Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire SRQ-L

1. Abstract

The Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L) is a psychometric instrument rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), specifically developed to assess the motivational orientations and regulatory styles that govern academic engagement among post-secondary and professional students. Originally conceptualized and validated by Edward L. Deci and Geoffrey C. Williams in 1996 within medical education, the scale assesses the qualitative reasons individuals pursue academic tasks, execute coursework recommendations, and pursue mastery within specialized disciplines. The SRQ-L diverges from instruments intended for primary and secondary education—such as the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A)—by condensing the organismic integration continuum into two broad “super-categories”: Autonomous Regulation (encompassing identified regulation and intrinsic motivation) and Controlled Regulation (encompassing external regulation and introjected regulation).

The standard instrument contains 14 items arranged across three contextual stems addressing course participation, compliance with instructor recommendations, and continuing skill development. Responses are registered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not at all true”) to 7 (“very true”). Subsequent adaptations, such as the 12-item iteration developed for foundational science courses (Black & Deci, 2000), have retained identical structural paradigms while tailoring contextual stems. Across diverse higher education environments—including medical training, organic chemistry, legal scholarship, and engineering—the SRQ-L exhibits robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding .75 to .85 for autonomous regulation and .70 to .80 for controlled regulation. Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that the two-factor model captures distinct psychological dynamics, showing convergent validity with perceived competence, autonomous instructor support, conceptual learning, and academic persistence, as well as divergent validity against rote memorization and academic burnout.

2. Keywords

Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire, SRQ-L, Self-Determination Theory, Autonomous Regulation, Controlled Regulation, Academic Motivation, Medical Education, Organismic Integration Theory, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Higher Education Assessment, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire was formulated through foundational scholarship led by Geoffrey C. Williams, M.D., Ph.D., and Edward L. Deci, Ph.D. at the University of Rochester.

• Geoffrey C. Williams, M.D., Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Psychology at the University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester, New York, USA). Dr. Williams’s clinical and academic endeavors have focused extensively on the application of self-determination theory within medical education, physician-patient communication, tobacco dependence treatment, and health-behavior modification.
• Edward L. Deci, Ph.D.: Co-founder of Self-Determination Theory and Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of Rochester. Dr. Deci’s seminal empirical studies on human motivation, intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards, and psychological needs have influenced educational psychology, organizational leadership, and clinical practice worldwide.
• Collaborating Investigators: Subsequent prominent adaptations and empirical validations of the SRQ-L were conducted in collaboration with Anne E. Black, Ph.D. (Yale University School of Medicine, formerly University of Rochester) and Richard M. Ryan, Ph.D. (Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at Australian Catholic University), expanding the questionnaire’s empirical footprint across natural science, clinical clerkships, and university-level pedagogy.

4. Purpose

The Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire was designed to capture why older students—specifically undergraduate, graduate, and professional students—engage in learning-related tasks within academic environments. Traditional measures of academic motivation frequently operationalized motivation merely in terms of quantity or intensity (e.g., how many hours a student spends studying or how strongly they desire a specific letter grade). In contrast, the SRQ-L is grounded in the tenet that the quality or orientation of motivation exerts a more decisive influence on conceptual learning, affective well-being, depth of processing, and professional identity formation than overall motivational drive alone.

The instrument was initially validated within medical pedagogy during a preclinical course titled “Organ Systems,” where students learned the biopsychosocial model and medical interviewing techniques (Williams & Deci, 1996). The authors sought to evaluate how educational environments support or undermine students’ internalization of critical interpersonal values. The purpose of the questionnaire spans several practical and clinical domains:

• Assessment of Educational Autonomy Support: Educational researchers employ the SRQ-L to determine whether student-centered, autonomy-supportive instructional climates foster internal regulatory styles compared to controlling, coercive educational climates.
• Predictor of Conceptual Integration and Deep Learning: In rigorous domains like medical education, pharmacology, and STEM disciplines (e.g., organic chemistry; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

  In developing the SRQ-L, the authors consolidated the regulatory continuum into two primary composite dimensions or “super-categories”:

  Autonomous Regulation

  Autonomous regulation represents learning behaviors that emanate from the self and reflect true psychological endorsement, choice, and volition. Within the SRQ-L, this super-category combines:

  • Identified Regulation: A relatively self-determined form of extrinsic motivation in which the student recognizes and accepts the underlying value or utility of the educational activity. The behavior is performed willingly because it aligns with personal goals and professional values, even if the learning task itself is not inherently pleasurable. For example, item 3 states: “Because learning to interview well is an important part of becoming a doctor.”
  • Intrinsic Motivation: The most self-determined form of regulation, wherein an academic activity is performed purely for its own sake—out of inherent interest, enjoyment, exploration, or intellectual challenge. For example, item 13 reads: “Because it’s a challenge to really understand what the patient is experiencing,” and item 11 states: “Because it’s exciting to try new ways to work interpersonally with my patients.”

  When operating under autonomous regulation, students experience an internal perceived locus of causality (PLOC), displaying psychological vitality, resilience in the face of academic obstacles, and higher levels of metacognitive self-monitoring.

  Controlled Regulation

  Controlled regulation represents behaviors experienced as pressured, coerced, or driven by interpersonal or intrapsychic forces external to the authentic self. This composite subscale merges:

  • External Regulation: The least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, where academic behaviors are undertaken exclusively to satisfy external demands, attain tangible rewards, secure desired course grades, or avoid punitive institutional sanctions. Examples include item 5: “Because I would get a good grade if I do what he/she suggests,” and item 8: “Because it’s easier to do what I’m told than to think about it.”
  • Introjected Regulation: A form of motivation in which external regulations have been partially internalized but remain unintegrated into the self-system. The individual acts to maintain contingent self-worth, avoid feelings of guilt or self-recrimination, or solicit praise from peers and faculty. Introjected regulation features internal controlling forces and ego-involvement. Examples include item 4: “Because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t study this approach,” item 10: “Because I would probably feel guilty if I didn’t comply with my instructor’s suggestions,” and item 7: “Because I want others to think that I am a good interviewer.”

  Under controlled regulation, students exhibit an external perceived locus of causality. While they may display high levels of short-term effort, their academic engagement is commonly characterized by performance anxiety, surface-level rote memorization, vulnerability to failure, and elevated rates of academic burnout.

  6. Theoretical Framework

  The theoretical bedrock of the SRQ-L is Self-Determination Theory, and more specifically its sub-theory, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), articulated by Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. OIT explains the differentiation of extrinsic motivation and outlines the pathways through which social contexts influence the internalization and integration of ambient cultural, institutional, and educational values.

  OIT operates on several foundational psychological assumptions:

  • The Organismic Metaphor: Human beings possess an inherent, active developmental tendency toward psychological growth, coherence, and the integration of experience. Students do not simply react to environmental conditioning; they actively seek to internalize values presented by instructors, clinical mentors, and academic disciplines.
  • The Internalization Continuum: Rather than viewing extrinsic motivation as a uniform, non-autonomous state, SDT specifies a taxonomy running from external regulation (lowest autonomy), through introjection and identification, to integration (highest autonomy). The SRQ-L structures these styles into two operational poles (Autonomous vs. Controlled) to balance theoretical nuance with statistical power in adult educational populations.
  • Basic Psychological Needs: Internalization occurs naturally when the educational milieu satisfies three universal basic psychological needs: autonomy (the experience of volition and self-endorsement), competence (feeling effective and capable of mastery), and relatedness (experiencing a sense of belonging and interpersonal connection with peers and educators).

  In Williams and Deci’s (1996) foundational study, the biopsychosocial approach to medical interviewing served as the target of internalization. Medical curricula historically emphasized a biomedical, disease-focused paradigm. Internalizing humanistic, biopsychosocial perspectives requires students to move beyond performing behaviors solely for clinical grades (external regulation) or to protect their professional image (introjection), advancing toward recognizing the core clinical utility of empathy (identified regulation) and appreciating the challenge of patient exploration (intrinsic motivation). The SRQ-L directly operationalizes this organismic integration process within structured curricular environments.

  7. Validity

  Extensive empirical studies have evaluated the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the SRQ-L across university and professional school settings.

  Construct Validity

  The construct validity of the SRQ-L is supported by the distinct bivariate relationships observed between its two subscales and theoretically allied constructs. Research consistently reveals a weak or non-significant correlation between the Autonomous and Controlled subscales (typically ranging from r = -.10 to r = .15), affirming that autonomy and control represent distinct regulatory dimensions rather than opposite ends of a simple unidimensional bipolar scale. In Williams and Deci (1996), autonomous regulation correlated positively with students’ internalized humanistic values regarding patient care (r = .40, p < .001), whereas controlled regulation showed no correlation or negative associations with patient-centered attitudes.

  Predictive and Criterion Validity

  The predictive utility of the SRQ-L has been documented across multiple outcome domains:

  • Academic Performance: In a seminal longitudinal study of undergraduate organic chemistry students, Black and Deci (2000) demonstrated that baseline autonomous motivation on the adapted SRQ-L predicted higher final course grades, even after controlling for prior scholastic aptitude (SAT scores and cumulative GPA). Students higher in autonomous regulation maintained interest across the academic term and demonstrated greater conceptual mastery.
  • Clinical Competency: Williams and Deci (1996) showed that medical students with higher autonomous regulation demonstrated higher clinical interviewing competence during standardized patient assessments 6 to 24 months later, as rated by independent blinded examiners.
  • Educational Persistence and Drop-Out Intentions: Studies across university STEM disciplines demonstrate that lower autonomous regulation combined with elevated controlled regulation reliably predicts course withdrawal, disengagement, and academic attrition.

  Convergent and Discriminant Validity

  The SRQ-L demonstrates strong convergent validity with the Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ). Students who perceive their instructors as highly autonomy-supportive report significant increases in autonomous self-regulation over time (Williams & Deci, 1996; Black & Deci, 2000). Discriminant validity is evidenced by divergent correlations with psychological distress: controlled regulation is positively associated with state and trait anxiety, performance-avoidance goal orientations, and depressive symptoms, while autonomous regulation shows negative or non-significant links to anxiety and robust positive correlations with self-esteem, task absorption, and vitality.

  8. Reliability

  The SRQ-L demonstrates sound psychometric reliability across diverse higher education populations, as reflected by internal consistency indices and test-retest estimates.

  Internal Consistency

  In the original validation study by Williams and Deci (1996) involving medical students (N = 159), the internal consistency of the two subscales was established as follows:

  • Autonomous Regulation Subscale (7 items): Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .75.
  • Controlled Regulation Subscale (7 items): Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .75.

  In the modified 12-item iteration tailored for undergraduate organic chemistry students (Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

  Exploratory Factor Analysis

  During scale construction, Williams and Deci conducted principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations. The items consistently loaded onto two prominent factors accounting for substantial variance:

  • Factor 1: Autonomous Regulation. Identified regulation and intrinsic motivation items loaded cleanly on this factor (factor loadings > .45 to .78), demonstrating high eigenvalues and minimal cross-loadings onto the controlled dimension.
  • Factor 2: Controlled Regulation. External regulation and introjected regulation items loaded onto this factor (loadings > .40 to .75). Introjected items emphasizing internal guilt or contingent pride (e.g., item 4: “Because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t study this approach”; item 10: “Because I would probably feel guilty…”) demonstrated acceptable alignment with the controlled latent dimension, consistent with SDT premises regarding unintegrated internal pressures.

  Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

  Confirmatory factor analyses in subsequent higher education studies have systematically compared the hypothesized two-factor oblique model against alternative structural configurations, including a unidimensional model and a four-factor continuum model (external, introjected, identified, intrinsic). Findings consistently show that the two-factor oblique model (“super-categories”) fits student data well in targeted academic courses, yielding superior parsimony:

  Fit Statistic / Index	Observed Range (Empirical Literature)	Standard Psychometric Benchmark
  χ² / df ratio	1.85 – 2.45	≤ 3.0 (Acceptable)
  Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	.92 – .96	≥ .90 (Acceptable); ≥ .95 (Good)
  Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)	.90 – .95	≥ .90 (Acceptable); ≥ .95 (Good)
  Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)	.048 – .065 (90% CI: .038–.072)	≤ .08 (Acceptable); ≤ .06 (Good)
  Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)	.042 – .058	≤ .08 (Acceptable)

  Item standardized factor loadings within the two-factor solution generally span between .50 and .82. Because the questionnaire was constructed specifically to capture the overarching autonomous versus controlled distinction, psychometricians discourage attempts to split the SRQ-L into separate four-factor models unless additional items targeting integrated regulation and pure intrinsic interest are added.

  10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

  The SRQ-L is a self-administered, domain-specific survey instrument. It assesses self-regulatory orientations via structured stems followed by pre-formulated motivational reasons.

  • Instrument Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale.
  • Target Population: Undergraduate, graduate, and professional school students (e.g., medical, law, nursing, engineering candidates).
  • Item Count: 14 items in the original medical curriculum version (Williams & Deci, 1996); 12 items in the STEM / Organic Chemistry adaptation (Black & Deci, 2000).
  • Contextual Architecture: Items are grouped under three contextual stems corresponding to primary student activities:
    • Stem A: Reasons for participating actively in the course/class (Items 1–4).
    • Stem B: Reasons for following the instructor’s curricular recommendations/suggestions (Items 5–10).
    • Stem C: Reasons for continuing to broaden skills and knowledge beyond basic course requirements (Items 11–14).
  • Response Format: 7-point Likert-type response scale:
    • 1: Not at all true
    • 2–3: (Intermediate anchor points)
    • 4: Somewhat true
    • 5–6: (Intermediate anchor points)
    • 7: Very true
  • Scoring Procedures:
    • Autonomous Regulation Score: Calculate the arithmetic mean of items 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 14.
      Autonomous Regulation = (Q1 + Q3 + Q6 + Q9 + Q11 + Q13 + Q14) / 7
    • Controlled Regulation Score: Calculate the arithmetic mean of items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12.
      Controlled Regulation = (Q2 + Q4 + Q5 + Q7 + Q8 + Q10 + Q12) / 7
    • Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) / Difference Score (Optional): While Williams and Deci frequently utilized Autonomous and Controlled subscales as independent simultaneous predictors in multiple regression models, researchers occasionally compute a single Relative Autonomy Index by subtracting the controlled mean from the autonomous mean: RAI = Autonomous Regulation − Controlled Regulation.
  • Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
  • Contextual Customization: The specific course title and activity phrases (e.g., “organ systems classes,” “interviewing”) may be adapted to refer to any target discipline (e.g., “organic chemistry,” “clinical pharmacology,” “legal research”).

  11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

  The Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire was first introduced in 1996 by Geoffrey C. Williams and Edward L. Deci. In accordance with the dissemination philosophy of the founders of Self-Determination Theory, the SRQ-L is classified as an open-access academic instrument.

  • Permissions and Licensing: The scale is available free of charge for non-commercial educational, scientific, and research purposes. Researchers and educational practitioners do not require formal written permission from the copyright holders to administer, adapt, or translate the questionnaire for non-commercial investigations.
  • Commercial Applications: Commercial use, proprietary integration into profit-generating software, or clinical consulting platforms may require licensing agreements and formal consultation with the authors or the Center for Self-Determination Theory (CSDT).
  • Official Repository: Additional documentation, administrative guidelines, and related self-regulation questionnaires across alternative domains (e.g., exercise, healthcare, prosocial behavior) are hosted and curated by the Center for Self-Determination Theory.

  12. References

  Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. 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

  Kusurkar, R. A., Ten Cate, T. J., Vos, C. M. P., Westers, P., & Croiset, G. (2013). How motivation affects academic performance: A structural equation modelling analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3

  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(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749

  Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

  Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28769

  Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767

  Williams, G. C., Saizow, R. B., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The importance of self-determination theory for medical education. Academic Medicine, 74(9), 992–995. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199909000-00013

  13. Items of the Scale

  Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:

  Learning Questionnaire

  The following questions relate to your reasons for participating in the interviewing class. Different people have different reasons for participating in such a class‚ and we want to know how true each of these reasons is for you. There are three groups of items‚ and those in each group pertain to the sentence that begins that group.

  Please indicate how true each reason is for you using the following scale:

  1 = not at all true   |   4 = somewhat true   |   7 = very true

  A. I will participate actively in the organ systems classes:

  1. Because I feel like it’s a good way to improve my skills and my understanding of patients.
  2. Because others would think badly of me if I didn’t.
  3. Because learning to interview well is an important part of becoming a doctor.
  4. Because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t study this approach.

  B. I am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions for interviewing:

  5. Because I would get a good grade if I do what he/she suggests.
  6. Because I believe my instructor’s suggestions will help me interview effectively.
  7. Because I want others to think that I am a good interviewer.
  8. Because it’s easier to do what I’m told than to think about it.
  9. Because it’s important to me to do well at this.
  10. Because I would probably feel guilty if I didn’t comply with my instructor’s suggestions.

  C. The reason that I will continue to broaden my interviewing skills is:

  11. Because it’s exciting to try new ways to work interpersonally with my patients.
  12. Because I would feel proud if I did continued to improve at interviewing.
  13. Because it’s a challenge to really understand what the patient is experiencing.
  14. Because it’s interesting to use the interview to try to identify what disease the patient has.
  ★

  Rate This Scale

  5.0 / 5 • 1 vote