Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale

1. Abstract

The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) is an influential psychometric instrument developed by Deborah Kendzierski and Kenneth J. DeCarlo in 1991 to assess the subjective level of enjoyment experienced by an individual during or immediately following a specific bout of physical exercise. Rooted in sport and exercise psychology, the scale addresses the critical role of intrinsic affective valuation in the adoption and long-term maintenance of health-enhancing behaviors. Originally constructed as an 18-item instrument utilizing a 7-point bipolar semantic differential rating scale, PACES captures a unidimensional continuum ranging from extreme negative affect (e.g., boredom, frustration, dislike) to intense positive engagement (e.g., pleasure, absorption, exhilaration). Eleven items are counterbalanced via reverse scoring to minimize response acquiescence and pattern bias, yielding a composite score between 18 and 126, where higher values reflect superior levels of exercise enjoyment. Psychometric evaluations across diverse populations—including university cohorts, pediatric samples, sedentary older adults, and clinical rehabilitation groups—demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from .90 to .96) and solid test-retest reliability across acute exercise trials. Construct validity has been established through convergent correlations with intrinsic motivation, positive valence, and flow states, alongside divergent validity against cognitive exertion metrics such as perceived exertion. Confirmatory factor analyses support an overarching global enjoyment factor, while subsequent measurement invariance testing has established its structural stability across sexes and diverse physical activity modalities. PACES serves as a foundational assessment tool in contemporary behavioral medicine, clinical kinesiology, and exercise prescription paradigms.

2. Keywords

Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, PACES, exercise psychology, intrinsic motivation, affective response, psychometrics, physical activity adherence, semantic differential scale, behavioral medicine, construct validity, flow state, sport psychology

3. Authors

The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Deborah Kendzierski and Kenneth J. DeCarlo. At the time of the instrument’s initial validation and publication in 1991, both investigators were affiliated with the Department of Psychology at Villanova University in Villanova, Pennsylvania, United States.

Dr. Deborah Kendzierski has contributed extensively to the fields of social, health, and exercise psychology, focusing on self-schema theory, behavioral maintenance, and cognitive determinants of exercise adherence. Inquiries regarding original institutional affiliations and scholarly development may be addressed through the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Villanova University. Kenneth J. DeCarlo collaborated on the foundational experimental protocols and statistical validation studies that established the instrument’s robust psychometric foundation.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) is to quantify the subjective psychological experience of enjoyment that an individual derives from engaging in physical exercise. Historically, public health interventions and exercise prescriptions have overemphasized rationalistic, cognitive, and biomedical rationales—such as cardiovascular disease prevention, body composition management, and all-cause mortality reduction. However, empirical investigations in health psychology consistently demonstrate that cognitive knowledge of health benefits is insufficient to sustain long-term behavioral change. Instead, affective experiences during and immediately following exercise act as primary determinants of sustained participation. PACES was designed to fill a methodological void by providing a standardized, reliable, and psychometrically robust metric capable of assessing this acute, state-dependent affective construct.

In clinical and translational research, PACES is widely employed to evaluate how different exercise interventions impact patient affect. Clinicians and exercise physiologists use the scale to compare protocols—such as high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT)—to determine which modalities elicit more favorable psychological responses. Given that negative affect during exercise can lead to behavioral avoidance, identifying exercise prescriptions that foster high PACES scores is critical for maximizing compliance in sedentary, obese, or chronically ill populations undergoing cardiac rehabilitation or metabolic conditioning.

Within academic research, PACES facilitates the empirical testing of major behavioral frameworks, including Self-Determination Theory and hedonic theory. Researchers utilize the instrument to explore how environmental manipulation (e.g., music tempo, social support, immersive virtual reality, or outdoor green exercise environments) modulates acute enjoyment. Furthermore, PACES serves as an explanatory mediator between physiological intensity markers (such as blood lactate thresholds and ventilatory breakpoints) and long-term exercise adherence, offering researchers an indispensable measurement tool to unravel the mind-body dynamics of physical exertion.

5. Psychological Construct

The core construct measured by the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale is physical activity enjoyment, conceptualized as an optimal, multi-faceted positive affective state characterized by feelings of pleasure, absorption, invigorating energy, and psychological fulfillment directly elicited by bodily movement. Rather than reflecting a stable, immutable personality trait, PACES evaluates a dynamic psychological state that fluctuates in response to the nature, intensity, context, and personal meaning of an activity bout.

Enjoyment within this framework transcends mere sensory hedonism; it involves a complex synthesis of cognitive appraisals and affective reactions. The 18 items of the scale systematically capture multiple interconnected facets of this construct:

• Affective Valence and Hedonic Tone: Evaluated through items contrasting enjoyment with hatred (Item 1), dislike with liking (Item 3), and unpleasantness with pleasantness (Item 9). This reflects the basic hedonic continuum of positive versus negative affect.
• Cognitive Engagement and Absorption: Addressed by items examining boredom versus interest (Item 2) and deep task absorption (Item 5). This dimension reflects the cognitive absorption characteristic of flow states, where self-consciousness diminishes and the individual becomes fully engaged in the ongoing movement.
• Somatic and Energetic Sensation: Probed through items assessing whether the activity feels energizing versus tiring (Item 7), physically good versus physically bad (Item 10), and invigorating (Item 11) or refreshing (Item 17). This captures the interoceptive appraisal of physiological arousal.
• Psychological Vitality and Emotional Uplift: Reflected in items assessing whether the experience induces feelings of depression versus happiness (Item 8) or stimulation (Item 15) and exhilaration (Item 14).
• Competence and Efficacy Appraisal: Captured through items evaluating personal gratification (Item 13) and feelings of success (Item 16), linking enjoyment directly to the psychological experience of mastery and accomplishment.
• Behavioral Teleology and Opportunity Cost: Reflected in Item 18 (“I felt as though I would rather be doing something else”), which quantifies the subjective valuation of the activity relative to competing behavioral alternatives.

Importantly, while PACES evaluates these diverse experiential elements, factor analytic evidence overwhelmingly supports their integration into a single, cohesive higher-order unidimensional construct: generalized physical activity enjoyment. Each item reflects a distinct phenomenological thread of an integrated affective-cognitive state that determines whether an individual perceives an activity bout as intrinsically rewarding.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of PACES draws heavily from established frameworks of human motivation and affective psychology, notably Self-Determination Theory (SDT) formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, as well as Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Theory of Flow.

Within Self-Determination Theory, intrinsic motivation represents the prototypical expression of human autonomy and self-actualization, characterized by engaging in an activity purely for its inherent satisfaction rather than for separable outcomes. PACES operationalizes the experiential component of intrinsic motivation within the physical domain. According to Cognitive Evaluation Theory (a sub-theory of SDT), events that facilitate feelings of competence and autonomy foster intrinsic motivation, which manifests phenotypically as acute enjoyment. When an exercise environment supports an individual’s psychological needs, the somatic sensations of exertion are appraised positively, generating elevated PACES scores. Conversely, controlling or coercive exercise environments generate negative affective valence, manifest as boredom, frustration, and a desire to be elsewhere.

Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow provides a complementary theoretical lens. Flow is characterized as an autotelic experience occurring when there is an optimal balance between an individual’s perceived skills and the situational challenges of the activity. Central markers of flow include deep concentration, merging of action and awareness, loss of reflective self-consciousness, and intrinsic reward. Several PACES items directly mirror these theoretical indicators (e.g., “I am very absorbed in this activity”, “It gives me a strong feeling of success”). Thus, PACES measures the affective culmination of an autotelic, flow-like state achieved during movement.

Furthermore, PACES aligns with modern hedonic and dual-mode theories of physical activity, such as Panteleimon Ekkekakis’s Dual-Mode Model. This model posits that affective responses to exercise are governed by an interplay between cognitive appraisals (prefrontal cortex) and interoceptive somatic cues (subcortical pathways). At exercise intensities below or near the ventilatory threshold, cognitive appraisals of autonomy, mastery, and self-efficacy predominate, generating positive affective valence. PACES captures these conscious, reflective appraisals of the exercise bout, providing a standardized psychometric reflection of the overall affective valence generated by physical activity.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of PACES has been substantiated through extensive empirical research across diverse demographics, exercise intensities, and experimental designs.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In their seminal 1991 paper, Kendzierski and DeCarlo evaluated construct validity through two distinct experimental studies involving college students performing aerobic exercise (e.g., stationary cycling, jogging). Principal components analysis supported a robust, overarching unidimensional structure, with factor loadings for the 18 items consistently exceeding .40, and the primary factor accounting for a substantial proportion of the total variance. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted across pediatric cohorts (e.g., Motl et al., 2001) and clinical groups have confirmed that the items reliably load onto an overarching latent enjoyment factor, provided error covariances between similarly worded positive and negative polarity items are methodologically modeled.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

PACES demonstrates strong convergent validity when benchmarked against established psychometric measures of affect and motivation. Studies evaluating exercise bouts show significant, positive correlations between PACES scores and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) interest/enjoyment subscale (typically $r = .70$ to $.85$). Additionally, PACES scores correlate positively with post-exercise measures of energetic arousal and positive engagement on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and the Subjective Exercise Experiences Scale (SEES). Conversely, PACES correlates negatively with post-exercise psychological distress, exhaustion, and state anxiety, establishing clear concurrent affective alignment.

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing weak or non-significant correlations between PACES and constructs such as social desirability bias, generalized intelligence, and baseline health knowledge. Moreover, while PACES correlates moderately with perceived exertion (Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion, RPE) during high-intensity intervals, it diverges sharply at sub-maximal and self-selected intensities, proving that perceived physical effort is conceptually and empirically distinct from affective enjoyment.

Predictively, PACES is a reliable predictor of behavioral adherence. Longitudinal studies in behavioral medicine indicate that higher PACES scores recorded during early exercise interventions significantly predict exercise frequency, volume, and retention at 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments, even after controlling for baseline physical fitness, body mass index, and explicit health intentions.

8. Reliability

The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale exhibits exceptional reliability across various experimental conditions and diverse demographic profiles.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies by Kendzierski and DeCarlo (1991), internal consistency was determined to be exceptionally high, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of $.93$ in Study 1 and $.93$ in Study 2. Subsequent validation studies evaluating the original 18-item scale across various contexts have replicated these figures, with alpha coefficients consistently spanning the $.90$ to $.96$ range:

• Adult Aerobic Training: Internal consistency estimates routinely exceed $\alpha = .91$, indicating high homogeneity of items assessing the target construct.
• Pediatric and Adolescent Cohorts: Modified adaptations and original administrations report internal consistency reliability coefficients between $.88$ and $.94$.
• Clinical and Rehabilitation Populations: Studies administering PACES to patients with cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, or osteoarthritis demonstrate alpha values typically exceeding $.92$.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because PACES is designed primarily as a state-based measure assessing enjoyment of a specific, acute bout of activity, test-retest reliability must be interpreted within standardized activity contexts. In study designs where participants engaged in identical, standardized submaximal cycle ergometer protocols under uniform environmental conditions across a one-week interval, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from $.78$ to $.89$. These figures indicate high temporal stability when the physical stimulus and personal condition remain consistent, while preserving the scale’s sensitivity to detect genuine changes in affect resulting from environmental, musical, or protocol manipulations.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structure of PACES has been scrutinized through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across various populations and translations.

Initial Exploratory Factor Analysis

Kendzierski and DeCarlo (1991) performed exploratory factor analysis on the original 18 items using principal components extraction. The analysis revealed a strong single-factor solution accounting for the predominant variance. All 18 items demonstrated substantial positive factor loadings on this general enjoyment factor, with loading magnitudes ranging from $.45$ to $.83$. The Scree test confirmed a substantial drop-off between the first and second eigenvalues, justifying the aggregation of all items into a single composite score.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Method Effects

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses, most notably by Motl and colleagues (2001) as well as Mullen et al. (2011), evaluated the original 18-item structure. Initial one-factor CFA models comprising all 18 items often yielded borderline goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., $\chi^2/df > 3.0$, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] $\approx .85-.89$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] $\approx .08-.10$). Methodological investigations revealed that these fit challenges were driven not by multi-dimensional psychological constructs, but by a well-documented psychometric phenomenon: method effects associated with item valence.

When CFAs allow the error terms of positively phrased items to correlate (or model a specific methodological factor for negatively keyed reverse items), the single-factor model achieves excellent goodness-of-fit indices (CFI $ge .95$, TLI $ge .94$, RMSEA $le .05$). This confirms that the construct of physical activity enjoyment assessed by PACES is unidimensional, and that multi-factor solutions typically reflect artifactual clustering driven by reverse-worded items rather than distinct conceptual dimensions.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale is structured as follows:

• Construct Assessed: Acute state-based physical activity enjoyment.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digital computerized survey.
• Administration Window: Administered during activity or immediately post-bout (typically within 5–15 minutes following cessation of exercise).
• Number of Items: 18 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point bipolar semantic differential rating scale (1 to 7) anchored by opposite statements at each pole.
• Item Polarity and Reverse Scoring:
  • Positively keyed items (where 7 represents maximum enjoyment on the right pole): Items 2, 3, 6, 8, 15, and 18.
  • Negatively keyed items requiring reverse scoring (where the right pole represents low enjoyment or where item anchors are reversed): Specifically, the scoring key dictates that items with positive anchors on the left (or opposite orientation) must be converted so that higher numerical values systematically reflect greater enjoyment. Following the canonical scoring protocol: Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are reverse scored (e.g., $1=7, 2=6, 3=5, 4=4, 5=3, 6=2, 7=1$) according to the specific layout of pole anchors.
• Scoring Procedure: Following reverse-scoring transformations, responses across all 18 items are summed together.
• Total Score Range: Minimum possible score is 18; maximum possible score is 126. Higher composite values indicate higher levels of physical activity enjoyment. Mean item scoring (sum divided by 18) can also be derived, yielding a 1 to 7 interpretative scale.

11. Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale was published in 1991 by Deborah Kendzierski and Kenneth J. DeCarlo in the Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. The instrument was developed within an academic research context and is considered open access for academic, educational, non-commercial, and clinical research purposes.

No fee is required for the administrative use of PACES in non-funded academic research, individual clinical exercise testing, or student theses. Proper academic citation of the foundational 1991 paper is standard ethical requirement. Commercial platforms, corporate digital wellness platforms, or commercial applications seeking to integrate PACES within fee-based proprietary software should consult the copyright holder (Human Kinetics, publisher of the Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology) or the primary authors regarding commercial licensing permissions.

12. References

Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K. J. (1991). Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale: Two validation studies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.13.1.50

Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Felton, G., & Pate, R. R. (2001). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00326-9

Mullen, S. P., Olson, E. A., Phillips, S. M., Szabo, A. N., Wójcicki, T. R., Mailey, E. L., Gothe, N. P., Fanning, J. T., Kramer, A. F., & McAuley, E. (2011). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in older adults: Invariance of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) across groups and time. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, Article 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-103

Crocker, P. R. E., Bouffard, M., & Michaud, D. (1995). Measuring enjoyment in physical activity: The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(2), 200–205. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.17.2.200

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

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

13. Items of the Scale