Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure

1. Abstract

The Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure (GOEM) is a psychometrically validated self-report instrument developed to evaluate dispositional achievement goal orientations specifically within physical exercise and fitness contexts. Derived from the conceptual foundations of Achievement Goal Theory (AGT), originally advanced by Nicholls and extended within sport psychology by Duda, the GOEM was created by Carolyn Petherick and David Markland in 2008 to address structural limitations and contextual misalignments inherent in porting competitive sport instruments—such as the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ)—directly into non-competitive exercise settings.

The GOEM consists of 10 items divided equally into two distinct 5-item subscales: Task Orientation (focusing on self-referenced criteria, mastery, personal effort, and progressive skill acquisition) and Ego Orientation (focusing on normative comparison, social demonstration of superiority, and outperforming other exercisers). Respondents record their responses along a 5-point Likert scale anchored from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”).

Extensive psychometric investigations through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that the GOEM exhibits a robust orthogonal two-factor structure. Confirmatory factor analysis has confirmed excellent structural fit (e.g., Satorra-Bentler scaled χ², Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06). Internal consistency indices are high, with reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .78 for the Task subscale and .88 for the Ego subscale. In addition, the instrument demonstrates established construct, convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity through empirical associations with behavioral regulations defined by Self-Determination Theory, social physique anxiety, and longitudinal exercise adherence patterns. The GOEM serves as a reliable, context-specific assessment tool for exercise psychologists, physical educators, and behavioral health researchers seeking to understand motivational dynamics in physical activity.

2. Keywords

Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure, GOEM, Achievement Goal Theory, Task Orientation, Ego Orientation, Exercise Psychology, Psychometrics, Mastery Goals, Performance Goals, Exercise Adherence, Self-Determination Theory

3. Authors

The Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure was developed and psychometrically validated by:

• Carolyn M. Petherick, Ph.D. — School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, Wales, United Kingdom. Dr. Petherick’s research focuses on exercise motivation, achievement goals, and the psychological determinants of physical activity adoption.
• David Markland, Ph.D., CPsychol, AFBPsS — Professor of Exercise and Health Psychology, School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, Wales, United Kingdom. Professor Markland is an internationally recognized expert in exercise motivation, psychometrics, structural equation modeling, and the application of Self-Determination Theory to health-related physical activity.

Institutional Contact: School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, George Building, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, United Kingdom.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure (GOEM) is to provide an empirically sound, theoretically coherent, and contextually specific measurement tool for assessing individual differences in dispositional achievement goals within structured and recreational exercise environments. Prior to the development of the GOEM, researchers investigating exercise motivation predominantly relied on measures developed for competitive athletics, such as the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ; Duda, 1989) or the Perception of Success Questionnaire (POSQ; Roberts et al., 1998). Although these sport-specific scales provided foundational insights, their contextual transferability to non-competitive exercise settings was problematic. Sport contexts typically feature explicit, structured rules, standardized metrics of competitive victory or defeat, and direct social comparison with adversaries. In contrast, recreational exercise environments—such as commercial health clubs, cardiovascular studios, and group fitness classes—operate under fundamentally different social and motivational contingencies.

In physical exercise, individuals engage in activities where social comparison may be ambiguous, self-directed, or completely secondary to health, fitness, stress reduction, or aesthetic improvements. Early efforts to adapt the TEOSQ by simply substituting the word “sport” with “exercise” produced psychometric instability, anomalous cross-loadings, and poor factor determinacy. Petherick and Markland (2008) systematically designed the GOEM from the ground up to reflect the unique ways achievement competence is defined, demonstrated, and experienced in exercise settings.

From an applied and clinical perspective, identifying an exerciser’s goal orientation profile is essential for predicting behavioral adherence, affective responses to physical exertion, and psychological well-being. Individuals high in Task Orientation typically exhibit self-determined behavioral regulation, intrinsic motivation, positive affect, and resilience when confronting physical fatigue or plateaued performance. Conversely, exercisers dominated by an Ego Orientation often experience heightened evaluative threat, social physique anxiety, and an increased risk of premature exercise drop-out when they perceive that their physical performance or appearance compares unfavorably with others. By diagnosing these motivational dispositions, fitness practitioners, physical therapists, and behavioral interventionists can tailor physical environments—fostering mastery-oriented motivational climates that promote sustained engagement across the lifespan.

5. Psychological Construct

The GOEM operationalizes achievement motivation through two primary, orthogonal constructs: Task Orientation and Ego Orientation. These dimensions represent qualitatively distinct cognitive schemas through which an individual defines subjective success, evaluates competence, and interprets achievement outcomes in physical exercise.

Task Orientation (Mastery Dimension)

Within the GOEM, Task Orientation captures the degree to which an exerciser defines competence and success through self-referenced criteria, personal effort, incremental mastery, and subjective improvement. When individuals operate from a task-oriented framework, their central motivational goal is the mastery of movement patterns, optimization of physiological stamina, or fulfillment of personal standards.

Key psychological markers of Task Orientation include:

• Self-Referenced Standards: Success is perceived when an individual performs to the best of their personal ability or executes an exercise regimen with high personal effort.
• Perceived Progress and Mastery: Competence is affirmed by noticing tangible personal adaptations, such as lifting heavier loads, running longer durations, or executing motor skills with increased technical efficiency.
• Goal Attainment: Achieving self-selected milestones (e.g., attending four gym sessions per week) confirms competence regardless of how others in the facility perform.

Illustrative items reflecting this dimension include: “I exercise to the best of my ability” (Item 1), “I make progress” (Item 3), and “I achieve the exercise goal I set for myself” (Item 4).

Ego Orientation (Performance/Normative Dimension)

In contrast, Ego Orientation reflects the degree to which an exerciser defines success and personal competence through normative comparison, external validation, and the demonstration of superior capability relative to other exercisers. In an ego-oriented framework, the subjective feeling of competence is not derived from effort or personal gain, but rather from establishing social dominance, displaying effortless capability, or proving that one possesses higher physical status than peers.

Key psychological markers of Ego Orientation include:

• Normative Superiority: Success is defined by outperforming other exercisers (e.g., running faster on adjacent treadmills, using heavier weights, or demonstrating superior cardiovascular endurance).
• Public Demonstration: A central requirement is showing others that one possesses superior physical competence or unique capabilities.
• Vulnerability to Negative Evaluative Comparison: Because competence depends upon external benchmarks, an ego-oriented exerciser’s perceived ability is unstable, fluctuating based on the relative competence of individuals present in the immediate workout environment.

Illustrative items reflecting this dimension include: “Other exercisers don’t do as well as me” (Item 2), “I can show other exercisers that I’m better than everyone else” (Item 5), and “I can prove to others that I’m the best” (Item 10).

6. Theoretical Framework

The GOEM is rooted in Achievement Goal Theory, developed primarily by John G. Nicholls (1984, 1989) and elaborated in physical domains by Joan Duda (1989, 1992). Nicholls posited that the central human motivation in achievement contexts is the demonstration of competence and the avoidance of demonstrating incompetence. However, subjective competence is not a monolithic construct; it bifurcates into two distinct conceptions of ability:

1. Undifferentiated Conception of Ability (Task Involvement)

In early developmental stages, effort, difficulty, and ability are viewed as covarying positively: exerting higher effort leads to greater learning and is directly equated with higher ability. When adults adopt a task-involved state, they revert to this self-referenced understanding. Effort and outcome are intertwined; striving diligently to master a challenging physical task produces an internal sense of accomplishment. Competence is self-determined and independent of the abilities displayed by social referents.

2. Differentiated Conception of Ability (Ego Involvement)

As individuals develop cognitive maturity, ability becomes differentiated from effort and is conceptualized as an inherent, capacity-limited trait. In this state, ability is judged relative to others: high ability is demonstrated only when one achieves a superior outcome with equal or less effort than peers. High effort combined with an inferior outcome is interpreted as indicative of fundamentally low ability, generating feelings of failure and shame.

Interaction with Motivational Climates and Hierarchical Models

Petherick and Markland (2008) integrated these core premises with modern social-cognitive paradigms, including Elliot and Church’s (1997) hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation, as well as Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (SDT). In fitness environments, an exerciser’s dispositional goal orientation interacts with the situational motivational climate (Ames, 1992). When gyms foster an ego-involving climate—characterized by public leaderboards, competitive positioning, and selective instructor praise for top performers—ego-oriented individuals may thrive temporarily if their perceived competence is high. However, if their perceived competence falters, they often experience elevated social physique anxiety (Hart, Leary, & Rejeski, 1989) and introjected or amotivated behavioral regulations (Markland & Tobin, 2004), leading to behavioral withdrawal. Conversely, task orientation aligns directly with autonomous regulations (identified and intrinsic regulation), promoting sustained participation independent of situational evaluative pressures.

7. Validity

Validation of the GOEM involved multi-stage empirical testing to demonstrate construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established by Petherick and Markland (2008) across independent calibration and validation samples of regular exercisers. Initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) demonstrated clean factor separation without significant cross-loadings. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) cross-validated the two-dimensional model, yielding goodness-of-fit indices exceeding conventional standards for psychological instruments (e.g., Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] < .05; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .96).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity of the GOEM has been verified through significant theoretical associations with related psychological constructs:

• Task Orientation correlates positively with autonomous motivation as measured by the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-2; Markland & Tobin, 2004), specifically showing moderate-to-strong positive correlations with intrinsic regulation (r ≈ .45 to .58) and identified regulation (r ≈ .40 to .52). It exhibits non-significant or negative correlations with amotivation and external regulation.
• Ego Orientation correlates positively with external regulation (r ≈ .30 to .42), introjected regulation (r ≈ .35 to .48), and social physique anxiety as measured by the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS; Hart et al., 1989). Individuals high in Ego Orientation demonstrate higher concerns regarding public evaluation of their body shape and physical capacities.

Discriminant validity is supported by the near-zero to weak correlation observed between the Task and Ego subscales (typically ranging between r = -.08 and r = .12), confirming Nicholls’ theoretical postulate that task and ego orientations operate as orthogonal, independent dimensions of achievement motivation.

Predictive and Concurrent Validity

Predictive validity has been substantiated across behavioral and affective endpoints. Prospective studies indicate that high scores on Task Orientation predict higher weekly exercise frequency, greater longitudinal retention in fitness programs, and positive exercise-induced affect. Ego Orientation predicts performance striving primarily when perceived competence is elevated, but predicts exercise avoidance, somatic anxiety, and amotivation when exercisers encounter performance plateaus or physical setbacks.

8. Reliability

The GOEM exhibits strong reliability across diverse adult exercise populations.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies by Petherick and Markland (2008), the GOEM demonstrated strong internal consistency across samples:

• Task Orientation Subscale (5 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely range from α = .78 to .84. Mean inter-item correlations fall within the optimal range of .38 to .52, demonstrating homogeneous construct coverage without item redundancy.
• Ego Orientation Subscale (5 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients range from α = .86 to .91 (with the seminal development sample reporting α = .88). Inter-item correlations range between .50 and .68, reflecting high internal coherence among items assessing normative comparison and competitive superiority.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Longitudinal and repeated-measures studies have assessed the temporal stability of the GOEM over intervals ranging from 4 to 8 weeks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) show high stability for both dimensions in stable exercise environments:

• Task Orientation test-retest reliability: r = .81 to .85
• Ego Orientation test-retest reliability: r = .84 to .89

These findings confirm that the GOEM captures stable dispositional tendencies while remaining sufficiently sensitive to substantive shifts in motivational climate or longitudinal cognitive interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structural architecture of the GOEM was evaluated through sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches (Petherick & Markland, 2008).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, candidate items generated from open-ended exerciser surveys and expert reviews were subjected to principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) and orthogonal (Varimax) rotations. The EFA clearly extracted two distinct factors with eigenvalues substantially greater than 1.0 (scree plot analysis confirmed a marked break after the second factor). Factor 1 (Ego Orientation) accounted for approximately 38.4% of the total variance, while Factor 2 (Task Orientation) accounted for an additional 21.2% of the variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In the subsequent confirmatory phase using an independent validation sample (N = 328), the hypothesized two-factor orthogonal model was tested using robust maximum likelihood estimation (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ²). The model exhibited excellent fit to the empirical data:

• Satorra-Bentler χ² (df = 34): 48.72 (p = .049)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .982
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .976
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .036 (90% CI [.004, .058])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042

Factor Loadings and Parameter Estimates

All standardized factor loadings loaded significantly (p < .001) onto their designated latent constructs:

• Task Orientation Items: Standardized factor loadings ranged from .58 to .78. Item 4 (“I achieve the exercise goal I set for myself”) and Item 6 (“I feel like I’ve improved”) exhibited the highest loadings on the latent Task factor.
• Ego Orientation Items: Standardized factor loadings ranged from .72 to .86. Item 5 (“I can show other exercisers that I’m better than everyone else”) and Item 10 (“I can prove to others that I’m the best”) demonstrated the strongest factor loadings on the latent Ego factor.

Alternative nested structural models—including a unidimensional single-factor model and a hierarchical model with a higher-order general achievement factor—yielded unacceptable fit indices, confirming that Task and Ego orientations represent two distinct, independent dimensions.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Rating Scale
• Context / Setting: Exercise, physical fitness, personal training, and behavioral health research
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or online survey platforms
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16+) engaged in regular physical activity or recreational exercise
• Number of Items: 10 items
• Subscale Structure:
  • Task Orientation: 5 items (Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 9)
  • Ego Orientation: 5 items (Items 2, 5, 7, 8, 10)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral / Undecided
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Procedures:
  • There are no reverse-scored items in the GOEM.
  • Task Orientation Score: Calculated by summing the scores of items 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9, then dividing by 5. (Range: 1.0 to 5.0).
  • Ego Orientation Score: Calculated by summing the scores of items 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10, then dividing by 5. (Range: 1.0 to 5.0).
  • Higher mean scores indicate stronger dispositional orientation toward that motivational domain. Researchers can evaluate each scale continuously or utilize median/tertile splits to examine interactive goal profiles (e.g., High Task/High Ego, High Task/Low Ego, Low Task/High Ego, Low Task/Low Ego).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure was published in 2008 by Carolyn Petherick and David Markland in the peer-reviewed journal Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. The instrument is open-access for academic, empirical, non-commercial research, and educational purposes. The authors have historically made the instrument, scoring protocols, and psychometric documentation freely accessible to the scientific community via institutional web archives at Bangor University (Bangor University Exercise Motivation Resources).

No licensing fee is required for non-profit scholarly research or clinical educational use. Commercial entities seeking to embed the GOEM within proprietary software applications, fitness assessment platforms, or commercial training frameworks should seek formal written permission from the copyright holders and the scale authors.

12. References

• Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161–176). Human Kinetics.
• Duda, J. L. (1989). The relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose of sport among male and female high school athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11(3), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.11.2.148
• Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
• Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.11.1.94
• Harwood, C., Wilson, K., & Hardy, L. (2002). Achievement goals in sport: Working towards an alternative model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(6), 349–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000101890
• Kilpatrick, M., Bartholomew, J., & Riemer, H. (2003). The measurement of goal orientations in exercise. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(2), 121–136.
• Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(2), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.2.191
• Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
• Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University Press.
• Petherick, C., & Markland, D. (2008). The development of a Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure (GOEM). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913670801903936
• Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Balague, G. (1998). Achievement goals in sport: The development and validation of the Perception of Success Questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16(4), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404198360201

13. Items of the Scale