Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale

1. Abstract

The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES) is a domain-specific psychometric instrument developed by Symeon P. Vlachopoulos and Sotiria Michailidou (2006) to assess the extent to which individuals experience the satisfaction of their fundamental psychological needs during physical exercise. Grounded in the Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), a mini-theory within the broader Self-Determination Theory (SDT) framework formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, the BPNES operationalizes three distinct, non-hierarchical, and innate psychological nutriments essential for optimal psychological functioning, well-being, and sustained behavior: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Comprising 12 self-report items distributed evenly across three four-item subscales, the instrument prompts respondents to evaluate their subjective experiences using a multi-point Likert scale. The structural integrity of the BPNES was established using advanced structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across two independent Greek adult fitness samples, including an initial calibration sample ($N = 508$) and an independent cross-validation sample ($N = 504$). These analyses confirmed that a correlated three-factor latent structure provides an exceptional fit to empirical data, showing complete measurement invariance across factor loadings, factor variances, factor covariances, and item error uniquenesses.

The scale demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability across subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding conventional psychometric thresholds, as well as high four-week test-retest temporal stability. Predictive and construct validity are evidenced through significant positive associations with intrinsic motivation, exercise enjoyment, heightened behavioral intentions, and objectively recorded weekly exercise frequency, while remaining robust against impression management and social desirability bias. Consequently, the BPNES represents a foundational psychometric tool in sport, health, and exercise psychology for evaluating motivational mechanisms and designing targeted behavioral interventions.

2. Keywords

Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale, Self-Determination Theory, Exercise Motivation, Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness, Physical Activity Adherence, Psychometrics, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Measurement Invariance

3. Authors

The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale was developed and validated by researchers affiliated with the Department of Physical Education and Sport Science at Serres, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece:

• Symeon P. Vlachopoulos, Ph.D. — Laboratory of Social Research on Physical Activity, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science at Serres, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Email: [email protected].
• Sotiria Michailidou, M.Sc. — Laboratory of Social Research on Physical Activity, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science at Serres, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.

4. Purpose

Physical inactivity remains one of the preeminent global public health crises of the modern era, contributing substantially to chronic cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, musculoskeletal degeneration, and affective disorders. Despite ubiquitous public health messaging detailing the physiological and psychological benefits of regular physical activity, population-level adherence to structured exercise regimens remains discouragingly low. A persistent challenge confronting exercise scientists, behavioral epidemiologists, and clinical psychologists is understanding the psychological mechanisms that drive individuals not only to adopt an exercise program but to maintain long-term behavioral persistence. Historically, general models of motivation failed to capture the subjective phenomenology of physical movement, prompting the need for context-specific assessment instruments.

The primary purpose of the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES) is to provide an empirical, contextually sensitive instrument capable of evaluating the degree of psychological need satisfaction experienced by individuals specifically while participating in physical exercise. While general domain-neutral instruments—such as the Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS; Deci & Ryan, 2000)—were widely utilized in organizational, educational, and interpersonal domains, their broad semantic framing frequently obscured the dynamic, somatic, and environmental contingencies inherent to physical training environments. General items asking about broad life fulfillment do not capture the experiential realities of physical exhaustion, motor skill acquisition, movement mastery, coaching dynamics, or locker-room peer connections that define exercise settings.

From a clinical and intervention-design perspective, the BPNES serves several distinct diagnostic and evaluative functions:

• Baseline Motivational Profiling: Health and fitness professionals can administer the BPNES to identify an individual’s baseline motivational deficits. For instance, an exerciser displaying high competence but depleted autonomy may feel micromanaged by an overly directive personal trainer, putting them at elevated risk of burnout and behavioral cessation.
• Intervention Optimization: Researchers can monitor trajectories of change in autonomy, competence, and relatedness across longitudinal clinical trials, determining which intervention components (e.g., peer-led walking groups versus solo resistance regimens) effectively nourish specific psychological nutriments.
• Preventing Drop-Out: Because basic psychological need thwarting or dissatisfaction is an antecedent of emotional exhaustion and amotivation, routine administration of the BPNES in commercial fitness centers, cardiac rehabilitation programs, and community sports initiatives allows for early detection of attrition risk.
• Theoretical Refinement: The scale enables sport and exercise psychologists to rigorously test structural models evaluating how environmental climate (e.g., coach-autonomy support) indirectly governs physical activity adherence via the mediational pathway of basic need fulfillment.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the BPNES is the subjective cognitive appraisal of psychological need fulfillment within physical exercise contexts. Under the conceptual architecture of Self-Determination Theory, psychological needs are defined not as learned social desires, conscious wants, or acquired drives, but rather as innate organismic necessities essential for psychological growth, structural integrity, and vitality. The BPNES operationalizes three distinct latent constructs:

Autonomy

Autonomy pertains to the universal experience of self-governance, agency, and internal perceived locus of causality. In the exercise setting, an individual feels autonomous when their participation is an authentic manifestation of their genuine interests, personal values, and chosen goals. Autonomy does not imply complete independence or total detachment from external guidance; an exerciser can willingly follow a prescribed program designed by a strength coach and still experience profound autonomy, provided they fully endorse and internalize the rationale behind the program. Conversely, autonomy is thwarted when individuals feel compelled to exercise out of guilt, internal shame, fear of social disapproval, or coercive pressure from medical providers or romantic partners.

Competence

Competence concerns the feeling of effectiveness in interacting with one’s physical and social environment, experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities, and mastering challenging behavioral tasks. Physical exercise is inherently evaluative; it involves visible parameters such as load, speed, motor coordination, endurance, and physical physique. Competence need satisfaction manifests when an exerciser perceives mastery over movement patterns, notices measurable progress toward desired functional or aesthetic benchmarks, and feels capable of navigating the physiological demands of their workouts without being overwhelmed. When environments present impossible demands, ambiguous feedback, or constant social comparison, competence is undermined, eliciting feelings of motor inadequacy and behavioral learned helplessness.

Relatedness

Relatedness encompasses the felt experience of belongingness, emotional connection, and mutual care within the social milieu of exercise. Humans are intrinsically relational organisms; the exercise setting often involves shared physical spaces, communal equipment, team dynamics, group fitness classes, or interpersonal interactions with trainers and fellow gym patrons. Relatedness satisfaction occurs when individuals perceive that they are accepted, valued, respected, and authentically connected to other participants. It provides an emotional safety net that reduces social physique anxiety and creates an inclusive communal identity. Conversely, relatedness is frustrated when individuals experience ostracism, intimidation, social alienation, or a hyper-competitive, cold environment.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the BPNES is situated directly within Self-Determination Theory (SDT), an organismic-dialectical meta-theory of human personality and behavior originated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (1985, 2000). SDT assumes that human beings are naturally active, growth-oriented organisms possessing an innate constructive tendency toward integrating their experiences into a unified sense of self. However, this active organismic tendency does not operate in a vacuum; it requires continuous support and “nutriments” from the socio-contextual environment to thrive.

Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT)

BPNT is one of the six formal mini-theories of SDT. It posits that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental psychological nutriments analogous to physiological requirements such as water, oxygen, and nutrients. BPNT operates under three primary theoretical axioms:

• Universality: These three needs are functionally invariant across cultural contexts, demographic backgrounds, genders, and stages of human development. Even in collectivistic settings, autonomy remains essential for self-actualization.
• Essentiality: Need satisfaction is functionally linked to psychological thriving, positive affect, vitality, and persistence, whereas the deprivation or thwarting of these needs inevitably leads to psychological distress, pathology, amotivation, and defensive behavioral adaptations.
• Non-Hierarchical Interdependence: Unlike Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the three basic psychological needs do not operate in a sequential tier. Optimal psychological functioning requires simultaneous, balanced fulfillment of all three dimensions. High competence cannot compensate for a complete absence of autonomy or chronic interpersonal isolation.

Organismic Integration Theory and the Motivational Continuum

The fulfillment of basic needs as measured by the BPNES serves as the psychological engine driving the internalization of motivation, conceptualized within Organismic Integration Theory (OIT). In this continuum, human motivation spans along a spectrum ranging from amotivation (absence of intentionality) through four types of extrinsic motivation—external regulation (compliance, external rewards/punishments), introjected regulation (guilt, internal ego-involvement), identified regulation (conscious valuing of the activity), and integrated regulation (congruence with core identity)—culminating in intrinsic motivation (inherent pleasure, interest, and satisfaction derived from the activity itself).

When an exercise environment satisfies autonomy, competence, and relatedness, individuals can successfully transform externally initiated regulations into self-determined behavioral patterns (identified and integrated regulations) and experience true intrinsic motivation. Vallerand’s Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (HMIEM; Vallerand, 1997, 2001) further specifies that contextual need satisfaction directly triggers situational and contextual motivational states, which in turn dictate behavioral consequences such as chronic workout adherence, psychological well-being, and physiological resilience.

7. Validity

The psychometric validation of the BPNES executed by Vlachopoulos and Michailidou (2006) followed a multi-stage empirical protocol designed to establish construct, discriminant, predictive, and factorial validity in strict accordance with classical test theory and contemporary measurement standards (Messick, 1995).

Construct and Structural Validity

Initial item generation commenced with an extensive theoretical pool of candidate items crafted to capture the specific phenomenology of exercise need satisfaction. Cognitive pre-testing and expert panel evaluations ensured substantive content relevance and linguistic clarity. Structural validity was then evaluated across two independent samples utilizing a rigorous split-half cross-validation design: a calibration sample ($N = 508$) and a validation sample ($N = 504$). Both samples were recruited from private fitness centers and encompassed an adult population exhibiting diverse training histories.

Discriminant Validity

To demonstrate that the three latent subscales of the BPNES capture conceptually distinct constructs rather than a singular, undifferentiated sense of general exercise satisfaction, the authors tested alternative competitive factor models. Specifically, the hypothesized three-factor model was contrasted against a one-factor unidimensional model and a series of two-factor models (in which pairs of factors were collapsed). In both samples, the three-factor model demonstrated an overwhelmingly superior fit to the data, as confirmed by nested model chi-square difference tests ($\Delta\chi^2, p < .001$). Inter-factor latent correlations were moderate to strong (ranging from approximately $.50$ to $.75$), demonstrating that while autonomy, competence, and relatedness share common variance attributable to overall psychological need fulfillment, they preserve substantial independent variance.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Predictive validity was verified by examining structural regression pathways between the three latent need satisfaction constructs and theoretically postulated behavioral and affective outcomes. In both structural equation models, the satisfaction of basic psychological needs significantly predicted:

• Exercise Enjoyment: Need satisfaction accounted for substantial variance in self-reported physical activity enjoyment, with competence and autonomy emerging as strong direct predictors of positive affective states during workouts.
• Behavioral Intentions: Higher scores across all three subscales demonstrated significant positive paths to an individual’s explicit cognitive intention to sustain regular exercise participation over the subsequent six months.
• Self-Reported Exercise Frequency: Significant associations were established between need satisfaction and actual weekly exercise participation frequency, confirming the behavioral relevance of the psychometric instrument.

Control for Social Desirability Bias

A critical component of the scale’s validation involved testing for potential confounding due to response bias. Respondents completed the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Reynolds, 1982) alongside the BPNES items. Correlational analyses between social desirability indices and the BPNES latent factors yielded negligible, non-significant correlations, proving that the scale captures authentic psychological states rather than self-protective impression management or socially approved self-presentation.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the BPNES has been extensively documented via assessments of internal consistency, composite reliability, and temporal test-retest stability across multiple independent cohorts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the seminal psychometric validation study conducted by Vlachopoulos and Michailidou (2006), the three subscales demonstrated high internal consistency across both the calibration and validation samples:

• Autonomy Subscale: Demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of $\alpha = .84$ in the calibration sample ($N = 508$) and $\alpha = .84$ in the validation sample ($N = 504$).
• Competence Subscale: Yielded Cronbach’s alpha values of $\alpha = .81$ in the calibration sample and $\alpha = .80$ in the cross-validation sample.
• Relatedness Subscale: Produced alpha coefficients of $\alpha = .86$ in the calibration sample and $\alpha = .87$ in the cross-validation sample.

Subsequent international adaptations, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Turkish translations, have corroborated these findings, reporting alpha values consistently ranging between $.78$ and $.91$. Furthermore, the average inter-item correlations within each four-item cluster fall well within the optimal psychometric target range of $.30$ to $.60$, demonstrating structural cohesion without item redundancy.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

To confirm that the BPNES captures relatively enduring psychological evaluations of the exercise environment rather than transient, state-dependent affective fluctuations or fleeting daily moods, Vlachopoulos and Michailidou (2006) conducted a four-week test-retest reliability study with an independent adult sample ($N = 103$). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson product-moment correlations across the four-week interval demonstrated excellent temporal stability:

• Autonomy: $r = .79$ ($p < .001$)
• Competence: $r = .82$ ($p < .001$)
• Relatedness: $r = .85$ ($p < .001$)

These values demonstrate that the instrument maintains stability across time while remaining sufficiently sensitive to detect authentic changes resulting from deliberate motivational climate interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the BPNES was investigated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within the EQS structural equations program (Bentler, 1995; Byrne, 1994). Given that psychological survey data often exhibit deviations from multivariate normality, the data were inspected for multivariate skewness and kurtosis using Mardia’s normalized coefficient (Mardia, 1970). Because significant multivariate kurtosis was detected, the authors implemented the Satorra-Bentler robust maximum likelihood estimation procedure, computing the robust Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square ($ ext{S-B}chi^2$) and robust standard errors.

Model Evaluation Criteria and Fit Indices

Model fit was determined based on recommendations established by Hu and Bentler (1995, 1999), evaluating a multi-index battery including:

• Robust Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $ge .95$
• Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI / TLI) $ge .95$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) $le .05$ to $.06$ (with $90%$ confidence intervals)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) $le .06$

CFA Empirical Findings

In the calibration sample ($N = 508$), the hypothesized 12-item, three-factor oblique model yielded an exceptional fit to the data: $ ext{S-B}chi^2(51) = 104.91$,$p < .001$;$ ext{CFI} = .980$;$ ext{NNFI} = .974$;$ ext{SRMR} = .041$;$ ext{RMSEA} = .046$ ($90%\text{ CI } = .033 – .058$). All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant ($p < .001$), with standardized parameter estimates ranging from $.67$ to $.88$, demonstrating robust convergent validity of the indicators onto their designated latent constructs.

Cross-validation in the independent sample ($N = 504$) replicated this structure without modification: $ ext{S-B}chi^2(51) = 93.64$,$p < .001$;$ ext{CFI} = .986$;$ ext{NNFI} = .981$;$ ext{SRMR} = .038$;$ ext{RMSEA} = .041$ ($90%\text{ CI } = .028 – .053$). Standardized factor loadings in the cross-validation sample ranged between $.66$ and $.89$.

Multisample Measurement Invariance

To establish the generalizability of the factor structure across samples, multisample CFA invariance tests were performed across the calibration and validation cohorts. Progressive constraints were applied across nested models:

1. Configural Invariance: Evaluated whether the identical three-factor configuration held across both groups without cross-group parameter constraints. The unconstrained baseline model displayed exemplary fit ($ ext{CFI} = .983, text{RMSEA} = .043$).
2. Metric (Weak) Invariance: Factor loadings ($\Lambda_x$) were constrained to be equal across groups. The model fit remained virtually identical, with a non-significant change in fit ($Delta ext{CFI} < .01$), verifying that the latent constructs convey the same meaning across samples.
3. Structural Covariance Invariance: Factor variances and factor covariances ($Phi$) were simultaneously constrained to equality. The invariance hypothesis was fully supported.
4. Strict (Uniqueness) Invariance: Item error variances and uniquenesses ($\Theta_\delta$) were constrained to equality across samples. Goodness-of-fit indices remained exceptional ($ ext{CFI} = .982, text{RMSEA} = .041$), establishing complete measurement and structural invariance.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES)
• Construct Measured: Domain-specific satisfaction of basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) within physical exercise
• Theoretical Basis: Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Basic Psychological Needs Theory)
• Authors: Symeon P. Vlachopoulos & Sotiria Michailidou (2006)
• Test Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire
• Target Population: Adults (men and women) participating in structured physical exercise, group fitness, gym-based workouts, or individual exercise regimens
• Item Count: 12 items
• Subscales:
  • Autonomy: 4 items (Items 1, 5, 8, 11)
  • Competence: 4 items (Items 2, 4, 7, 10)
  • Relatedness: 4 items (Items 3, 6, 9, 12)
• Response Format: Likert scale
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All items are framed in a positive, construct-affirming direction.
• Scoring Procedure: Subscale scores are calculated by averaging the individual item scores corresponding to each of the three psychological needs:
  • $$\text{Autonomy} = \frac{\text{Item } 1 + \text{Item } 5 + \text{Item } 8 + \text{Item } 11}{4}$$
  • $$\text{Competence} = \frac{\text{Item } 2 + \text{Item } 4 + \text{Item } 7 + \text{Item } 10}{4}$$
  • $$\text{Relatedness} = \frac{\text{Item } 3 + \text{Item } 6 + \text{Item } 9 + \text{Item } 12}{4}$$
  • A composite total psychological need satisfaction score can also be computed by averaging all 12 items when justified by higher-order factor modeling.
• Administration Method: Paper-and-pencil or digital self-administration
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale was published in 2006 in the peer-reviewed journal Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. The original psychometric development and initial validation were funded under academic research auspices at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

The scale is open for non-commercial, academic, and clinical research use without licensing fees, provided proper bibliographic citation is accorded to the original authors (Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006). For commercial applications, specialized adaptations, or enterprise-scale digital platform integration, permission should be secured from the copyright holder and corresponding author, Dr. Symeon P. Vlachopoulos ([email protected]).

12. References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

American College of Sports Medicine. (1990). The recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness in healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22(2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-199004000-00017

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. BMDP Statistical Software.

Biddle, S. J. H. (1995). Exercise motivation across the life span. In S. J. H. Biddle (Ed.), European perspectives on exercise and sport psychology (pp. 3–25). Human Kinetics.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179

Byrne, B. M. (1994). One application of structural equation modeling from two perspectives: Exploring the EQS and LISREL strategies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 138–157). Sage.

Cronbach, L. J., & Warrington, W. G. (1951). Time-limit tests: Estimating their reliability and degree of speeding. Psychometrika, 16(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289113

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4446-9

Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. D. C. Heath.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002

Dishman, R. K. (1994). Advances in exercise adherence. Human Kinetics.

Doganis, G., & Theodorakis, Y. (1995). The influence of attitude on exercise participation. In S. J. H. Biddle (Ed.), European perspectives on exercise and sport psychology (pp. 26–49). Human Kinetics.

Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869

Goudas, M., Biddle, S. J. H., & Fox, K. R. (2000). Perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education: A test of Harter’s competence motivation theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173179

Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2209-0

Jackson, S. A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607928

Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1998). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.1.17

Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Sage.

La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367

Li, F. (1999). The Exercise Motivation Scale: Its multifaceted structure and construct validity. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11(1), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209908402953

Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334770

Markland, D. (1999). Self-determination moderates the effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation in an exercise setting. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.21.4.351

Marsh, H. W. (1993). The multidimensional structure of physical self-concept: Instrument development and measurement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(1), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1993.10608810

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413

McAuley, E., Pena, M. M., & Jerome, G. J. (2001). Self-efficacy as a determinant and an outcome of exercise. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 235–261). Human Kinetics.

McCready, M. L., & Burton, D. (1985). The effect of self-determination and perceived competence on intrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(4), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.7.4.346

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17–59). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Brière, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.17.1.35

Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and Emotion, 28(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000040156.81924.b8

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x

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(3), 529–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x

Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia, J. G. (2000). What is being optimized? Self-determination theory and basic psychological needs. In S. H. Qualls & N. Abeles (Eds.), Psychology and the aging revolution: How we adapt to longer life (pp. 145–172). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10363-008

Schutz, R. W. (1998). Assessing the stability of psychological traits and measures. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 393–408). Fitness Information Technology.

Sheldon, K. M., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2002). Psychological need-satisfaction and subjective well-being within social groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602165036

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1270–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007

Theodorakis, Y. (1994). Planned behavior, attitude strength, role identity, and the prediction of exercise behavior. The Sport Psychologist, 8(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.8.2.149

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2

Vallerand, R. J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 263–319). Human Kinetics.

Vincent, W. J. (1995). Statistics in kinesiology. Human Kinetics.

Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(3), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327841mpee1003_4

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)