The child POPS was developed, by Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1991). It has 22 items, 11 mother items and then the same 11 items for fathers. These items form an autonomy support subscale for each parent and an involvement subscale for each parent. Because the scale is used with children as young as 8 years old, and often in classroom settings, we have the children respond right on the questionnaire by circling a letter in front of the one (out of four) description of a parent that is most like their own parent.

The College-Student Scale

The college-student version of the POPS is intended for use with participants who are late adolescents or older. It also assesses children’s perceptions of their parents’ autonomy support and involvement, but in addition it assesses the degree to which the children perceive their parents to provide warmth. The scale has 42 items: 21 for mothers and 21 for fathers. From these items, 6 subscale scores are calculated: Mother Autonomy Support, Mother Involvement, and Mother Warmth, as well as Father Autonomy Support, Father Involvement, and Father Warmth.

This questionnaire was designed as part of a doctoral dissertation titled, “An assessment of perceptions of parental autonomy support and control: Child and parent correlates,” done by Robert J. Robbins in the Department of Psychology at the University of Rochester under the supervision of Richard M. Ryan. The Robbins (1994) dissertation provided preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the scale. This study linked parental autonomy support to autonomy-related child outcomes, including self-esteem, self-regulation, mental health, and causality orientations. It also showed that high perceived parental autonomy support was associated with greater vitality and self-actualization, while low perceived parental autonomy support was associated with greater separation-individuation difficulty. A more recent longitudinal study by Niemiec, Lynch, Vansteenkiste, Bernstein, Deci, & Ryan (2006), adds further reliability and validity evidence for the scale.

Data collected from the parents of the college-student participants revealed that student perceptions of paternal autonomy support were positively associated with fathers’ self-reported self-esteem and mental health, and that student perceptions of maternal autonomy support were positively associated with the degree of autonomous causality orientation in mothers.

The Perceptions of Parents Scales versus The Climate Scales

The scales called Perceived Autonomy Support: The Climate Questionnaires, which appear in a different packet within the questionnaires section of this web site, are somewhat related to the POPS. Both sets of questionnaires involve individuals reporting their perceptions of a target other. However, there are the following differences. First, all of The Climate Questionnaires were designed for use with college students or other adults, whereas one of the POPS was designed for children. Furthermore, The Climate Questionnaires assess only perceptions of autonomy support, whereas the POPS also assesses perceived involvement in both the child and the college-student versions, and it assesses perceived warmth in the college-student version. We have never used a “Climate Questionnaire” with respect to parents, although one could potentially do so.

References

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135-161). New York, NY: Wiley.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school performance: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.

Robbins, R. J. (1994). An assessment of perceptions of parental autonomy support and control: Child and parent correlates. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, New York.

Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: A self-determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 761-775.

 


 

Motivators’ Orientations Questionnaires

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The Problems in Schools Questionnaire and the Problems at Work Questionnaire were developed using the same format and the same basic concept. Each assesses whether individuals in a position of authority, whose job is, in part, to motivate others, tend to be oriented toward controlling the behavior of those others versus supporting their autonomy. The Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PIS) assesses whether teachers tend to be controlling versus autonomy supportive with their students. The Problems at Work Questionnaire (PAW) assesses whether managers tend to be controlling versus autonomy supportive with their employees. The measures are composed of eight vignettes, each of which is followed by four items. The four items following each vignette represent four different behavioral options for dealing with the problem that is posed in the vignette: one is Highly Autonomy Supportive (HA), one is Moderately Autonomy Supportive (MA), one is Moderately Controlling (MC), and one is Highly Controlling (HC). Respondents rate the degree of appropriateness of each of the four options (on a seven-point scale) for each of the eight situations. Thus, there are a total of 32 ratings.

Note that the Motivators’ Orientations Questionnaires (PIS and PAW) were designed to be completed by the teachers and the managers, respectively. In contrast, the SDT-based scales referred to as Perceived Autonomy Support: The Climate Questionnaires were designed to be completed by the people being motivated–that is, by the students about their teachers’ autonomy support versus control and by the subordinates about their managers’ autonomy support versus control.

These scales are believed to measure a relatively stable orientation in adults toward their approach to motivating others; in other words, it is believed to reflect an individual difference variable in the motivators. The responses are in terms of behavioral options, but these are believed to reflect characteristics of the respondent.

The Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PIS)

The PIS was designed for use in schools, with teachers completing the scale about their own orientation toward motivating students, and the studies by Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, and Ryan (1981) validated the scale for use in that way. It has also been used with parents, who report on their approach to motivating their children.

The PIS, with its reliability and validity, is described in:

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650.

Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537-548.

The Problems at Work Questionnaire (PAW)

The PAW was designed for managers and was validated in a study by Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989). The study indicated, for example, that managers who were oriented more toward supporting their subordinates autonomy had subordinates who were more satisfied with their jobs and had a higher level of trust in the organization.

The PAW, with its reliability and validity, is described in:

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.

 

Subjective Vitality Scale

Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

 

Scale Description

The concept of subjective vitality refers to the state of feeling alive and alert–to having energy available to the self. Vitality is considered an aspect of eudaimonic well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001), as being vital and energetic is part of what it means to be fully functioning and psychologically well.

Ryan and Frederick (1997) developed a scale of subjective vitality that has two versions. One version is considered an individual difference. In other words, it is an ongoing characteristics of individuals that has been found to relate positively to self-actualization and self-esteem, and to relate negatively to depression and anxiety. The other version of the scale assesses the state of subjective vitality rather than its enduring aspect. At the state level, vitality has been found to relate negatively to physical pain and positively to the amount of autonomy support in a particular situation (e.g., Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999). In short, because the concept of psychological well-being is addressed at both the individual difference level and the state level, the two levels of assessing subjective vitality tie into the two level of well being.

The original scale had 7 items and was validated at both levels by Ryan and Frederick (1997). Subsequent work by Bostic, Rubio, and Hood (2000) using confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a 6-item version worked even better than the 7-item version.

References

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529-565.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). To be happy or to be self-fulfilled: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 52; pp. 141-166). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 266-284.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Bostic, T. J., Rubio, D. M., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structural equation modeling. Social Indicators Research, 52, 313-324.

Kawabata, M., Yamazaki, F., Guo, D. W., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (in press). Advancement of the Subjective Vitality Scale: Examining alternative measurement models for Japanese and Singaporeans. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports.

 

Perceived Choice and Awareness of Self Scale (PCASS)

Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

This scale assesses individual differences (trait level) in perceived choice and awareness of self. Perceived choice reflects feeling a sense of choice with respect to one’s behavior and awareness of self reflects being aware of one’s feelings and one’s sense of self. The PCASS is a short, 10-item scale, with two 5-item subscales. The first subscale is perceived choice in one’s actions, and the second is awareness of oneself. The subscales can either be used separately or they can be combined into an overall score.

This scale was formerly labeled as Self-Determination Scale (SDS) and has been renamed to better capture the constructs it assesses. Those interested in measures of self-determination, please refer to the following: (1) General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS) or (2) Autonomous Functioning Index (AFI) when assessing global individual differences in self-determination/autonomy; (3) Self-Regulation Questionnaires (SRQ) when assessing self-determination/autonomy of a specific domain/behavior (e.g., academic, exercise).

Articles in which the PCASS has been used.

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement motives: Concordance and predictive validity. Journal of Personality, 70, 729-755.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270-1279.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self-determination in personality. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 25-36.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

 

 

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction, and Frustration Scales

Self-determination theory posits three universal psychological needs: autonomy; competence; and relatedness, and suggests that these must be ongoingly satisfied for people to maintain optimal performance and well-being.

More recently, questionnaires assessing not only need satisfaction, but also need frustration have been developed, namely, Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scales. There is a general form, as well as domain specific forms for: education and physical education; relationships; training; sport; physical exercise; and work. There is also an adaptation of the general scale for daily measurement (diary-studies). These scales are important because need satisfaction is associated with well-being whereas need frustration is associated with ill-being. Often being able to predict both is useful. However, if you are interested only in the level of need satisfaction, the original scales, Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction (in general, work domain, and relationship domain), would likely be most appropriate.

The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scales is a set of original questionnaires that assess the degree to which people feel satisfaction of these three needs. There is a: general form, as well as domain specific forms for work and relationships.

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scales (BPNSFS)

‘Full Packet’ above includes the following scales:

  • BPNSFS – General

This scale addresses both need satisfaction and frustration in general in one’s life (including versions for adults and children, and adults with intellectual disabilities). It has 24 items assessing the three needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, and has been translated into the following languages:

Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Serbian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, and Turkish

  • BPNSFS – Physical Education 

 Dutch, Estonian, German, and Persian versions

  • BPNSFS – Physical Exercise 

German and Portuguese versions

  • BPNSFS – Sport

Dutch version is currently available

  • BPNSFS – Education (students and teachers)

Dutch version

  • BPNSFS – Romantic Relationships

Dutch version

  • BPNSFS – Training 

 Dutch and English versions

  • BPNSFS – Work Domain

This scale addresses both need satisfaction and frustration in the context of one’s workplace. Although still in experimental stage (and NOT included in the ‘full packet’ yet but available for download below), this assessment of needs was shown to be related in theoretically meaningful ways to work adjustment (see Schultz, Ryan, Niemiec, Legate, & Williams, 2015).

  • BPNSFS – Diary Measures 

This scale (included in the ‘full packet’) addresses both need satisfaction and frustration on a daily basis. It has 12 items assessing the three needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Although still in experimental stage, this assessment of needs was shown to be related in theoretically meaningful ways to daily contextual support of the needs and well-being outcomes (see van der Kaap-Deeder, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Mabbe, 2017). Currently, English and Dutch versions are available for adults, children, romantic partners, and mother/child.

* References/validation of scales can be found in ‘full packet’ under the scale items. These scales have been primarily based on the original scale assessing needs in general validated by: Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B. Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216-236.

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scales 

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale – In General

This scale addresses need satisfaction in general in one’s life. It has 21 items assessing the three needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Please use the following references when using this scale: (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné, 2003).

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale – Relationship Domain

This scale addresses need satisfaction in one’s particular relationships (e.g., spouse, best friend, mother). It has 9 items assessing the three needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Please use the following reference when using this scale: (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000).

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale – Work Domain

This scale addresses need satisfaction in one’s work domain. It has 21 items assessing the three needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Please use the following references when using this scale: (Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov, & Kornazheva, 2001; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992).

Aspirations Index

Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Aspirations refer to people’s life goals, and SDT research on aspirations has focused on the relative strength of intrinsic aspirations (viz., meaningful relationships, personal growth, and community contributions) versus extrinsic aspirations (viz., wealth, fame, and image). Specifically, research has examined the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of placing strong relative importance on the extrinsic versus the intrinsic aspirations. Additional research has examined the consequences of actually attaining extrinsic versus intrinsic aspirations.

The Aspiration Index was developed to assess people’s aspirations. There are 7 categories of aspirations with five specific items within each category. The seven categories include: the extrinsic aspirations of wealth, fame, and image; the intrinsic aspirations of meaningful relationships, personal growth, and community contributions; and the aspiration of good health which turned out not to be clearly either extrinsic or intrinsic. Participants rate: (1) the importance to themselves of each aspiration, (2) their beliefs about the likelihood of attaining each, and (3) the degree to which they have already attained each. Various approaches to data analyses can be found in research articles such as Kasser and Ryan (1996).

Research has revealed that having strong relative aspirations for extrinsic outcomes was negatively associated with mental health indicators; whereas, placing more importance on intrinsic aspirations was found to be positively associated with mental health indicators (Kasser & Ryan, 1993; 1996). Studies have also shown that, whereas self-reported attainment of intrinsic aspirations was positively associated with well-being, attainment of extrinsic aspirations was not (Kasser & Ryan, in press; Ryan, Chirkov, Little, Sheldon, Timoshina, & Deci, 1999). Further, Sheldon and Kasser (1998) found in a longitudinal study that well-being was enhanced by the attainment of intrinsic goals, whereas success at extrinsic goals provided little benefit. Finally, initial evidence suggests that controlling, uninvolved parenting is associated with the development of strong relative extrinsic aspiration, whereas autonomy-supportive, involved parenting is associated with the development of stronger intrinsic aspirations (Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff, 1995; Williams, Cox, Hedberg, & Deci, 2000). Chapters by Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci (1996) and Kasser (2002) are excellent sources for reviews of this research area.

References

Kasser, T. (2002). Sketches for a self-determination theory of values. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 123-140). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-287.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K. Sheldon (Eds.) Life goals and well-being. Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Zax, M., & Sameroff, A. J. (1995). The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental Psychology, 31, 907-914.

Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. L. (1999). The American Dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1509-1524.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior (pp. 7-26). New York, NY: Guilford.

Schmuck, P., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The relationship of well-being to intrinsic and extrinsic goals in Germany and the U.S. Social Indicators Research, 50, 225-241.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319-1331.

Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Hedberg, V., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Extrinsic life goals and health risk behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1756-1771.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

 


Health-Care Self-Determination Theory Questionnaire

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

This packet contains three questionnaires that have been developed to assess constructs contained within Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as the theory relates to health-care behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Williams, Deci, & Ryan, 1999). The first is the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ); the second is the Perceived Competence Scale (PCS); and the third is the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ). The TSRQ also appears on the page with the other Self-Regulation Questionnaires; the PCS also appears on the page with the other Perceived Competence Questionnaires; and the HCCQ appears on the page with the other Perceived Autonomy Support Questionnaires. We have brought them together here within one packet to make it easier for people who are interested in health care research. Further, on this page we have four versions of each of the three questionnaires, relating to four different health relevant behaviors: namely, smoking cessation, diet improvement, exercising regularly, and drinking responsibly.

 

Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ)

The TSRQ is a set of questionnaires concerning why people engage or would engage in some healthy behavior, enter treatment for some disease, try to change an unhealthy behavior, follow a treatment regimen, or engage in some other health-relevant behavior. All of the questionnaires have the same purpose, to assess the degree to which a person’s motivation for a particular behavior or a set of behaviors is relatively autonomous or self-determined. The wording varies somewhat from one version of the questionnaire to another in order to be appropriate for the particular behaviors being investigated. The TSRQ has a slightly different set of responses when applied to why one would engage in a healthy behavior (from when it is activated), to why one would enter treatment for, say, alcohol abuse or methadone. This is because, when entering some treatments, additional external reasons may be involved (e.g., court mandates), so people’s reasons may be somewhat different for different kinds of behaviors. Still, the various reasons that are used in each questionnaire fall along the relative autonomy continuum and thus are theoretically comparable.

There are three subscales to the scale: the autonomous regulatory style; the controlled regulatory style; and amotivation (which refers to being unmotivated). The amotivation subscale has been used in relatively few studies, and the amotivation subscale is not included in the versions of the TSRQ that is presented in the section of this web site with the other Self-Regulation Questionnaires. The autonomous style represents the most self-determined form of motivation and has consistently been associated with maintained behavior change and positive health-care outcomes. This scale is adapted slightly for each situation or behavior. That is, the format of the questionnaire asks patients why they do (or would) engage in particular behaviors such as stopping smoking or participating in a weight-loss program. Thus, whenever it is used, the questionnaire must have the appropriate behavior as part of the questions being considered. The questionnaires presented here can be adapted as needed for studying other behaviors.

The TSRQ utilizes a general approach to assessing autonomous self-regulation developed by Ryan and Connell (1989). The TSRQ was first used for “behaving in a healthy way” in Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, and Deci (1996), and has also appeared in Williams, Freedman, and Deci (1998), Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, and Deci (1998), Williams, Cox, Kouides, and Deci (1999), and several other studies. The Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire has now been widely used in the study of behavior change in health care settings. A validation article of the TSRQ was published by Levesque, Williams, Elliot, Pickering, Bodenhamer, and Finley (2007). An earlier version of the TSRQ, called the Treatment Motivation Questionnaire, was first used for “entering treatment” in Ryan, Plant, and O’Malley (1995), and has subsequently been used in Zeldman, Ryan, and Fiscella (1999). The scale has also been adapted by Pelletier, Tuson, and Haddad (1997) for motivation for psychotherapy.

Typically, the responses on the autonomous items are averaged to form the reflection of autonomous motivation for the target behavior, and the responses on the controlled items are averaged to form the reflection of controlled motivation for the target behavior. In those studies where amotivation has also been assessed, the amotivated responses are also averaged. These three subscale scores can be used separately. However, a Relative Autonomous Motivation Index can be formed by subtracting the average for the controlled reasons from the average for the autonomous reasons.

This packet contains four versions of the TSRQ, all of which are for four healthy behaviors, smoking cessation, diet improvement, exercising regularly, and drinking responsibly.

 

Perceived Competence Scale (PCS)

(Concerning Feelings about Healthy Behaving)

The Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) concerns feelings about behaving in healthy ways. This is a short 4-item questionnaire that assesses the degree to which participants feel confident about being able to make (or maintain) a change toward a healthy behavior, participate in a health-care program, or carry out a treatment regimen. Consistently, people who feel more competent with regard to a particular behavior have been found to be more likely to make and maintain the change and to evidence positive health care outcomes. As with the TSRQ, the PCS can be adapted as needed for studying other behaviors. Items are worded slightly differently for different target behaviors. In this packet, there are four versions of the questionnaire concerning the feelings of being able to engage in four healthy behaviors, namely not smoking, eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, and using alcohol responsibly (or not at all).

The alpha reliability for the perceived competence items has always been about 0.90. The scale has been used in several studies. Of note, in a study of diabetic patients (Williams, Freedman, & Deci, 1998), perceived competence was predicted by the degree to which the patients experienced the health-care climate in their Diabetes Treatment Center to be autonomy supportive, and perceived competence at carrying out the treatment regiment in turn predicted patients glucose control (i.e., HbA1c). It is theoretically important to differentiate perceived autonomy (assessed with the TSRQ) from perceived competence (assessed with the PCS), and the constructs that have discriminative validity.

 

 

Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ)

(Concerning Support for Healthy Behaving)

The original Health-Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ) is a 15-item measure that assesses patients’ perceptions of the degree to which they experience their health-care providers (or their physician, or their counselor, or their health-care program leader) to be autonomy supportive versus controlling in providing general treatment or with respect to a specific health-care issue. It was validated in a study of patients visiting their primary-care physicians and was first used in a published study of obese patients participating in a weight-loss program (Williams, Grow et al., 1996). It has also been used concerning teenage smoking cessation (Williams, Cox, Kouides, & Deci, 1999), adult smoking cessation (Williams, Gagne, Ryan, & Deci, 1999), diet improvement and regular exercise (Williams, Freedman, & Deci, 1998), participating in a methadone treatment program (Zeldman et al., 1999), and adhering to medication prescriptions (Williams, Rodin, et al., 1998). Alpha reliability for the 15 items has consistently been above .090. In a study of diabetic patients, the HCCQ questions referred to “your health-care practitioners” in order to assess participants’ perceptions of their general health-care climate in the Diabetes Treatment Center. In other studies it has referred to physicians. Items are worded differently depending on the provider or context being assessed. Further, when it concerns treatment with respect to a specific issue or behavior, the wording is adjusted slightly to refer to the target issue or behavior. The wording of the versions presented herein can be adjusted slightly, as needed, to refer to different providers or different behaviors. In each case, the content of the items is the same except for these minor changes.

There is also a short form of the HCCQ that includes 6 of the 15 items. This has been used in various studies, especially when the data were analyzed with Structural Equation Modelling where relatively few indicators of a latent variable are needed. With the 6-item scale, the alpha has been about 0.82. In this packet, the 6-item short form is presented for the same 4 health behaviors as used for the TSRQ and the PCS. The full 15-item version of the HCCQ can be found in this web site on the Perceived Autonomy Support: The Climate Questionnaires page.

 

References:

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Co.

Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., & Haddad, N. K. (1997). Client Motivation for Therapy Scale: A measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation for therapy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 414-435.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Ryan, R. M., Plant, R. W., & O’Malley, S. (1995). Initial motivations for alcohol treatment: Relations with patient characteristics, treatment involvement and dropout. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 279-297.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Kouides, R., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Presenting the facts about smoking to adolescents: The effects of an autonomy supportive style. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 959-964.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Williams, G. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1998). Building Health-Care Partnerships by Supporting Autonomy: Promoting Maintained Behavior Change and Positive Health Outcomes. In A. L. Suchman, P. Hinton-Walker, & R. Botelho (Eds.) Partnerships in healthcare: Transforming relational process (pp. 67-87). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Williams, G. C., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Supporting autonomy to motivate glucose control in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 21, 1644-1651.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Williams, G. C., Gagné, M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Supporting autonomy to motivate smoking cessation: A test of self-determination theory. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, New York.

Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115-126.

Williams, G. C., Rodin, G. C., Ryan, R. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Autonomous regulation and long-term medication adherence in adult outpatients. Health Psychology, 17, 269-276.

Zeldman, A., Ryan, R. M., & Fiscella, K. (1999). Attitudes, beliefs and motives in addiction recovery. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, New York.

Levesque, C. S., Williams, G. C., Elliot D., Pickering, M. A., Bodenhamer, B., & Finley, P. J (2007). Validating the theoretical structure of the treatment self-regulation questionnaire (TSRQ) across three different health behaviors. Health Education Research, 21, 691-702.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)