Sport Motivation Scale–6 (SMS-6)

1. Abstract

The Sport Motivation Scale–6 (SMS-6) is a 24-item psychometric instrument developed by Clifford Mallett, Masato Kawabata, Peter Newcombe, Alexandra Otero-Forero, and Susan Jackson (2007) to measure the multidimensional spectrum of human motivation in athletic contexts. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), the instrument addresses structural and theoretical limitations identified in the original 28-item Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., 1995). Specifically, the SMS-6 introduces an integrated regulation subscale—a fundamental form of autonomous extrinsic motivation previously omitted in sport instruments—while refining the operationalization of intrinsic motivation into a unified, parsimonious four-item construct.

The scale encompasses six distinct latent factors composed of four items each: Amotivation, External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, Integrated Regulation, and Intrinsic Motivation. Respondents evaluate items using an authentic 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Does not correspond at all”) to 7 (“Corresponds exactly”) in response to the foundational query: “Why do you practice your sport?” Psychometric evaluations across diverse competitive levels—from collegiate athletes to elite international competitors—demonstrate sound structural integrity, robust factor loadings (λ ≥ .50 for the majority of items), acceptable internal consistency reliability (α coefficients typically ranging from .70 to .86 across dimensions), and clear simplex-like patterns supporting the self-determination continuum. The SMS-6 remains a benchmark self-report measurement tool across coaching science, sport psychology, athletic development, and exercise adherence investigations.

2. Keywords

Sport Motivation Scale-6, SMS-6, Self-Determination Theory, athletic motivation, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, amotivation, psychometrics, sport psychology

3. Authors

The Sport Motivation Scale–6 was conceptualized, constructed, and validated by an international team of researchers specializing in sport psychology, human movement, and psychometrics:

• Clifford J. Mallett, PhD: School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Primary research interests center on sports coaching, elite performance environments, coach development, and motivational climates in sport. (Email: [email protected]).
• Masato Kawabata, PhD: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Specializes in structural equation modeling, psychometric measurement, physical education, and motivational psychology.
• Peter A. Newcombe, PhD: School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Expert in quantitative methodology, psychometrics, and developmental health psychology.
• Alexandra Otero-Forero, MPsych: School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Applied sport psychology practitioner and researcher.
• Susan A. Jackson, PhD: School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Renowned authority on optimal experience, flow states in elite sport, and psychological well-being.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sport Motivation Scale–6 is to provide sport psychologists, collegiate athletic departments, high-performance coaches, and exercise researchers with a comprehensive, psychometrically robust self-report tool capable of capturing the nuanced qualitative differences in why individuals participate in athletic endeavors. Motivation is not a monolithic construct defined solely by quantity or intensity; rather, the quality of an athlete’s motivational orientation determines psychological persistence, cognitive engagement, physiological burnout, affective well-being, and competitive performance under high-pressure conditions.

Prior to the development of the SMS-6, the widely utilized Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., 1995)—a direct translation and adaptation of the French Échelle de Motivation dans les Sports (Brière et al., 1995)—dominated the sport psychology literature. However, substantial theoretical and structural critique arose during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Most critically, the original SMS failed to operationalize integrated regulation, which represents the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation within Organismic Integration Theory (OIT). Integrated regulation occurs when behavioral values are completely synthesized with an individual’s personal identity, core values, and lifestyle. By omitting this regulatory style, previous instruments could not fully map the autonomous-controlling spectrum in sport.

Furthermore, the original SMS divided intrinsic motivation into three separate subscales: intrinsic motivation to know, to accomplish, and to experience stimulation (Vallerand, 1997). Extensive empirical evaluations revealed high multicollinearity and overlapping error variances among these three intrinsic facets, leading to model misfit in confirmatory factor analyses. The purpose of the SMS-6 was therefore twofold: first, to establish a theoretically complete six-factor architecture incorporating integrated regulation; and second, to construct a psychometrically cleaner, parsimonious measure where intrinsic motivation is consolidated into a singular four-item dimension while preserving distinct extrinsic and amotivational regulators.

In applied and clinical sport psychology, the SMS-6 serves as a diagnostic instrument. Practitioners utilize baseline profiles to assess athlete susceptibility to overtraining syndrome, amotivational dropout, and performance anxiety driven by introjected or external pressures. In research environments, the scale acts as an essential dependent, mediator, or moderator variable in intervention studies evaluating coach-created autonomy-supportive versus controlling climates.

5. Psychological Construct

The SMS-6 measures six distinct psychological constructs arranged along a dynamic continuum of self-determination, moving from complete lack of self-determination (amotivation) to controlled extrinsic forms, autonomous extrinsic forms, and ultimately full self-determination (intrinsic motivation):

Amotivation

Amotivation represents the total absence of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. An amotivated athlete perceives a lack of contingency between their actions and outcomes, experiencing feelings of incompetence, lack of control, and helplessness. Athletes high in amotivation frequently question their continued participation, perceive their investment of time as futile, and report feeling incapable of succeeding (e.g., “I don’t really know; I really feel that I am wasting my time in sports”).

External Regulation

External regulation denotes the least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. Here, behavior is guided and maintained entirely by external contingencies, such as material rewards, praise, social approval, coercion, or the avoidance of punishment. Athletes driven by external regulation participate primarily because external agents demand it or to obtain social recognition (e.g., “To show others how good I am at my sport” or “Because people around me think it is important to be in shape”). If external reinforcements are withdrawn, behavioral compliance rapidly diminishes.

Introjected Regulation

Introjected regulation represents an internally driven yet controlled form of motivation. The individual has internalized the behavioral demand, but it has not been integrated into the core self. Instead, actions are performed to avoid internal negative affects such as guilt, shame, and self-reproach, or to attain ego-enhancement and contingent self-worth (e.g., “Because I must do sports to feel good about myself” and “Because I would feel guilty if I was not taking time to do it”). Although internal, introjection retains an external locus of causality characterized by tension and intrapsychic conflict.

Identified Regulation

Identified regulation reflects an autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. The athlete consciously values the activity and perceives its outcomes as personally meaningful and instrumental for self-selected personal growth, even if the activity itself is not intrinsically enjoyable (e.g., “Because it is a good way to learn lots of things which could be useful to me in other areas of my life”). The locus of causality is perceived as internal because the individual willingly accepts the utility of the sport.

Integrated Regulation

Integrated regulation represents the most mature and self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. At this level, identified regulations are fully harmonized and assimilated with the individual’s broader belief system, deeper life principles, and identity (e.g., “Because participation in my sport is a fundamental part of who I am” and “Because participation in my sport is consistent with my deeper principles”). Although still extrinsic—in that the activity is pursued for outcomes rather than pure task-inherent enjoyment—the behavior is fully authentic, autonomous, and self-endorsed.

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation represents the prototypic manifestation of self-determination. The athlete engages in sport purely for the inherent pleasure, fun, excitement, and personal satisfaction derived directly from the movement, execution of skills, and masterly exploration (e.g., “For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity” and “For the sheer pleasure of learning new things in my sport”). It is autonomous, self-governing, and associated with flow experiences, affective well-being, and sustained long-term commitment.

6. Theoretical Framework

The SMS-6 is strictly embedded within Self-Determination Theory, a macro-theory of human motivation, personality development, and psychological wellness established by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. Two foundational sub-theories within SDT directly inform the architecture of the SMS-6: Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) and Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT).

Organismic Integration Theory posits that humans possess an innate natural tendency toward integrating ambient socio-cultural practices and regulatory demands into a coherent sense of self. OIT details the self-determination continuum, rejecting the simplistic dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Instead, extrinsic motivation is differentiated based on the degree to which behavioral regulation has been internalized. The continuum flows sequentially from Non-Regulation (Amotivation) → External Regulation → Introjected Regulation → Identified Regulation → Integrated Regulation → Intrinsic Regulation. A crucial theoretical axiom of this continuum is the simplex pattern: adjacent subscales (e.g., identified regulation and integrated regulation) should exhibit higher positive correlations with each other than non-adjacent subscales (e.g., external regulation and intrinsic motivation), while constructs at opposing ends of the continuum should exhibit strong negative or orthogonal associations.

Basic Psychological Needs Theory asserts that self-determined motivation and psychological flourishing depend upon the satisfaction of three fundamental, universal psychological needs:

• Autonomy: The perceived experience of volition, agency, and psychological freedom, wherein actions originate from the self.
• Competence: The feeling of mastery, effectiveness, and capacity to interact optimally with challenging environments.
• Relatedness: The experience of belonging, interpersonal connection, and authentic care within a social group.

Within sport environments, when coaches and institutional structures nurture these three basic needs, athletes successfully internalize regulatory processes, progressing from controlling external/introjected regulations toward identified, integrated, and intrinsic modes of functioning. Conversely, thwarting these basic psychological needs precipitates controlling regulations, ego defensiveness, amotivation, and burnout.

7. Validity

The validity of the SMS-6 has been empirically examined across multiple national samples, competitive tiers, and translational research programs:

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the seminal validation study by Mallett et al. (2007), cross-sectional confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on a primary cohort of Australian university and club athletes (N = 597) and cross-validated on an independent cohort (N = 557). The hypothesized six-factor model yielded satisfactory fit indices (χ²/df ≤ 2.50, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .055, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] ≤ .058), significantly outperforming both the original seven-factor model of the SMS and competing five-factor models that collapsed integrated and identified regulations.

Simplex Pattern and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the emergence of the theoretical simplex-like pattern across the correlation matrix. Mallett et al. (2007) and subsequent studies (e.g., Kawabata et al., 2008; Perreault et al., 2007) confirmed that intrinsic motivation correlates positively with integrated regulation (r ≈ .65 to .75) and identified regulation (r ≈ .50 to .60), correlates weakly or negatively with introjected and external regulation, and exhibits a strong negative relationship with amotivation (r ≈ -.35 to -.50). Conversely, amotivation correlates most positively with external regulation and negatively with autonomous indices.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The predictive utility of the SMS-6 has been evaluated against relevant cognitive, affective, and behavioral criteria. Autonomous regulations (Intrinsic, Integrated, Identified) consistently predict positive outcomes including task involvement, flow state occurrences, perceived vitality, sport enjoyment, and deliberate practice hours. In contrast, controlled regulations (Introjected, External) and Amotivation predict maladaptive indices including competitive anxiety, state cognitive disruption, negative affect, fear of failure, and athlete burnout dimensions (emotional/physical exhaustion, sport devaluation).

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the SMS-6 have been rigorously documented across numerous empirical evaluations:

Internal Consistency

In the initial psychometric validation across two distinct samples (Mallett et al., 2007), Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability estimates for the six subscales demonstrated acceptable to strong internal consistency:

• Amotivation: α = .78 (Sample 1), .81 (Sample 2)
• External Regulation: α = .74 (Sample 1), .77 (Sample 2)
• Introjected Regulation: α = .70 (Sample 1), .73 (Sample 2)
• Identified Regulation: α = .70 (Sample 1), .75 (Sample 2)
• Integrated Regulation: α = .76 (Sample 1), .79 (Sample 2)
• Intrinsic Motivation: α = .80 (Sample 1), .82 (Sample 2)

Subsequent psychometric examinations by Kawabata et al. (2008) utilizing composite reliability (ρ_c) corroborated these findings, yielding values generally exceeding the conventional .70 threshold across diverse athletic populations, although introjected and identified regulation subscales occasionally hover between .68 and .72 due to the compact four-item length.

Test-Retest Stability

Evaluations of temporal stability over a 4-week interval among active competitors revealed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging from .72 for introjected regulation to .84 for intrinsic motivation and amotivation. This confirms that while motivational regulations fluctuate in response to environmental conditions and coach interactions, the SMS-6 captures stable trait-like behavioral predispositions over typical competitive training cycles.

9. Factor Analysis

The psychometric structural validation of the SMS-6 utilized rigorous structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) frameworks:

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Findings

Mallett et al. (2007) tested the proposed six-factor, 24-item measurement model using maximum likelihood CFA. Model fit indices supported the theoretical architecture:

• χ² / df ratio = 2.14
• CFI (Comparative Fit Index) = .915
• TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) = .902
• RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) = .048 (90% CI [.043, .053])
• SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) = .053

Factor Loadings

All 24 items demonstrated statistically significant standardized factor loadings (λ) onto their assigned latent constructs (p < .001). Standardized factor loadings across subscales are summarized below:

• Amotivation (Items 3, 5, 13, 19): λ values ranged from .61 to .81, with Item 19 (“I don’t really know; I really feel that I am wasting my time in sports”) demonstrating the highest saturation (λ = .81).
• External Regulation (Items 4, 9, 15, 18): λ values ranged from .54 to .78, with Item 15 (“To show others how good I am at my sport”) consistently showing high factor saturation.
• Introjected Regulation (Items 7, 11, 14, 21): λ values ranged from .51 to .75. Items 7 and 14 captured internal guilt/shame mechanisms effectively.
• Identified Regulation (Items 1, 8, 12, 17): λ values ranged from .52 to .71, with Item 1 (“Because it is one of the best ways I have chosen to develop other aspects of myself”) exhibiting the strongest loading.
• Integrated Regulation (Items 2, 6, 16, 22): λ values ranged from .60 to .79, confirming the coherence of this newly introduced subscale (e.g., Item 16: λ = .77).
• Intrinsic Motivation (Items 10, 20, 23, 24): λ values ranged from .68 to .82, with Item 24 (“For the pleasure and satisfaction I feel in doing sports”) demonstrating highest factor loading (λ = .82).

Independent multi-sample invariance testing (Kawabata et al., 2008) verified configural, metric, and partial scalar invariance across gender (male vs. female athletes) and competitive levels (club vs. elite intercollegiate), establishing that the SMS-6 measures equivalent conceptual structures across athletic sub-populations.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multidimensional self-report psychological rating scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adult athletes (amateur, collegiate, elite, recreational).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or online/digital questionnaire.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 24 items.
• Authentic Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Does not correspond at all
  • 2 = Corresponds very little
  • 3 = Corresponds a little
  • 4 = Corresponds moderately
  • 5 = Corresponds enough
  • 6 = Corresponds a lot
  • 7 = Corresponds exactly
• Subscale Breakdown & Item Allocations:
  • Amotivation (4 items): Items 3, 5, 13, 19
  • External Regulation (4 items): Items 4, 9, 15, 18
  • Introjected Regulation (4 items): Items 7, 11, 14, 21
  • Identified Regulation (4 items): Items 1, 8, 12, 17
  • Integrated Regulation (4 items): Items 2, 6, 16, 22
  • Intrinsic Motivation (4 items): Items 10, 20, 23, 24
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by computing the mean (or sum) of the four designated items within each subscale, yielding subscale score ranges from 1.00 to 7.00 (or 4 to 28).
  • Relative Autonomy Index (RAI): Researchers frequently compute a composite Self-Determination Index (SDI) or RAI using assigned continuum weights: RAI = [(-3 × Amotivation) + (-2 × External Regulation) + (-1 × Introjected Regulation) + (1 × Identified Regulation) + (2 × Integrated Regulation) + (3 × Intrinsic Motivation)]. Higher positive scores denote greater self-determination.
  • Reverse Scoring: None. All items are positively framed with respect to their corresponding regulatory subscale.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sport Motivation Scale–6 (SMS-6) was published in 2007 by Clifford Mallett, Masato Kawabata, Peter Newcombe, Alexandra Otero-Forero, and Susan Jackson in the journal Psychology of Sport and Exercise (Elsevier). The instrument is widely accessible for non-commercial academic, clinical, and scientific research purposes without payment of licensing fees. The authors published the complete 24 items in the original empirical paper to facilitate open scientific inquiry, applied sport psychological intervention, and diagnostic assessment. Researchers and practitioners utilizing the scale should properly cite the primary validation article (Mallett et al., 2007). Commercial distribution, incorporation into commercial software applications, or revenue-generating diagnostic test batteries may require copyright clearance from the publisher (Elsevier B.V.) and the copyright holders.

12. References

• Brière, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1995). Développement et validation d’une mesure de motivation intrinsèque, extrinsèque et d’amotivation en contexte sportif: L’Échelle de Motivation dans les Sports (ÉMS) [Development and validation of a scale of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale]. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(4), 465–489.
• 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
• Kawabata, M., Mallett, C. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). The Sport Motivation Scale-6 and its revised version: An evaluation of their psychometric properties in Australian and Japanese athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(Suppl.), S177.
• Mallett, C., Kawabata, M., Newcombe, P., Otero-Forero, A., & Jackson, S. (2007). Sport Motivation Scale-6 (SMS-6): A revised six-factor sport motivation scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(5), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.12.005
• 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 & Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.17.1.35
• Perreault, S., Gaudreau, P., Lapointe, M. C., & Lacroix, C. (2007). Does it take three to tango? Psychological need satisfaction and athlete burnout. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38(4), 437–450.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28768
• 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

13. Items of the Scale