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 which 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.

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.

Within Self-Determination Theory, competence is assumed to be one of three fundamental psychological needs, so the feelings or perceptions of competence with respect to an activity or domain is theorized to be important both because it facilitates peopleÕs goal attainment and also provides them with a sense of need satisfaction from engaging in an activity at which they feel effective. Thus, perceived competence has been assessed in various studies and used, along with perceived autonomy (i.e., an autonomous regulatory style) to predict maintained behavior change, effective performance, and internalization of ambient values.

The Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) is a short, 4-item questionnaire, and is one of the most face valid of the instruments designed to assess constructs from SDT. Like several of the other measures–including the Self-Regulation Questionnaires and the Perveiced Autonomy Support (Climate) Questionnaires–items on the PCS is typically written to be specific to the relevant behavior or domain being studied. The PCS assesses participantsÕ feelings of competence about, say, taking a particular college course, engaging in a healthier behavior, participating in a physical activity regularly, or following through on some commitment. In this packet, there are two versions of the questionnaire concerning the feelings of being able to stick with a treatment regimen and being about to master the material in a course.

Two examples of studies that have used the PSC are Williams, Freedman, Deci (1998) for management of glucose levels among patients with diabetes and Williams and Deci (1996) medical students learning the material in an interviewing course. The alpha measure of internal consistency for the perceived competence items in these studies was above 0.80. Additional examples of the PCS can be found in the SDT web site within the Health Care, SDT packet.

The SCQ has a long form containing 15 items and a short form containing 6 of the items. The questionnaire is typically used with respect to specific coaches or individuals in comparable positions with respect to a sport or physical activity. The wording can be changed slightly to specify the particular situation being studied. The questions then pertain to the autonomy support of the respondentÕs coach, trainer, or sport/exercise instructor. Below, you will find the 15-item version of the questionnaire, worded in terms of Òmy coachÓ (or trainer). If you would like to use the 6-item version, simply reconstitute the questionnaire using only items # 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 14.

The Work Climate Questionnaire (WCQ) is typically used with respect to specific work settings, such as teams or work groups that have one manager and assesses particpants’ perceptions of the degree fo autonomy supportiveness of their managers. It includes items like: “My manager provides me with choices and options about my work.” Responses are made on a  7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). 

This questionnaire was first introduced by Deci, Connell, & Ryan (1989) as the Work Climate Survey (WCS) and then later named the WCQ by Baard, Deci, & Ryan (2002). 

The WCQ has a long form containing 15 items and a short form containing 6 of the items. If you would like to use the 6-item version, simply reconstitute the questionnaire using only items # 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 and 14.

The wording in this questionnaire can be changed slightly to specify the particular situation being studied. In these cases, the questions pertain to the autonomy support of the respondent’s manager. If, however, the WCQ is being used to assess a general work climate that goes beyond a particular work group, the questions are stated with respect to the autonomy support in general of the managers of that company, department, or organization. Below, you will find the 15-item version of the questionnaire, worded in terms of “my manager” (or supervisor). 

The LCQ has a long form containing 15 items and a short form containing 6 of the items. The questionnaire is typically used with respect to specific learning settings, such as a particular class, at the college or graduate school level. Thus, the questions are sometimes adapted slightly, at least in the instructions, so the wording pertains to the particular situation being studied–an organic chemistry class, for example. In these cases, the questions pertain to the autonomy support of an individual instructor, preceptor, or professor. If, however, it is being used to assess a general learning climate in which each student has several instructors, the questions are stated with respect to the autonomy support of the faculty members in general. Below, you will find the 15-item version of the questionnaire, worded in terms of my instructor. If you would like to use the 6-item version, simply reconstitute the questionnaire using only items # 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 14.

The Motives for Physical Activity Measure – Revised (MPAM-R) is intended to assess the strength of five motives for participating in physical activities such as weight lifting, aerobics, or various team sports five motives are: (1) Fitness, which refers to being physically active out of the desire to be physically healthy and to be strong and energetic; (2) Appearance, which refers to being physically active in order to become more physically attractive, to have defined muscles, to look better, and to achieve or maintain a desired weight; (3) Competence/Challenge, which refers to being physically active because of the desire just to improve at an activity, to meet a challenge, and to acquire new skills; (4) Social, which refers to being physically active in order to be with friends and meet new people; and (5) Enjoyment, which refers to being physically active just because it is fun, makes you happy, and is interesting, stimulating, and enjoyable. The scale has been used to predict various behavioral outcomes, such as attendance, persistence, or maintained participation in some sport or exercise activity, or to predict mental health and well-being. The different motives have been found to be associated with different outcomes.

The scale is a revision of an earlier measure by the same name. The earlier measure was shorter and included only three motives (Frederick & Ryan, 1993). The longer version was later introduced and validated by Ryan, Frederick, Lepes, Rubio, and Sheldon (1997).

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 the 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.

This 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.

Description of 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.

Description of 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.