Sport Motivation Scale (SMS)

1. Abstract

The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS), originally developed in French as the Échelle de Motivation dans les Sports (ÉMS; Brière et al., 1995) and subsequently validated in English by Pelletier et al. (1995), represents one of the most widely utilized psychometric instruments in sport psychology. Anchored in Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), the classic SMS-28 assesses contextual motivation toward sport participation across seven distinct dimensions. These dimensions operationalize the continuum of self-determination, comprising three subtypes of intrinsic motivation (Intrinsic Motivation to Know, Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplish Things, and Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation), three forms of extrinsic motivation arranged along an increasing continuum of autonomy (External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, and Identified Regulation), and amotivation.

The instrument consists of 28 self-report items administered via a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“Does not apply at all”) to 5 (“Applies exactly”), although original adaptations also evaluated 7-point formats. Extensive psychometric evaluations demonstrate adequate to high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients generally ranging from .70 to .85 across subscales, acceptable test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals, and a confirmed seven-factor orthogonal and oblique structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Criterion-related and construct validity studies show robust simplex-pattern correlation matrices consistent with SDT assumptions, revealing positive associations between autonomous motivational profiles and adaptive athletic outcomes such as athletic persistence, psychological well-being, flow, and perceived competence, alongside negative associations with athletic burnout and dropout. Subsequent revisions, including the SMS-6 (Mallett et al., 2007) and the Revised Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-II; Pelletier et al., 2013), have further refined item formulation and integrated integrated regulation, solidifying the instrument's legacy as a cornerstone of athletic motivation assessment.

2. Keywords

Sport Motivation Scale, SMS-28, Self-Determination Theory, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation, autonomous regulation, sports psychology, psychometrics, athletic persistence

3. Authors

The primary authors responsible for the inception, theoretical adaptation, and psychometric validation of the Sport Motivation Scale include:

• Luc G. Pelletier, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Specialization: Motivation, Self-Determination Theory, health psychology, and physical activity.
• Michelle S. Fortier, Ph.D. — Professor, School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Specialization: Physical activity promotion, motivational psychology, and exercise adoption.
• Robert J. Vallerand, Ph.D. — Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Laboratoire de Recherche sur le Comportement Social (LRCS), Département de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, Québec, Canada. Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association. Specialization: Passion, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (HMIEM).
• Kim M. Tuson, Ph.D. — Researcher affiliated with the University of Ottawa during scale inception, contributing to cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric calibration.
• Nathalie M. Brière, Ph.D. — Co-developer of the foundational French instrument (Échelle de Motivation dans les Sports, ÉMS), Université du Québec à Montréal.
• Marc R. Blais, Ph.D. — Co-developer of the original theoretical framework and scale architecture, Université du Québec à Montréal.

4. Purpose

The Sport Motivation Scale was engineered to resolve critical methodological limitations in sport psychology research concerning the measurement of multidimensional athletic drive. Prior to the establishment of the SMS, sport researchers frequently relied on either unidimensional conceptualizations of motivation (e.g., assessing solely the magnitude or intensity of effort) or simplistic dichotomous paradigms distinguishing solely between intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Such models failed to capture the nuanced qualitative distinctions in human volition and behavioral regulation articulated by Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination Theory.

The overarching purpose of the SMS is to assess why athletes engage in training, compete, and sustain their participation in organized sports. The questionnaire prompts athletes with the root stem: “Why Do You Practice Your Sport?”, measuring the degree to which an individual's behavioral engagement is self-determined (driven by internal desires, values, and inherent enjoyment) versus controlled (driven by external rewards, social praise, internal guilt, or compulsion), or non-regulated (characterized by feelings of incompetence and lack of perceived control).

In research contexts, the SMS serves as a foundational instrument for testing complex structural models, including Vallerand's Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (HMIEM). Investigators deploy the scale to examine how coaching climates (autonomy-supportive vs. controlling coaching styles), peer group dynamics, and competitive structures influence athletes' basic psychological need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and subsequent psychological, affective, and behavioral outcomes. In applied clinical and sport consultation settings, sports psychologists, performance coaches, and athletic directors utilize the SMS to diagnose motivational deficits, evaluate the etiology of performance slumps, anticipate athletic burnout, and design intervention programs tailored to cultivate autonomous behavioral regulation, reduce attrition, and foster long-term athletic development.

5. Psychological Construct

The SMS operationalizes the motivational continuum postulated by Self-Determination Theory into seven distinct subscales, containing four items each in the 28-item version:

Intrinsic Motivation Subtypes

Within SDT and Vallerand's tripartite taxonomy, intrinsic motivation represents engaging in sport purely for its inherent satisfaction, sensory pleasure, and self-actualization:

• Intrinsic Motivation to Know (IM-Know): Reflects engaging in an athletic discipline for the pleasure and cognitive satisfaction experienced while learning, exploring, or understanding new movements, techniques, and tactical strategies (e.g., Item 2: “For the pleasure it gives me to know more about the sport that I practice”; Item 4: “For the pleasure of discovering new training techniques”).
• Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplish Things (IM-Accomplish): Focuses on the internal enjoyment derived from striving to master difficult training routines, surmounting physical challenges, refining technical skills, and achieving personal mastery (e.g., Item 8: “Because I feel a lot of personal satisfaction while mastering certain difficult training techniques”; Item 15: “For the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities”).
• Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation (IM-Stimulation): Captures engagement driven by the sensory pleasures, intense positive affect, aesthetic experiences, and kinesthetic sensations associated with sport execution (e.g., Item 1: “For the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences”; Item 18: “For the intense emotions that I feel while I am doing a sport that I like”).

Extrinsic Motivation Subtypes

Extrinsic motivation encompasses behaviors performed as an instrumental means to an end rather than for their inherent enjoyment, differentiated along an autonomy continuum:

• Identified Regulation: Represents the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation measured in the SMS-28. The athlete engages in the sport because they consciously value its utility for personal growth, health, or broader identity aspirations, experiencing the activity as an autonomous choice (e.g., Item 7: “Because, in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to meet people”; Item 11: “Because it is one of the best ways I have chosen to develop other aspects of myself”).
• Introjected Regulation: Represents a non-autonomous, internally pressured form of regulation wherein behavior is motivated by internal sanctions such as guilt, anxiety, ego-enhancement, or avoiding self-recrimination (e.g., Item 9: “Because it is absolutely necessary to do sports if one wants to be in shape”; Item 14: “Because I must do sports to feel good about myself”; Item 21: “Because I would feel bad if I was not taking time to do it”).
• External Regulation: Characterized by behaviors controlled strictly by external contingencies, such as material rewards, peer praise, coach coercion, or the pursuit of social status (e.g., Item 6: “Because it allows me to be well regarded by people that I know”; Item 10: “For the prestige of being an athlete”; Item 22: “To show others how good I am at my sport”).

Amotivation

Amotivation stands at the far left end of the self-determination continuum, defining states wherein an athlete perceives a total absence of contingency between actions and outcomes. Driven by feelings of incompetence, lack of value, or perceived helplessness, amotivated athletes question their continued engagement in the sport (e.g., Item 3: “I used to have good reasons for doing sports, but now I am asking myself if I should continue doing it”; Item 5: “I don't know anymore; I have the impression that I am incapable of succeeding in this sport”; Item 19: “It is not clear to me anymore; I don't really think my place is in sport”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the SMS is fundamentally grounded in Self-Determination Theory formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (1985, 2000), integrated with Robert J. Vallerand's Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (HMIEM; Vallerand, 1997).

Organismic Integration Theory (OIT)

Within SDT, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) posits that motivation is not a monolithic construct varying solely in magnitude, but rather a differentiated phenomenon varying in its degree of autonomy or self-determination. OIT outlines a taxonomic continuum running from amotivation, through external, introjected, identified, and integrated regulation, culminating in intrinsic motivation. The SMS captures these qualitative differences, illustrating how behaviors initially driven by external contingencies can become progressively internalized into an athlete's sense of self.

Vallerand's Tripartite Model of Intrinsic Motivation

Vallerand and colleagues (1992, 1995) expanded Deci and Ryan's unitary conceptualization of intrinsic motivation into a tripartite taxonomy: to know, to accomplish things, and to experience stimulation. This subdivision addresses the diverse phenomenological experiences found in athletic settings, where an athlete may be intrinsically stimulated by physical adrenaline (stimulation), motivated by the analytical mastery of game tactics (to know), or driven by personal execution records (to accomplish).

The Simplex Pattern Assumption

A central theoretical assumption of the SDT continuum is the simplex pattern (Guttman, 1954). This psychometric property specifies that subscales conceptually adjacent on the self-determination continuum (e.g., Identified Regulation and Intrinsic Motivation) must demonstrate stronger positive intercorrelations than subscales located at opposing poles (e.g., Intrinsic Motivation versus Amotivation). Empirical confirmation of this quasi-circumplex or simplex correlation structure serves as the primary theoretical verification of the scale's construct validity.

7. Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established the validity of the Sport Motivation Scale across diverse competitive tiers, developmental stages, and cultural settings:

Construct and Structural Validity

Pelletier et al. (1995) established initial construct validity across cross-sectional samples of collegiate and club athletes ($N = 593$). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the oblique seven-factor model over competing unidimensional and higher-order formulations. Furthermore, inter-subscale correlations consistently conformed to the theoretical simplex pattern: adjacent subscales demonstrated positive, moderate correlations (e.g., IM-Know with IM-Accomplish, $r = .55$ to $.68$), whereas subscales positioned at opposite poles showed negative or null correlations (e.g., IM-Stimulation with Amotivation, $r = -.18$ to $-.34$).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The scale exhibits robust convergent validity when evaluated alongside related motivational constructs. Pelletier et al. (1995) and subsequent investigations (e.g., Li & Harmer, 1996; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003) demonstrated that autonomous forms of regulation (IM subscales and Identified Regulation) correlate positively with mastery-oriented motivational climates (Nicholls' Achievement Goal Theory), perceived athletic competence, task orientation, and dispositional flow. Conversely, external regulation and amotivation demonstrate strong convergence with ego-involved athletic climates, somatic competitive state anxiety, and feelings of sport-related alienation.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The SMS reliably predicts key behavioral, affective, and cognitive outcomes in athletic domains:

• Dropout and Persistence: In a landmark 21-month prospective study of female handballers, Sarrazin et al. (2002) utilized the SMS to predict athletic dropout. Athletes who discontinued participation exhibited significantly lower baseline self-determined motivation and markedly higher amotivation and external regulation compared to those who persisted.
• Athletic Burnout: Research by Cresswell and Eklund (2005) confirmed that higher scores on amotivation and introjected regulation significantly predicted emotional and physical exhaustion, reduced sense of athletic accomplishment, and sport devaluation.
• Well-Being and Flow: Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, and Brière (2001) established that athletes exhibiting self-determined motivational profiles (high intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) reported elevated positive affect, superior concentration during competition, and greater long-term adherence.

8. Reliability

The psychometric stability and internal consistency of the SMS have been corroborated across numerous empirical investigations:

Internal Consistency

In the seminal English validation study by Pelletier et al. (1995), Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the seven subscales demonstrated adequate to strong internal reliability:

• Intrinsic Motivation to Know: $\alpha = .74$
• Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplish Things: $\alpha = .78$
• Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation: $\alpha = .76$
• Identified Regulation: $\alpha = .74$
• Introjected Regulation: $\alpha = .70$
• External Regulation: $\alpha = .76$
• Amotivation: $\alpha = .75$

Cross-cultural validations have largely replicated these parameters. For instance, Doganis (2000) observed alpha values ranging from .69 to .82 in Greek athletic cohorts, while Standage et al. (2003) reported reliabilities between .71 and .84 in British youth sports cohorts. Across published sport psychology literature, internal consistencies for the subscales consistently surpass Nunnally's (1978) threshold of .70, though occasionally introjected regulation hovers between .65 and .72 due to the complexity of capturing ego-involvement and internal pressure within four items.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Pelletier et al. (1995) evaluated the stability of the instrument over a 5-week test-retest interval. Stability coefficients ranged between $.58$ and $.71$ across the subscales (mean test-retest $r = .66$), reflecting acceptable temporal consistency for a contextual motivational construct that fluctuates in response to competitive results, coaching feedback, and seasonal changes.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the SMS-28 was originally derived through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during the development of the French ÉMS, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) during English validation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Evidence

In the structural validation conducted by Pelletier et al. (1995), a seven-factor model containing 28 items was tested against alternative nested models using maximum likelihood estimation. The hypothesized seven-factor model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the empirical data:

• $\chi^2 / \text{df}$ ratio: $2.14$
• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): $.90$
• Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI): $.88$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.91$
• Root Mean Square Residual (RMR): $.048$

All 28 items displayed significant factor loadings onto their specified latent factors, with standardized factor loadings ranging from $.48$ to $.81$ ($p < .001$), confirming that the observed indicators meaningfully represent the theoretical constructs.

Psychometric Debates and Structural Revisions

Despite its widespread adoption, several psychometricians (e.g., Martens & Webber, 2002; Mallett et al., 2007) highlighted areas for refinement in the SMS-28. Key critiques focused on: (a) lower factor loadings on specific items within the introjected regulation and identified regulation subscales, (b) the absence of an integrated regulation subscale—the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, and (c) modest model fit indices when tested across diverse competitive cultures. These psychometric dialogues catalyzed two major advancements:

1. The SMS-6 (Mallett et al., 2007): A 24-item instrument retaining 4 items per subscale that introduced an Integrated Regulation subscale and collapsed the tripartite intrinsic subscales into a unified 4-item intrinsic motivation dimension (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .054).
2. The Revised Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-II; Pelletier et al., 2013): An 18-item redesign (3 items per subscale) incorporating Intrinsic, Integrated, Identified, Introjected, External, and Amotivated regulations. SMS-II addressed cross-loading issues, refreshed wording to better align with current SDT nomenclature, and demonstrated improved model fit indices (CFI = .95, RMSEA = .049).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The standard Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-28) is structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Multidimensional psychometric self-report rating scale.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized online survey.
• Target Population: Adolescent and adult competitive or recreational athletes (typically aged 12 years and older).
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Number of Items: 28 declarative statements.
• Instructional Prompt: “Why Do You Practice Your Sport?”
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Does not apply at all
  • 2 = Applies a little
  • 3 = Applies moderately
  • 4 = Applies a lot
  • 5 = Applies exactly
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Intrinsic Motivation – to know: Items 2, 4, 23, 27
  • Intrinsic Motivation – to accomplish: Items 8, 12, 15, 20
  • Intrinsic Motivation – to experience stimulation: Items 1, 13, 18, 25
  • Extrinsic Motivation – identified: Items 7, 11, 17, 24
  • Extrinsic Motivation – introjected: Items 9, 14, 21, 26
  • Extrinsic Motivation – external regulation: Items 6, 10, 16, 22
  • Amotivation: Items 3, 5, 19, 28
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale Mean Scores: Calculated by summing the scores of the 4 items within each subscale and dividing by 4, producing a mean profile score ranging from 1.0 to 5.0 for each motivational dimension.
  • Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) / Self-Determination Index (SDI): Researchers often combine subscale scores into a single composite score reflecting overall autonomous regulation using theoretical weighting formulas:
    
    $$\text{SDI} = 2 \times (\text{IM}_{\text{mean}}) + 1 \times (\text{Identified}) – 1 \times (\text{Introjected}) – 2 \times (\text{External}) – 3 \times (\text{Amotivation})$$
    
    (where $\text{IM}_{\text{mean}}$ is the combined average of the three intrinsic motivation subscales). Higher positive values indicate higher autonomous self-determination, whereas negative values reflect non-self-determined or controlled motivation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The English Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-28) was officially published in 1995 by Luc G. Pelletier and colleagues in the Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, following the original French validation (Échelle de Motivation dans les Sports) published in 1995 in the International Journal of Sport Psychology.

The scale is open-access for academic, scientific, and non-commercial educational purposes. The authors, affiliated with the University of Ottawa and the Laboratoire de Recherche sur le Comportement Social at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), made the instrument freely accessible to promote motivational research in athletics. Commercial entities, proprietary digital platforms, or applications charging user fees must obtain written permission from the lead author (Dr. Luc G. Pelletier) or respective copyright holders. Researchers using the scale are requested to cite the original validation papers.

12. References

• Brière, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1995). Développment et validation d’une mesure de motivation intrinsèque, extrinsèque et d’amotivation en contexte sportif: L’Échelle de Motivation dans les Sports (ÉMS). International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(4), 465–489.
• Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2005). Changes in athlete burnout and motivation over a 12-week league tournament. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(11), 1957–1966. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000176304.14597.77
• 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
• Doganis, G. (2000). Development of a Greek version of the Sport Motivation Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90(2), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2000.90.2.505
• Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Testing the simplex assumption underlying the Sport Motivation Scale: A structural equation modeling analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(4), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607971
• Mallett, C. J., 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
• Martens, M. P., & Webber, S. N. (2002). Psychometric properties of the Sport Motivation Scale: An evaluation with college athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(3), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.3.254
• 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), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.17.1.35
• Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014805132406
• Pelletier, L. G., Rocchi, M. A., Vallerand, R. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Validation of the revised sport motivation scale (SMS-II). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.002
• Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L. G., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.98
• Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., & Pelletier, L. G. (2007). The revised six-factor Sport Motivation Scale (Mallett, Kawabata, Newcombe, Otero-Forero, & Jackson, 2007): Something old, something new, and something borrowed. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(5), 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.03.003
• Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.97
• 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., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senécal, C., & Vallières, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025

13. Items of the Scale