A Review of Self-Report and Alternative

Educ Psychol Rev (2009) 21:219246
DOI 10.1007/s10648-009-9107-x
REVIEW ARTICLE
A Review of Self-Report and Alternative Approaches

in the Measurement of Student Motivation
Sara M. Fulmer & Jan C. Frijters
Published online: 20 August 2009

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Within psychological and educational research, self-report methodology dominates the study of student motivation. The present review argues that the scope of
motivation research can be expanded by incorporating a wider range of methodologies and
measurement tools. Several authors have suggested that current study of motivation is
overly reliant on self-report measures, warranting a move toward alternative approaches.
This review critiques self-report methodology as a basis for examining alternative
conceptualizations of motivation (e.g., phenomenological, neuropsychological/physiological, and behavioral) and related measurement tools. Future directions in motivational
methodology are addressed, including attempts at integration or combination of these
approaches and a preliminary functional framework for the development of novel,
multidimensional approaches to the study of motivation.
Keywords Motivation . Measurement . Children . Review . Adolescents
Motivation consists of the biological, physiological, social, and cognitive forces that direct
behavior. Motivation has a long history within educational research (see reviews by Ball
1982; Weiner 1992; Young 1950). However, recent research has been driven by a
predominant focus on the cognitive, intrapsychological aspects, discounting the importance
of additional personal and contextual factors in the relationship between motivation and
academic achievement. Past theories of motivation have focused on biological instincts,
drives, and arousal. Current theories of achievement motivation, such as self-determination,
cognitive evaluation, achievement goal, and expectancyvalue theories, predominantly
examine cognitive and, to a lesser extent, social processes that influence motivation for a
particular activity.
S. M. Fulmer
Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA
J. C. Frijters (*)
Departments of Child and Youth Studies & Psychology, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue,
St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada
e-mail: jan.frijters@brocku.ca
220
In order to advance research in this field, we must understand the methodological

deficits currently at play and consider the application of lesser used methodological
approaches to this construct (Hickey 1997). Despite efforts of various approaches to
encapsulate the construct of motivation, a single approach is unable to capture its
complexities. Limited discussion has begun from within various approaches on the value of
incorporating alternative measurement strategies (Byrne 2002; Drnyei 2000; Zimmerman
2008). Alternative approaches differ in how motivation is defined and theorized, the
processes believed to mediate the relationship between motivation and actual behavior, and
the measurement tools and tasks designed to assess motivational states.
The purpose of this review is to survey four diverse methodological traditions and
formats of motivation measurement, supporting the need for the development of novel,
multidimensional methodological strategies. While the following review maintains a close
focus on methods and measures, we provide the following broad definition of motivation,
recognizing that the theoretical heritage of several approaches reviewed below depart
significantly from this definition. Motivation, derived from the Latin root movere, implies
self-directed movement (Pintrich 2003) and represents the primary intrapersonal dynamic
that orients an individual to particular learning goals. Motivation is pre-decisional and
constitutes impulse toward a goal (Heckhausen and Kuhl 1985). Within the framework of
Rheinberg et al. (2000) for how conative (e.g., motivation, volition, achievement
orientations, action controls, etc.) factors influence learning, motivation influences which
goals receive commitment, affecting the strength and quality of that commitment.
A rich history of motivation research in education has consistently linked motivation
with specific targets such as reading or math (Wigfield 1997) and has shown that academic
motivation is highly differentiated across particular subjects (Marsh 1990, 1992a). Thus,
our review will focus on measures designed to assess student motivation for academic
achievement, addressing methods for younger elementary school students and adolescents
in middle and high school. An initial review of the limitations of self-report methodology
will provide a rationale for the subsequent examination of alternative approaches to the
measurement of motivation, including phenomenological/authentic, neuropsychological/
physiological, and behavioral. Discussion of each approach will include a definition of the
theoretical conceptualization of motivation and the motivational tools and tasks utilized. An
understanding of each approach will lead to guidelines for future directions in motivation
methodology, including preliminary attempts at integration or combination of these
approaches and characteristics of an ideal measure of motivation.
It is important to note that, although this review is extensive, it is not exhaustive or
entirely comprehensive, especially in the examination of self-report measures that are
numerous in quantity and diverse in construction. While the review of self-report measures
is exclusive to measures of achievement motivation, the examination of alternative
approaches (e.g., phenomenological, neuropsychological/physiological, and behavioral)
encompasses a wider range of applications due to the limited use of these measures in
educational motivation research to date. However, in compiling each section, we ensured
that the measurement tools and approaches reviewed were applicable to and compatible
with the study of achievement motivation. Representative exemplars from each of the four
different approaches have been included to highlight possible cross-pollination of methods
and potentially derive novel methods for motivation measurement. An additional challenge
for a review attempting to cover methods and measurement traditions with widely
discrepant theoretical and conceptual heritages is varying definitions of what constitutes a
quality measure. Traditional self-report scales have widely appreciated standards and
definitions of reliability and validity. In contrast, one of the approaches we review does not
221
admit reliability as a standard of quality for a measure and has a markedly different
definition of what constitutes a valid measure. Thus, no single framework can be applied
to the four measurement traditions, but the assumptions and internal measurement quality
standards of the various approaches will be highlighted.
Self-Report Measures of Motivation with Students

This review of self-report measures of motivation will focus on a brief assessment of
measures designed to investigate various constructs of motivation for academics and in
learning situations. Research in the field of motivation has primarily relied on paper-andpencil self-report measures. As a result, some authors have argued that methodological
progress in motivation research is stagnant and that this has been both a result of and
contributed to theoretical fragmentation due to a lack of progress in the elaboration and
validation of motivational constructs (Snow et al. 1996). The weight of focus on cognitive
rather than affect-related measures may be due to the common framing of motivational
constructs as based on an individuals disposition (Murphy and Alexander 2000). Since
motivational orientations are often assumed to be conscious and accessible to the
individual, students should be able to self-report these beliefs. In terms of correlations
with academic achievement, motivation has been partitioned into several dimensions;
however, the operationalization and definition of motivation and the dimensions involved
continue to be debated. Murphy and Alexanders (2000) review of motivational
terminology included goals, intrinsic and extrinsic factors, interest, and self-schema factors
as central in the relationship between motivation and academic achievement. Marsh et al.
(2003) have articulated the beginnings of an organizing template for such constructs. The
Big-Two-Factor Theory of academic self-concept organizes motivational constructs under
the two broad dimensions of learning and performance orientations, both considered as
stable personal traits. Learning orientation involves mastery, competence, effort, and
interest, while performance orientation consists of social comparison and extrinsic
evaluations (Byrne 2002). This model expands on the achievement goal framework
(Dweck 1986; Nicholls 1984) to include additional constructs under higher order learning
and performance orientations, such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and cooperative,
competitive, and individualist orientations.
At a methodological level, broad approaches to the study of motivation and academic
achievement have been via academic self-concept, achievement goal, and intrinsic
motivation measures, to name just a few. While there is significant overlap in the use of
self-report methodology, these approaches differ in the specifics of construct definition.
Academic self-concept is multidimensional and hierarchical, and findings have revealed
moderate and consistent correlations with academic performance, especially when contentspecific measures are employed (Marsh 1992a). Academic self-concept is often measured
by collecting descriptive and evaluative perceptions of scholastic competence (Byrne
1996). Competence is a central feature of achievement goals, which have typically been
defined in terms of mastery or performance orientations (Dweck 1986; Nicholls 1984).
Further work added the approachavoidance dimension to performance goals and more
recently to mastery goals in a 22 framework (Elliot and McGregor 2001). Achievement
goals are often measured through ratings of statements regarding academic beliefs or
behaviors that represent each of the goal orientations (e.g., It is important to me to do
better than other students). Intrinsic motivation has been defined in terms of attitudes,
enjoyment, importance/value, and interest for a particular activity or learning domain, such
222
as reading or mathematics (Wigfield and Guthrie 1997). Intrinsic motivation is most often
measured via agreement to self-descriptive statements about orientation to an activity or set
of activities (e.g., I enjoy reading).
Measurement tools
As self-report scales for motivation continue to proliferate, it would be unfeasible to discuss
the numerous measures of achievement motivation within this review. Self-report measures
in educational and psychological domains have been exponentially increasing in number
and complexity, without sufficient consideration for developmentally suitable scales and
formats for psychometric and theoretical validation. Furthermore, the use of self-report
methods with students creates additional challenges, presenting a greater need for
understanding and overcoming these limitations. The following brief review of particular
extant and/or historical measures illustrates various broad categories of self-report
measures. The particular scales selected reveal the range of achievement motivation
constructs, encompassing the four central areas of motivation research as reviewed by
Eccles and Wigfield (2002): expectancies for success (i.e., self-concept theories), task value
(i.e., intrinsic motivation and self-determination theories), expectancy and value theories (i.
e., expectancyvalue theory), and motivation and cognition (i.e., achievement goal
theories). Although these scales are not representative of all achievement motivation
measures due to the abundance of both published and non-published measures in this field,
these measures have been extensively applied within achievement motivation research or
adapted in ad hoc researcher-constructed measures.
Self-report measures vary in length and design but typically entail a Likert-scale
response format and, for younger children, the addition of pictorial representations (e.g.,
The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children,
Harter and Pike 1984). Proposed in 1932 by Likert, statements are rated according to
categories, such as strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree.
Consecutive numbers are assigned to represent degree of endorsement to particular
statements. Self-report measures that cover motivation typically include self-descriptive
statements of behavior (e.g., I choose to read books over other activities) or attitude (e.g.,
I like math). Overall, the ease of administration and standardized design of self-report
measures is conducive to comparing motivational orientations across ages, groups, and
developmental or academic levels. It is important to note that many studies have taken an
ad hoc approach to the use of existing published measures and non-published simple
questionnaires, incorporating specific subscales or items of a measure. An example is the
selection of items of Fortier et al. (1995) from Harters Perceived Competence Scale. Other
studies have changed the scale to correspond with a different subject area, for example, the
adaptation of Liu et al. (2006) of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) for measuring
motivation in collaborative project, math, and science domains.
Self-report measures of achievement motivation have generally moved from a focus on a
single dimension, such as self-concept [e.g., Piers (1984) PiersHarris Childrens SelfConcept Scale (PHCSCS); Boersma and Chapmans (1992) Perception of Ability Scale for
Students (PASS)], to measures focusing on multiple dimensions of achievement motivation.
For example, measures have integrated achievement goals and intrinsic motivation [School
Motivation Questionnaire (SMQ) of Marsh et al. (2003)], intrinsic/extrinsic orientations,
expectancy beliefs, value judgments, and affect [Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) of Pintrich et al. (1993)], and both social and cognitive aspects of
motivation, such as achievement goals, achievement-related beliefs, and academic
223
behaviors and strategies [Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) of Midgley et al.
(2000)].
Some measures of achievement motivation focus on a general motivational orientation
toward school [e.g., Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) of Fortier et al. (1995)], while
others assess these constructs in multiple domains (Boersma and Chapmans (1992) PASS;
Brackens (1992) Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale; Gottfrieds (1986) Childrens
Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, CAIMI; Marshs (1992b) Academic SelfDescription Questionnaire). As mentioned, measures such as the IMI (McAuley et al.
1989) have been modified for use in different domains. Recent recognition of the strong
link between personal motivation and particular behaviors has resulted in the development
of domain-specific measures. For example, self-report measures have been designed to
assess self-concept and self-efficacy particular to the domain of reading (Chapman and
Tunmers (1995) Reading Self-Concept Scale, RSCS; Henk and Melnicks (1995) Reader
Self-Perception Scale). Wigfield and Guthries (1995, 1997) Motivations for Reading
Questionnaire assesses 11 dimensions of reading motivation, including self-efficacy and
intrinsic and extrinsic purposes for engaging in reading. Finally, in recognizing the
developmental differences in motivation and understanding of scale items, measures such
as the PALS (Midgley et al. 2000), the Reading Motivation Questionnaire (Peklaj and
Bucik 2003; Wigfield and Guthrie 1997), and the CAIMI (Gottfried 1986, 1990) have been
modified for elementary and middle school students.
Critique of self-report measurement scales
Self-report measures are conducted in both laboratory and field settings and can be used on
one occasion or repeatedly to compare results longitudinally. A specific motivating task is
often unnecessary, as self-report measures can be completed in various settings at an
unspecified point in time. It is often assumed that motivation functions as a trait (e.g.,
domain-specific interests and academic self-concept) and is relatively stable over time and
across situations; however, some theories (e.g., self-efficacy theory, Schunk 1991) and
facets of particular theories (e.g., situational interest, Hidi et al. 1992) treat motivation as
fluid and situationally dependent. Self-report devices are also used to assess situational
interest and task-specific motivations, which, in this case, are assumed to change over time.
A growing body of evidence has documented both developmental and instruction-related
changes in motivation (e.g., Marcoulides et al. 2008; Nurmi and Aunola 2005; Wigfield et
al. 1997). The correlation of self-reported motivation and academic achievement is
typically measured through grade or test results and/or psychoeducational assessments of
domain-specific skills.
Self-reports have also been incorporated to assess the effectiveness of pedagogical
methods. In the assessment of a biology curriculum program by Paris et al. (1998), selfreported interest was gathered before and after the instructional period, and academic
achievement was defined in terms of results on quiz and problem solving tasks. Similarly,
Veermans and Tapola (2004) assessed the effectiveness of a 4-year inquiry learning projects
method through measurements of self-reported motivation at the beginning of each year.
Researchers continue to contribute to the development of self-report measures of
motivation for academics, possibly due to the advantages evident in using this method. The
psychometric benefits of well-constructed self-report measures are high internal consistency
and specificity in construct definition (Marsh et al. 2003). Furthermore, evidence linking
reading achievement and self-perceptions of competence and motivation was initially found
using self-report methodology (Chapman and Tunmer 1995). Self-reports are compatible
224
with large-sample research studies, are easy and quick to administer, and have
advantageous scaling properties suitable for the use of inferential statistics, allowing for
straightforward statistical analysis and standardization (Elliott 2004). On the other hand,
several widely recognized weaknesses of self-reports warrant attention to improved
measurement and methodology (Elliott 2004; Keith and Bracken 1996). The following
examination of methodological weaknesses for self-reports consists of developmental,
construct definition, and measurement/reliability issues.
Developmental issues One difficulty in the use of self-report measures for a range of age
groups is the developmental differences in self-concept and motivation (Chapman and
Tunmer 1995; Nicholls 1978). For example, research using the MSLQ (Pintrich et al. 1993)
has found varying factor structures of motivation in populations of different ages (Pintrich
and De Groot 1990; Rao and Sachs 1999). Challenges associated with creating suitable
measures have resulted in a lack of well-constructed, developmentally appropriate selfreport measures for use with younger children (Chapman and Tunmer 1995; Marsh et al.
1991). Designing self-report measures for younger children and children with disabilities is
complicated due to problems with developmentally suitable item and response formats
(Chapman and Tunmer 1995), sentence structure and word choice (Elliott 2004), and
misleading negative items (Marsh 1986). Administration problems may occur if younger
students are expected to complete the scale without assistance for clarification and ensuring
understanding (Elliott 2004), especially if students read the items and response choices
independently.
Younger children, in particular, may not be able to cognitively process all concepts
within an item if it contains a motivational construct as well as a contextual reference, such
as the teacher or classroom (Karabenick et al. 2007). For example, a performanceavoid
goal item in the PALS (Midgley et al. 2000) requires students to consider the beliefs of their
teacher, the abilities of other classmates, as well as the perception of their own knowledge
or intelligence (Its important to me that my teacher doesnt think that I know less than
others in class). Likewise, attempts to reduce the memory requirements for students via a
modified response format, such as the forced-choice paradigm in Harters (1982) Perceived
Competence Scale, increase other cognitive processing demands.
However, issues of item interpretation are not limited to young children. Karabenick et
al. (2007) discussed the challenges involved in the cognitive processing of self-report items
and the conceptually abstract terminology and multiple concepts included in many scale
items. Interviews with middle school children revealed that students often experience
difficulty understanding common words in motivation items (e.g., improvement), and the
reasons for judging self-efficacy in commonly used items (PALS, Midgley et al. 2000;
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, Pintrich and De Groot 1990). Urdan and
Mestas (2006) also found that high school students interpreted performance goals from the
PALS (Midgley et al. 2000) in different ways than the researcher intended (e.g., responding
to avoidance items using approach explanations). Similarly, the masteryavoidance goal
items in Elliot and McGregors (2001) Achievement Goal Questionnaire include complex
wording and interpretations that would be difficult for children and adolescents to
understand (e.g., I am often concerned that I may not learn all that there is to learn in this
class). As a result, the use of additional methods in the measurement of motivation may
increase accuracy and interpretation of results by both validating and supplementing selfreport data (Veermans and Tapola 2004). Behavioral or physiological measures that assess
motivation in terms of physical responses may be especially important for understanding
motivation in younger children, as the accuracy of childrens perceptions of their thoughts
225
and actions in relation to their motivation has been questioned (Nicholls 1978; Pintrich and
Schunk 1996).
Construct issues Due in part to continued debates regarding core motivational concepts, an
absence of clear operational definitions, and issues with theoretical foundations, confusion
over the distinctions between terms and inconsistent conclusions regarding motivational
concepts persists (Bear et al. 2002; Keith and Bracken 1996; Murphy and Alexander 2000).
A number of self-report measures consider motivation from a single theoretical perspective,
oversimplifying the complexities of motivation and resulting in a lack of understanding of
the conceptual difficulties within this construct (Elliott 2004). For example, the PHCSC
(Piers 1984) has been criticized for measuring self-concept as a unitary, rather than
multidimensional, construct (Keith and Bracken 1996).
Additional issues arise in the measurement of constructs that involve opposing or
separate orientations. For instance, Harters measure of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation (1981)
has been criticized for placing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation at opposite ends of a
continuum, while there is evidence that intrinsic and extrinsic factors independently, but
simultaneously, influence academic performance and behavior (Lepper et al. 2005).
Similarly, performance and mastery goals have been measured as separate orientations,
while findings have demonstrated that students hold both of these goals in academic
contexts (Meece et al. 2006; Pintrich 2000). Thus, items that contain references to both
mastery and performance competencies or that situate these goals in competition with each
other may not be conceptually accurate, depending on the theory underlying these goals
(Elliot and Murayama 2008).
The measurement of achievement goals has also been criticized for lacking in rigor in
the conceptualization and operationalization of goals in self-report measures, such as the
Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot and McGregor 2001) and the PALS (Midgley et
al. 2000; Elliot and Murayama 2008). For example, students often have a variety of
underlying reasons for adopting and pursuing particular goals, and self-report items often
merge the goal with the underlying reason (Elliot and Murayama 2008; Urdan and Mestas
2006). Elliot and Murayama (2008) also discussed the problems inherent in self-report
items that do not assess intentional commitments or goals but rather reflect values (It is
important to me) or concerns (I worry that). It is evident that these constructs are
more complex than can be measured and interpreted based on survey data alone.
Furthermore, self-report items commonly merge the goal with the underlying reason, even
though students have a variety of underlying reasons for adopting and pursuing particular
goals (Elliot and Murayama 2008; Urdan and Mestas 2006). Similarly, the IMI has been
criticized for problems with construct validity due to the evaluation of both determinants
and consequences of intrinsic motivation (Guay et al. 2000).
Issues in conceptual understanding occur due to the extent of measures created for each
motivational construct. Researchers following the same theoretical framework may find
disparate results if they choose different scales to measure the same construct (Bong 1996).
An additional problem is that similarly named subscales across different measures may
appear equivalent but do not always cover similar domains (Bear et al. 2002; Marsh et al.
2003). Researchers may invent their own labels for these subscales, exacerbating problems
with constructs lacking discriminant validity (Bong 1996). This is especially true of
intrinsic motivation, with measures using different definitions and dissimilar subscales to
derive a generalized picture of students motivation (e.g., Gottfrieds (1986) CAIMI
assesses curiosity, persistence, and desire to master challenging tasks; AMS of Fortier et al.
(1995) assesses motivation to know, to accomplish things, and to experience stimulation;
226
Harters (1981) intrinsic/extrinsic scale assesses preference for challenge, curiosity, and
independent mastery, as well as independent judgment or working for ones own
satisfaction and internal criteria for success). Terminology confusion is also evident in the
overlap between self-concept, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Bong 1996; Hattie and Marsh
1996) and the multiplicity of definitions and subscales used to assess self-concept for
academics. For example, Chapman and Tunmers (1995) RSCS assesses perceived
competence, perceived difficulty, and attitudes. Conceptualizing equivalent constructs via
different subscales, Marshs (1992b) Self-Description Questionnaire school subscale
measures perceived ability and belief about the potential for success at school. In the same
way, disparity in the conceptualization of achievement goals (learning versus performance;
task-involved versus ego-involved; mastery versus ability) has resulted in conflicting
outcomes on motivation, performance, and achievement behaviors (Grant and Dweck
2003).
In addition, existing self-report measures of motivation are often highly general, though
current theory and research indicates that context specificity is essential to motivational
processes (Murphy and Alexander 2000). Although some scales, including the IMI,
maintain acceptable reliability and validity when modified for use with a specific academic
domain (McAuley et al. 1989), the creation of novel measures for particular subject areas or
activities without appropriate validation is common. These problems with construct
definition in the application of self-report formats to the study of motivation suggest that
multiple methods may be needed in order to uncover the complexities of motivation.
Reliability/measurement issues Few scales of motivation are thoroughly developed,
extensively used, or published, resulting in a lack of information about the effectiveness
of the scales and an inability to compare results across studies using several different
measures (Bear et al. 2002; Keith and Bracken 1996). Due to the lack of validated measures
for particular age groups or academic domains, researchers tend to use non-published selfreport measures rather than psychometrically and theoretically robust scales (Keith and
Bracken 1996).
Poor construction and limited validation of self-report measures lead to several
psychometric weaknesses. For example, items that reference the context of the behavior
as well as beliefs or attitudes about the behavior may result in inconsistent responses due to
individual participants interpretation of different elements of the item (e.g., PALS item
previously discussed, Its important to me that my teacher doesnt think that I know less
than others in class). Initial internal validation of self-report scales by the researchers who
have constructed the scale often consists of a single unidimensional indicator of internal
consistency, Cronbachs alpha. This may not be sufficient reliability or validity evidence
because it does not test for unidimensionality but rather assumes it (Sijtsma 2009). Watkins
and Coffeys (2004) empirical reanalysis of the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire
suggested that the scale should be revised to address lack of subscale reliability,
problematic items, and discrepant factor analytic results. Elliott (2004) found that when
additional measures such as interviews and observations were combined with self-report of
motivation, behavior was often inconsistent with participant report. Other common
measurement problems include a lack of representative normative samples (Bear et al.
2002; Keith and Bracken 1996), an absence of testing in authentic situations (Veermans and
Tapola 2004), and cross-cultural challenges due to differences in the definition and
conceptualization of motivation (Pintrich 2003). Keith and Brackens (1996) review of selfreport measures also suggested that several widely used measures of self-concept (i.e.,
PHCSCS and PASS) also lack in testretest reliability.
227
Two broader and more problematic lines of criticism have implications for the use and
development of self-report measures of motivation. The primary response format used to
generate quantitative levels of endorsement to scale items is the Likert format. Such
response formats have been criticized for conceptually inaccurate scoring formats, resulting
in imprecision in interpretation. For example, an individual with a neutral response does not
necessarily have more motivation than an individual with a disagree response. The
neutral category has also been criticized for accuracy in interpretation, as individuals
choose this response for a number of different reasons (e.g., truly neutral, indecision,
absence of opinion, protest, etc.; see Klopfer and Madden 1980), which may be unrelated to
the construct being measured. Revising response formats to present an even number of
items obviates this but leads to other difficulties including a tendency for responses to be
slightly biased toward the positive end of any scale. An additional structural problem with
individual items is mixed formulation of negatively and positively worded items (e.g., I
like to read stories versus I do not enjoy reading), despite evidence that the cognitive
demands this places on students may reduce the reliability of such scales (Marsh et al.
2003). Lucas and Baird (2006) have recently provided a comprehensive review of the
various internal structural problems with self-assessment scales and scale items. Krosnick et
al. (2005) also reviewed best practices in self-report item construction, though neither of
these two sources include treatment of the special concerns in constructing items for
children.
Perhaps the most important but least frequently articulated assumption of the Likert scale
format for items is that the resulting scale can be considered interval level measurement.
Most mainstay statistical methods (e.g., mean-based group comparisons such as t tests and
F tests; correlational techniques such as regression) require that input variables be intervally
scaled; that is, that there are a range of possible scores and that the intervals from one score
to the next are equal. Rating a statement with the Likert-style categories has been argued to
be an ordinal level of measurement at best, with the student providing amount of agreement
on a ranking scale. When scale items are summed or averaged, there is an additional
assumption that a difference of one point at the top of the scale is the same as the difference
at the bottom of the scale. Although there is some debate among research methodologists,
the assumption of interval level measurement is generally accepted as a requirement, and
there are simultaneously questions about whether self-report scales fulfill this requirement
(see Velleman and Wilkinson 1993, for a full discussion of these issues). While analytic
techniques are available, which do not require variables to be measured on an interval scale
(e.g., polychoric correlations), the scores that result from self-report scales are more often
analyzed with techniques that require interval level measurement (e.g., Pearson product
moment correlations).
The second line of criticism is more fundamental, emerging from the problematic
assumption that Likert-derived scales qualify as interval level measurement. The
psychometric basis of self-report scales that assess motivation has traditionally been
via classical psychometric theory (Kline 2000). Known variously as True Score Theory
(TST) or classical test theory, this quantitative basis for self-report measures has been
implemented largely without consideration of its limitations. The use of TST in selfreport measures has been criticized for non-linearity in scoring and, therefore, lacking
accuracy in interpretation of results. Additional limitations of classical test theory include
the following: (1) reliability and consistency of responses across the full range of
measurement, (2) scaling of item difficulties or the degree of trait in question, and (3)
provision of a single estimate for error of measurement, which does not account for
differential reliability across the full range of a scale. Michell (1990, 1999) has argued
228
that an isometric interpretation of self-report scale scores is problematic, as an individual

with a higher score does not necessarily have higher motivation than an individual with a
lower score. The Rasch measurement model (RMM, Andrich 2005; Waugh 2006) is one
approach that has recently been more broadly applied to research measurement problems,
having had a role within standardized test development for at least 30 years. Application
within research measurement promises to address these limitations of TST, with a solid
theoretical and empirical basis and statistical tools coming within reach of motivation
researchers (Alagumalai et al. 2005). This approach, also identified as a type of item
response theory, is fundamentally a model that fits an individuals item responses to the
latent variable representing the conceptual target (i.e., the attitude, trait, motivation
dynamic, etc.).
While most theorists agree that motivation is a multidimensional construct and some
extant self-report measures build such dimensionality into their content domain, validation
of dimensional structure remains a problematic issue. For ad hoc researcher-constructed
scales, exploratory factor analysis has often been employed to check whether items fall into
coherent groups, hopefully consistent with the generating theory. For example, see
Worrells (1997) replication of the Harter Self-Perception Scale (1985) dimensions with
academically talented adolescents. A better approach has been the use of confirmatory
factor analysis to fit a priori theoretically motivated models to self-report data, confirming
dimensionality within a motivation measure. Marsh and colleagues, along with others (e.g.,
Marsh et al. 2003; Wilson and Trainin 2007), have done extensive studies using this
technique, with results supporting the notion that motivation is multidimensional. Within
this measurement paradigm, a comprehensive validation may also utilize both exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis, along with strong theoretical hypotheses about the
dimensionality of motivation (e.g., Lau 2004; Swalander and Taube 2007). The RMM
discussed earlier provides a viable alternative method for investigating the dimensionality
of self-report scales. When applied via multidimensional Rasch modeling, there is some
evidence that the RMM has advantages over the factor-analytic method, operating more
efficiently to parse multiple dimensions within one self-report measure of motivation
(Smith 1996; Wright 1996; Waugh and Chapman 2005).
At the level of construct validity, self-report measures confound the measurement of
motivation with other variables, such as ability and attention. For example, Chapman and
Tunmer (1995) observed that reading self-concept scores were related to students linguistic
ability to interpret the negatively worded scale items. Younger students inaccurately
interpreted negative items that were affirmatively worded (e.g., I am bad at reading) and
were better able to interpret negative items when they were interrogatively worded and used
the pronoun you, rather than I (e.g., Do you make a lot of mistakes when reading?). This
resulted in greater consistency of positive and negative item responses. Furthermore, the
use of self-report methodologies is based on the assumption that motives are conscious,
accessible, and can be communicated to others (Murphy and Alexander 2000), even though
motivation is based in cognitions and emotions that can only be partially accessed by the
individual (Hannula 2006). Thus, several challenges and weaknesses in the exclusive use of
self-report measures for the study of motivation warrant consideration of alternative
approaches. Since the limitations of self-report measures are highlighted when additional
methods are used, a multi-method approach would contribute to an increased understanding
of the complexities of motivation (Elliott 2004). Although multi-method approaches are
often time-consuming, difficult to construct, and may appear to be deficient in objectivity
and precision, the study of motivation could benefit from a significant transformation.
Consequently, the following is a review of alternative approaches to the study of
229
motivation, including phenomenological/authentic, neuropsychological/physiological, and

behavioral. Methods and approaches sampled below are drawn from both within and
outside of educational research, providing examples of ways to enhance methodological
richness in the study of motivation. Where possible, motivation for academics will be the
primary focus.
Alternative Approaches to Motivation Measurement

Phenomenological/authentic
The phenomenological approach provides a flexible, holistic methodology to the study of
motivation, emphasizing individuals subjective experiences, meanings, and perceptions of
their motivational states (Yeung 2004). Using a qualitative, descriptive approach,
phenomenological methods attempt to illustrate the meaning of a commonly shared, yet
individually diverse phenomenon such as motivation (Shedivy 2004). It is believed that
qualitative measures provide more depth to the evaluation of motivation because they are
based on students' own constructions of experience and emphasize idiographic patterns of
motivation (Shedivy 2004), rather than the description of broad patterns or correlations
across many students. The fundamental epistemological difference between the phenomenological and self-report approaches lies in child-derived versus experimenter/researcherderived categories being the primary unit of analysis. In the phenomenological approach,
items are not constructed by the researcher to which the student indicates agreement or
degree of endorsement; rather, meaning emerges from the students experience of
motivation and their language for articulating that experience.
Phenomenology considers motivation as more than a determined, biologically based
construct. The central focus of phenomenology on individual intentionality complements
the application of this method to motivation research. In this view, motivation is influenced
by environmental, historical, and individual factors and involves a temporal aspect,
illustrating that motivation is not a stable emotional or mental state but is subject to change
over time (Drnyei 2000) and, in the case of motivation for academics, change across
learning contexts. This is especially relevant for the study of motivation in the classroom, as
motivation must be maintained over time at various scales (e.g., lesson, period, semester,
and year) and shifting contexts (e.g., peers, teachers, learning materials, rewards, and other
contingencies). In this concern for context, the phenomenological approach recognizes the
multi-faceted nature of motivation, highlighting interconnections among and the diversity
of motivational states (Yeung 2004).
Within this approach, a consistent definition of motivation does not exist, as the definition
and themes of individual motivational orientations are idiographic and derived during the
analysis stage. However, several phenomenological researchers offer broad functional
characterizations of motivation in relation to the individual self. Yeung (2004) suggests that
motivation functions as a link between motives and commitment. Shedivy (2004) has
characterized motivational orientations as self-organizing tools, functioning in either an
instrumental (predominantly extrinsic) or integrative (predominantly intrinsic) mode. Others
such as Gardner (1985) have suggested that motivation operates as a filter or orienting device,
providing direction to energy through goals, wants, and efforts and self-consciously marking
an individuals attitudes toward an activity.
230
Advantages of the phenomenological method over self-report include the ability to

interpret and integrate multiple factors that influence motivation, recognizing motivation as
a process rather than a state that can be measured by a questionnaire at a single point in
time (Drnyei 2000). This approach identifies specific and general motives for behavior and
different stages of motivation through a microanalysis of various factors, processes,
circumstances, and challenges that determine motivation and behavior (Drnyei 2000).
Furthermore, phenomenology integrates cognitive, affective, and contextual factors in the
study of motivation (West 2002). In this way, the phenomenological approach introduces a
wider range of meanings for human experience, potentially approaching complexities of
motivation more satisfactorily than the self-report method. Schiefele and Csikszentmihalyi
(1995) provide an example of experience sampling along with self-report methods of
assessing interest, achievement motivation, and ability in mathematics. Csikszenthihalyis
flow theory of motivation, which involves a state of intense, experiential engagement with
an activity, emerges directly from a phenomenologically based method of experience
sampling (Csikszentmihalyi et al. 2005). The use of multiple qualitative methods, such as
interviews and observations, can overcome the challenges often experienced in measuring
young childrens motivation while measuring motivation in a natural context, such as the
classroom (Jarvenoja and Jarvela 2005; Perry et al. 2002). In a case study scenario, painting
a rich portrait of a students motivation can be directly implemented into interventions to
increase that childs motivation (e.g., Pierson 1999).
Limitations of phenomenological methods include the notion that analysis is subjective
and interpretative and not isometric with empirical objective methods such as self-report.
According to this criticism, findings from these methods only apply to the particular
participants involved (Spinelli 1989). Yeung (2004) has argued that phenomenological
analyses of human experiences and meanings can result in significant knowledge that can
be generalized. If assumptions are not properly bracketed (Husserl 1958), the identification
and analysis of core themes is merely a reflection of the biases and assumptions of the
researcher, resulting in similar limitations to the self-report method as existing theories of
motivation are maintained. This presents an additional challenge in integrating the
phenomenological approach with self-report methods, as the phenomenological premise
of bracketing assumptions and the idea that motivation is continuously redefined counters
the underlying assumptions of self-report as grounded in specific theory and definitions of
motivation.
Phenomenological methods share limitations with the self-report method. Due to the
attention directed to individual experience, Ratner (1993) stated that the social and
historical character of experience may be neglected; thus, an integrated focus of both
individual and social perspectives is essential. The phenomenological approach assumes
that humans can consciously assess and explain their motivation; yet, it is understood that
motivational behaviors are influenced by unconscious drives and needs (Drnyei 2000).
Finally, the phenomenological method has been criticized for an overdependence on verbal
descriptions (Spinelli 1989), which is problematic when considering the lack of correlation
between individuals attitudes and their actual behavior (Brehm and Self 1989; Schneider et
al. 2004). Although the developmental ability of children to reflect on their motivational
states and experiences may be considered a limitation of this method, the researcher must
overcome this challenge by developing skills to structure an interview and atmosphere that
will elicit childrens narratives of their experiences.
Measurement tools The phenomenological approach involves diverse tools, both in
methodology and analysis, and therefore, does not have a set instructional method for
231
gathering or analyzing data. There is an underlying assumption that experiences and

meanings have a structure and can be narrated (Shedivy 2004). Since phenomenological
approaches to studying motivation are qualitative in nature, the use of in-depth, openended, thematic interviews is common in order to capture individuals descriptions,
perceptions, and interpretations of their motivations (e.g., Perry et al. 2002; Shedivy 2004;
Yeung 2004). With this basic material, the researcher aims to derive the meaning of
participant experiences (Creswell 1998).
In other authentic approaches to measuring motivation, running records of participant
observation, case studies, and semi-structured, retrospective interviews with students are
combined, which amend many of the challenges with student reports of motivation (Perry et
al. 2002). These approaches enrich our understanding of the developmental differences and
changes in students perceptions of their own motivation, especially in terms of what
individuals believe influences their motivation, similarities and differences between
students actual actions and their beliefs about their motivation and actions, and how
classroom contexts are connected to students motivation (Perry et al. 2002). Interviews, in
connection with observational data, also provide an understanding of unobservable aspects
of behavior, such as metacognition, and the ability to compare multiple methods to increase
reliability (Jarvenoja and Jarvela 2005; Perry et al. 2002). The experience sampling method
has emerged as a more authentic set of self-report techniques, capturing multiple reports of
students beliefs, affect, and behaviors in natural contexts in real time (Larson and
Csikszentmihalyi 1983). This approach allows for a better understanding of the dynamic
patterns in an individuals motivation across time through assessing immediate reactions to
different contexts or experiences (e.g., a specific math lesson or a social studies test). This
method has also been considered as more valid and strongly related to physiological and
behavioral responses (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1987), likely because students reflect
on their current emotional and cognitive state, rather than years of school experiences.
Phenomenological analysis involves an inductive, rather than deductive, process, as the
themes emerge from the interview data, rather than from the researchers hypotheses,
biases, or assumptions (Shedivy 2004). This focus on analyzing individuals accounts,
experiences, and themes to search for meanings is also defined as a methodology of
reduction (Creswell 1998). Analysis of data in a phenomenological study consists of four
major stages, with the primary goal of describing a phenomenon. First, the transcriptions of
the interviews must be read in their entirety to gain a sense of the broad themes. This is
followed by distinguishing significant elements of the construct (i.e., motivation) in
individual statements. Next, the researcher must formulate the individual statements into
overall meanings, which are then reduced to themes. Finally, these themes are synthesized
into an overall narrative description of the phenomena, which may aid in creating models of
motivational orientations (Creswell 1998; Yeung 2004).
Measurement tasks The phenomenological approach often assesses motivation in natural,
authentic contexts through experiences, rather than specific tasks (Jarvenoja and Jarvela
2005). For example, interviews have examined students motivation to continue studying a
foreign language (Shedivy 2004) and adults motivation to volunteer (Yeung 2004). In the
field of reading and literacy, Perry et al. (2002) studied students self-regulatory behaviors
during literacy tasks, while West (2002) employed qualitative techniques to study
motivation for literacy learning. Furthermore, Pierson (1999) implemented a literacy
program based on students stated interests to determine whether intrinsic motivation and
performance were enhanced. Thus, it is believed that more authentic understandings of
motivation are based on natural conditions in connection to individually pertinent
232
experiences. Gambrell et al. (1996) followed an approach that incorporates some of the
principles of authentic assessment in developing their motivation to read profile (MRP).
The MRP not only consists of a self-report survey component but also incorporates a semistructured conversational interview that queries personal experiences across multiple
reading contexts that students are likely to encounter (e.g., narrative and informational text,
reading at home versus school, and general reading experiences). The MRP is an example
of an open-ended interview that does not fully cohere with the phenomenological approach
in that, while responses are open-ended, categories and the language to speak about
motivation are provided for students in the interview prompts (e.g., What do you think you
have to learn to be a better reader? pulling for researcher-defined notions of competence
and achievement).
Students genuine descriptions and reflections of their experiences and beliefs may be
more authentic and valid than their responses to predetermined statements in self-report
methods or the unnatural, experimental tasks often used to elicit responses regarding
motivational states. The incorporation of this approach is also based on Husserls
assumption that individuals can describe their lived experiences, which will lead to an
understanding of the essence and structure of achievement motivation for a particular
student (Creswell 1998; Moustakas 1994). However, it is important to note that these
methods share developmental challenges with self-report methods. While students may
have difficulties comprehending or conceptualizing the content of a self-report measure and
responding to a Likert-type scale, these methods encounter developmental limits in
childrens abilities of self-expression. Validity in this case is not the psychometric validity
of the self-report methods (i.e., does the measure adequately cover the construct as defined
by the researcher) but is the degree to which knowledge about motivation derived from
research aligns with the lived reality of the individual. As language represents truth and
conveys the rational and conscious content of the mind (Gergen 2001), it is assumed that
the products of these methods represent students truth experiences and individual
knowledge regarding their motivation. The phenomenological approach asserts that, to
create knowledge of students motivation, childrens perspectives, language, and experiences should be the dominant source of our knowledge in this domain.
Neuropsychological/physiological
Two additional approaches to the measurement of motivation emerge from different
traditions than either the self-report or phenomenological. These traditions, the
neuropsychological/physiological and the behavioral are not completely distinct from
the previously reviewed approach but do have unique measurement strategies that emerge
from unique assumptions about the nature of motivation. The neuropsychological
approach to the study of motivation has integrated motivation and cognition with a
focus on measuring neural specificity for different aspects of motivational states and
influences (Taylor et al. 2004). Past basic research with animals (for a review, see Jones
and Gosling 2008) and humans with brain injury have shown that specific regions of the
brain function to establish the learned value of objects and activities and to predict
response to rewards. For example, a mid-brain structure, the diencephalon, has long been
recognized as essential to goal-directed behavior, helping the organism identify what
stimuli in the environment are important. Animals and humans with missing or damaged
diencephalon can manifest both sham rage and sham motivation, intense emotion, and
233
activity, respectively, with no particular goal or endpoint (Goltz 1960; Grill and Norgren
1978). In addition to neural responses, this approach asserts that complex interactions
among biological, cognitive, and psychological systems determine behavior (Beauchaine
2001). It is believed that physiological changes in the nervous system in response to
motivational stimuli and conditions, sometimes defined as motivational arousal, provide a
useful measure of the influence of motivation on behavior (Blair et al. 2004).
Motivational arousal is believed to function primarily to produce or avoid a potential
outcome (Brehm and Self 1989).
Although the history of neuropsychological measures involves a predominant focus on
simple motivations (e.g., hunger, sex, and avoidance of pain), more complex human
motivations that are evident in the absence of a biological need are now being examined
(Arana et al. 2003). Motivational concepts provide a crucial link for behavioral
neuroscience between the limbic brain systems and psychological processes or behavior
(Berridge 2004). Neuropsychological and physiological approaches also admit the
possibility that unconscious (i.e., not explicitly recognized as internal states by individuals)
drives influence motivation and behavior. This dynamic, proposed by Freud and others,
formed the basis in the 1970s and 1980s for projective measures of motivation (i.e.,
Rorshach and Thematic Apperception Test). In particular, the Thematic Apperception Test
was designed to assess the role of affect in achievement motivation, with motivational traits
manifesting themselves via implicit motives (Vestewig and Paradise 1977). However,
projective tests were later criticized for subjective scoring procedures and questionable
construct validity and, therefore, were considered to be inadequate measures of selfreported motivation (Keith and Bracken 1996; but see also Schultheiss and Brunstein 2005
for a more recent integrated model of implicit and explicit motives).
The neuropsychological approach utilizes several definitions of motivation. There is a
common belief that reward is a basic goal in human behavior, and motivation and goaldirected behavior are guided by appraisals of incentive values, priorities, rewards, and
punishments within the neural systems in the brain (Arana et al. 2003; Zalla et al. 2000).
Executive functions then access these appraisals to organize behavior (Taylor et al. 2004),
which is manifested through affective responses, including behavioral, autonomic, and
physiological reactions (Berridge 2004). These responses are typically categorized as
approach or avoidance behavior and/or positive and negative emotional states (Lang et al.
1998; Zalla et al. 2000). As a result, research has focused on the influence of motivation
and value, usually in terms of reward anticipation and reinforcement, on cognitive task
performance and activation in specific brain regions (Taylor et al. 2004).
In terms of broad conceptualizations, the neuropsychological approach postulates two
basic motivational systems, appetitive and defensive, which vary in both activation and
arousal (Lang et al. 1998). This basic division has been used in measure design. For
example, Carver and White (1994) designed a behavioral rating scale of the Behavioral
Activation System and Behavioral Inhibition System, which are presumed to be correlated
with increased activity in specific areas of the frontal regions of the brain, resulting in either
approach or avoidance behaviors and emotional states (Beauchaine 2001; Lang et al. 1998).
Furthermore, brain reactions have been categorized into liking, which is the brain
reaction to sensory pleasure as a result of reward, and wanting, or the incentive value or
salience of the reward (Berridge 2004). Wanting and liking emerge from two subcortical
neurobiological systems that trigger motivation, where wanting is associated with
mesolimbic dopamine activation, and liking is associated with activation within the
nucleus accumbens. Although these neural activations are beyond conscious awareness, it is
believed that activations in these regions are reflected in emotional states (Berridge 2004).
234
Neuropsychological and physiological methods have distinct advantages over selfreport, arising from strong face validity and content specificity (Elbaum and Vaughn 2003).
These advantages are detailed below; however, it can be difficult to demonstrate
psychometric reliability and replicability across situations. Furthermore, increases in
neuronal activity may be attributable to additional factors, such as increased effort, arousal,
or attention, as a result of increased motivational states (Taylor et al. 2004). The construct
of motivation, as defined by this approach, does not delineate the boundary between affect
and motivation clearly enough. An individuals approach to a reward or punishment task,
either in terms of fearing punishment or anticipating reward, may be driven equally by
affective concerns as by motivation (Taylor et al. 2004). Generalizability to children and
adolescents is restricted due to a predominant focus on animal and adult participants and the
incomplete brain development of children, which may result in different regions and
pathways used for certain tasks, including motivation. Finally, it continues to be argued
whether physiological measures of behavior are reliable, due to weak correlations with
emotion and behavior (Litman 2005).
Measurement tools In the fields of neuropsychology and brain imaging, motivational states are
commonly measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans (Arana et al.
2003; Elliott et al. 2003; Mizuno et al. 2008; Taylor et al. 2004; Zalla et al. 2000) and
electroencephalographs (Dubrovinskaya and Machinskaya 2002). MRI scans have found
increased activity in the putamen for motivation to learn, compared to motivation for reward,
through an examination of bloodoxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signals (Mizuno et al.
2008). Taylor et al. (2004) found that motivation, in the form of rewards, interacts with
similar neural networks as working memory. When monetary reward was used as an
incentive, fMRI scans showed BOLD effects in the right superior frontal sulcus and bilateral
intraparietal sulcus. Activation in the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex also occurred during
retrieval from working memory in the context of reward, showing a possible integration of
information about value when using working memory processes. As shown through fMRI
scans, the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex have been associated with the presence of
rewards and may be involved in comparing the incentive values of different stimuli in order to
select between competing goals (Arana et al. 2003; Elliott et al. 2003). The amygdala has
also been associated with responses to success or failure feedback (Zalla et al. 2000). For
increased reliability, these measures are often combined with behavioral measures, such as
response time (Arana et al. 2003; Elliott et al. 2003; Ernst et al. 2004; Taylor et al. 2004),
approach/avoidance behavior (Carver and White 1994), and self-report ratings of difficulty or
value, anticipation of reward, desire to learn and goals, and emotional states during the task
(Arana et al. 2003; Mizuno et al. 2008; Zalla et al. 2000).
Within the physiological approach, motivation has been measured using eye trackers or
pupillometers (Washburn and Putney 2001), which can provide a straightforward measure
of mental effort and the mechanisms of interest and attention (Beatty 1982). These authors
argue that increases in pupil dilation and more accurate visual gaze are associated with
increased attention brought about by motivational stimuli. The correlation of pupil dilation
with improved accuracy and response time may be explained by increased attention as an
automatic response to the growing demands of a task, which is mediated by increased
arousal. Measures of the sympathetic nervous system and cardiovascular reactivity, such as
heart rate and blood pressure, have been taken as indicative of motivational arousal (Brehm
and Self 1989) and demonstrate the activation and intensity level of an individuals current
motivational state (Lang et al. 1998). Increases in motivational arousal due to reward or
punishment correlate with increases in heart rate and blood pressure, while the heart rate
235
and blood pressure of amotivated individuals remain stable (Brehm and Self 1989).
Research in the field of sport psychology has found consistencies between self-reported
arousal and actual physiological responses to motivational stimuli (e.g., Cumming et al.
2007). However, an individuals judgment of their own motivational arousal in achievement
contexts often does not correlate with these objective measures of arousal, suggesting
reasons for the inconsistencies often observed between self-report and neuropsychological/
physiological methods (Brehm and Self 1989; Schneider et al. 2004). Other measures have
included skin conductance (Lang et al. 1998), salivary cortisol (Blair et al. 2004), and
cardiac vagal tone combined with additional autonomic nervous system measures
(Beauchaine 2001). Finally, affective reactions to stimuli can be measured using
electromyography measures of facial muscle activity (Lang et al. 1998).
Measurement tasks Motivation is often measured during controlled laboratory experiments
and may involve motor detection or response, working memory, and mathematical or cognitive
tasks. In addition, researchers have used positive, neutral, and negative pictures, words, or
sounds to prompt emotional arousal, in an attempt to correlate motivation with behavioral
responses to stimuli (Hillman et al. 2004; Lang et al. 1998). Moreover, Arana et al. (2003)
used high- versus low-incentive stimuli in a decision-making situation to measure the
correlation of motivating conditions with difficulty of choice. In order to measure motivation,
participants are provided with various types and magnitudes of reward or punishment
feedback that are random or based on performance. These rewards or punishments may
include win/loss, auditory feedback, point rewards, and real or imaginary monetary rewards
(Elliott et al. 2003; Taylor et al. 2004; Washburn and Putney 2001; Zalla et al. 2000). For
example, Mizuno et al. (2008) used a working memory task to understand brain activation
differences for academic rewards (feedback on correct answers designed to elicit feelings of
competence and success) versus monetary rewards (obtaining points). It is assumed that
participants are motivated by rewards, in addition to competition, success, and researcher
encouragement. A series of compelling studies on the motivational salience of the color red,
Elliot and colleagues (Elliot and Maier 2007; Elliot et al. 2009) employed a variety of
behavioral and physiological measures of approach/avoidance motivation. For example,
motivation was conceptualized as degrees of inclination toward (approach) or away (avoidance)
from a test stimulus as measured by an inclinometer. In another related experiment, inhibited
motor action as an index of avoidance motivation was measured via the number of knocks on a
door beyond which participants expected to encounter experimental stimuli.
A common target of neuropsychological assessment has been the detection of malingering,
which is conceptualized in motivational terms as motivation to perform poorly and detected via
the assessment of incomplete effort (Ross et al. 2006). In these tasks, incentive to perform
poorly is associated with chance performance and is taken as a dysfunction of normal
motivational systems. Several assessment tools have been validated, with robust determination of both sensitivity and specificity at detecting motivation levels [e.g., see Axelrod et al.
(2006) using the Digit Span subtests of the Wechsler intelligence tests for children and adults;
see also Binder (2002) reviewing the use of the Portland Digit Recognition Task].
Behavioral
While the neuropsychological/physiological measurement strategy emerges from a
structural approach, in which the central assumption is that motivation is a primary
236
biological system, the behavioral approach makes no claims as to the origins of motivation.
In contrast, the behavioral approach to the study of motivation is a functional one.
Proponents of this approach assert that traditional theories of motivation are inadequate
because they do not provide context-specific behavioral measures of motivation in
authentic, natural settings (Hickey 1997; Jarvenoja and Jarvela 2005). This approach
assumes that overt behaviors and reactions reflect an individuals motivational state, and
these behaviors are evident before, during, and after a task (Hillman et al. 2004). Hillman et
al. (2004) have asserted that many studies of motivation and emotions have incorporated
self-report and physiological measures, with few studies observing behavioral reactions.
The behavioral approach also recognizes the need for multiple methods to study complex
motivational variables (Jarvenoja and Jarvela 2005; Veermans and Tapola 2004).
Motivation is defined within the behavioral approach according to the objective presence
or absence of specific overt behaviors and emotions. Intrinsic motivation is often measured
through behaviors, such as the choice to pursue and engage in tasks, and attending to and
investigating a particular task, which may be due to feelings of arousal or drive
(Henderlong and Paris 1996; Reeve and Nix 1997). Similar to the neuropsychological
treatment of motivation, approach and avoidance behaviors are considered to be reflective
of motivational states (Hillman et al. 2004).
Advantages over self-report include the study of motivation in natural contexts and
learning situations (Henderlong and Paris 1996) and measuring affective responses, rather
than simply cognitive or self-evaluative reactions, to motivational stimuli and conditions.
Behaviors such as involvement and engagement are especially important for success in
reading and literacy and, therefore, are a significant aspect of motivation to measure. In
addition, behavioral measures tend to have increased context-specificity and face validity
when compared to self-report measures. Like self-report, most behavioral measures are
relatively non-intrusive especially when considered against the neuropsychological/
physiological approach (Reeve and Nix 1997) and can be completed by observers other
than the participant (e.g., teachers, parents, etc.).
Challenges with the behavioral approach include limitations of the behavioral tasks
themselves, as behavior is affected by the knowledge of these tasks, level of challenge,
interest level of the participants, the influence of competing motives and activities,
previous exposure to the task, and attentional constraints (Henderlong and Paris 1996;
Hillman et al. 2004; Wicker et al. 1990). As suggested by Bong (1996), social desirability
may affect behavioral results in the same way as self-report measures. Using both
methods can inform the researcher about the validity of self-report responses (Bong
1996). Furthermore, if methodology is solely observational, researchers are often unable
to assess how the activity influences students emotions, confidence, or self-concept,
resulting in uncertainty in determining, which behaviors are reflective of motivation
(Henderlong and Paris 1996). For this reason, most behavioral studies also include a selfreport measure.
Measurement tools The behavioral approach focuses on operationally defining behaviors
that are considered to be reflective of motivational states. This may include analyzing video
data, viewing behaviors through a one-way mirror, or using common measures to assess
behaviors. Behaviors are measured either during the task or post-performance. Behaviors
believed to reflect motivation, and intrinsic motivation in particular, include whether an
individual approaches or pursues a task, latency of initiation, length of engagement,
comprehensiveness of involvement, effort, and task-oriented activity versus off-task
behavior (Henderlong and Paris 1996; Justice et al. 2003; Reeve and Nix 1997; Veermans
237
and Tapola 2004). Response or reaction time is commonly used in both neuropsychological
and behavioral methodology, and it is assumed that improvement in response time due to
motivation or rewards is attributable to increased arousal, which results in improved
attention and motor preparedness to respond to highly valued stimuli (Elliott et al. 2003;
Washburn and Putney 2001). Interest and motivation measures have also included displays
of positive affect during task-related behavior (Gilmore et al. 2003). More specific bodily
behavioral measures consist of hand speed and facial displays, including eye contact and
frequency of eyes closed, although Reeve and Nix (1997) concluded that there may not be a
consistent, reliable group of facial displays related to intrinsic motivation.
Free choice time is the most often implemented behavioral measure of intrinsic
motivation and is operationally defined in terms of the time the participant engages with the
target task after the experimenter has left the room for a specific period of time (Reeve and
Cole 1987; Reeve and Nix 1997; Wicker et al. 1990). The operationalization of free choice
time is consistent with the psychological definition of intrinsic motivation (Guay et al.
2000). However, the use of this measure has been challenged due to limitations including
the assessment of post-performance motivation, the effect of the attractiveness of alternative
activities in the room, discrepancies over correlations with self-reported intrinsic interest,
the inability to use free choice time in natural, authentic settings, and the neglect of other
aspects of motivation (Guay et al. 2000; Reeve and Nix 1997; Wicker et al. 1990).
Behavioral measures are becoming quite common in research on student
motivation; for example, Henderlong and Paris (1996) studied the choice and
persistence behaviors of children in a museum exhibit scenario, while Pierson (1999)
focused on task engagement and persistence in personally interesting literacy activities.
Behavioral measures for literacy motivation have also been constructed and include the
KaderayekSulzby Rating of Orientation to Book Reading (Justice et al. 2003), which
involves a rating of childrens engagement, participation, and interest in a book-reading
task. Patrick et al. (1997) developed a protocol to observe several aspects of the
classroom environment, including student motivated behavior (e.g., student affect
associated with tasks, student help-seeking behavior, and studentstudent interactions).
This measure is useful for a wider range of grade levels and emphasizes the importance of
context in students motivation.
Measurement tasks The tasks used in behavioral methods, especially for children, consist
mainly of natural, authentic learning environments and activities. This may include
informal learning settings, such as museums (Henderlong and Paris 1996), or formal
learning situations, such as intervention programs for literacy (Justice et al. 2003). Students
typically select tasks that are personally motivating, instead of the researcher choosing or
creating tasks that are assumed to be motivating for the student. Some similarities exist
between behavioral and neuropsychological approaches with the occasional use of
cognitive tasks that are believed to be intrinsically motivating (Reeve and Cole 1987;
Reeve and Nix 1997; Wicker et al. 1990) and extrinsic motivators, such as monetary
rewards (Wicker et al. 1990).
In reviewing the approaches to the measurement of motivation, it is evident that each of
these approaches provides strengths to the study of motivation that resolve some of the
limitations in self-report methodology. However, the challenge lies in the integration of
these approaches, which has been rare in empirical research to date. The following future
directions will provide a review of accounts of preliminary attempts at integration or
combination of the previously discussed approaches and a summary of the characteristics of
an ideal measure of motivation.
238
Future Directions
The preceding critiques of four approaches to motivation measurement imply that each
perspective has specific and distinct strengths. Within each approach, researchers should
take care to protect these strengths by engaging in best practices for that method. Reliability
and construct specificity are the main advantages of the self-report method. These can be
preserved by attending carefully to item construction, with especial attention to
developmental issues in the writing of items and in response scale mechanics. Whether
using an existing measure or creating a new measure, construct validation via a
dimensionality analysis is also essential for preserving the strengths of the self-report
format. In contrast, the idiographic, dynamic, and context-specific nature of the
phenomenological approach is the major strength of that measurement perspective. Any
procedure that imposes researcher-derived categories, classifications, or labels for
motivational constructs nullifies this measurement advantage. The main advantages of the
behavioral and physiological approaches are their use of natural contexts and the focus on
face-valid motivated behaviors (e.g., attention to task, persistence, task choice, etc.) or
physiological responses. Preserving the specificity of the target context and behavior
maximizes this strength. Each of the four approaches have an established literature that
details best measurement practices, and starting points have been identified in the critiques
above. An additional caveat to these recommendations would be that, although each
approach has specific strengths that should be preserved, the approach chosen for a
particular study should fit with the research questions and theories driving the research.
As cumbersome as a full dimensionality assessment for a self-report measure or an
authenticity audit for a phenomenologically based measure may be, attending to and
conserving the strengths of each measurement approach is the easier of the two tasks
presented to researchers by the present critique. Accounting and mitigating the weaknesses
of each approach is a more difficult task. Where self-report methodology has strength in
construct specificity, it may lack in face validity; where the behavioral approach has
strength in face validity, the tasks or responses chosen may be misaligned with the lived
motivational experience and learning contexts of the students involved; where the
phenomenological approach captures the idiographic aspects of motivation, generalization
to developmental and educational processes may be difficult. As a result, one potential
mechanism for attending to the weaknesses of individual approaches may be a process
whereby the strength of an alternate approach is incorporated to the measurement scheme or
the broader study at hand.
Preliminary combination/integration
With the predominance of self-report methodology in the study of motivation, integrative
methodological approaches should consist of the best of self-report with the incorporation
of alternative measurement techniques from other approaches. Ideally, measures of
motivation will be multidimensional in both theoretical perspectives and measurement
techniques, reflecting multiple perspectives and approaches to capture the complexities of
students motivational profiles with regards to academics. The aforementioned approaches
to the study of motivation have been integrated in research in diverse ways; however, the
predominant focus continues to emphasize either individual or environmental determinants
of motivation (Veermans and Tapola 2004). With the limitations of each approach and the
ability of other fields to partially compensate for these limitations, there is a need to form
integrated, multi-pronged approaches to the study of motivation. Our comments on
239
combination and/or integration of methodological approaches do not veer into the problems
of theoretical integration. Acknowledging that each of the four measurement approaches
arise from different and sometimes incompatible theoretical traditions, any specific attempt
to combine techniques will need to weigh the extensive literature on problems of theoretical
integration (e.g., Green 2007).
The most common multi-method approach is the combination of self-report and
behavioral measures (i.e., Reeve and Cole 1987; Reeve and Nix 1997). As Bong (1996)
suggested, self-report data can be integrated with behavioral methods, including
observations in the learning environment and more overt behavioral indexes. Disparate
findings have evolved from these multi-method approaches, possibly due to a superficial
integration of the methods, or a limited, unidirectional conceptualization of the relationship
between the individual and context (Veermans and Tapola 2004). Across multiple areas of
study in learning and instruction, reciprocal relationships have been identified between the
individual and environment, and therefore, the relationship with motivation should be
investigated in a similar way (Reeve and Cole 1987).
Reeve and Cole (1987) found that self-report and behavioral measures of intrinsic
motivation independently contribute to the variance in intrinsic motivation, concluding that
both methods are crucial in the study of motivation. Reeve and Nix (1997) also found that
self-reported interest and competence correlated with behavioral measures, and some facial
displays of intrinsic motivation. An unanticipated finding by Frijters et al. (2005) resulted
in the identification of a behavioral component to a self-report measure. Median time to
complete each item strongly predicted degree of response to reading remediation. Children
who took longer to complete each item grew at the fastest rate on reading outcomes,
suggesting that persistence or effort on the self-report task functioned as a proxy for
engagement with reading material of any kind, including items on a self-report task.
Jarvenoja and Jarvela (2005) and Veermans and Tapola (2004) reached a similar
conclusion, emphasizing the importance of a profile-oriented approach that combines
individual (self-report) and situational measures to understand classroom motivation in
natural settings. Relationships between self-report questionnaire responses and neurological
activity have also been found, with the strength of reported subjective motivational state
linearly related to the intensity of brain activity in the putamen (Mizuno et al. 2008).
Attempts to integrate approaches have not been completely successful, possibly due to a
lack of understanding about the particular theoretical underpinnings of the construct of
motivation within each approach. This was evident in Reeve and Nixs (1997) claim of
incorporating a phenomenological approach, which was actually a self-report measure. This
emphasizes the need for familiarity with the different approaches to motivation and proper
integration suggestions, as highlighted in this review. Although some studies have
combined self-report and behavioral methods, caution is required when integrating these
methods, as they may be incompatible on some dimensions or draw on different aspects of
motivation. Wicker et al. (1990) compared self-report and behavioral measures of intrinsic
motivation for a task and found that self-reported motivation (e.g., feeling interested,
engaged, and successful) and expressed motivated behavior were not correlated.
Furthermore, their behavioral measure was negatively correlated to affect (e.g., feeling
competent, reporting the task was appealing and fun) and goals (e.g., autonomous
achievement). The authors concluded that self-report and behavioral measures are not
equivalent in their measurement of intrinsic motivation and may measure different aspects
of motivation. Wicker et al. (1990) stated that some motivational factors may have a similar
influence on the self-report and behavioral measures, while other factors may have
opposing effects, advising some distrust of all extant measures of intrinsic motivation
240
(p. 85). The authors concluded that if the measures are to be combined to study similar
aspects of motivation, clarity as to how self-report and behavioral methods differ and
overlap in the measurement of motivation is required.
Similarly, Elliott (2004) discussed challenges in combining interviews and self-reports,
as responses during an interview may not reflect self-report data. Thus, when integrating
multiple methods in the study of motivation, we must be attentive to the dimensions of
motivation measured by each instrument and the validity of these measures. A surface
combination of methods is insufficient, as these methods must be rigorously compared and
integrated to ensure that a reliable, valid measure of motivation is developed. At this point,
a discussion of the characteristics of a more robust measure of motivation will be examined
based on the strengths of the approaches explored throughout this review.
Integrated measurement strategy for motivation
Optimizing the measurement of motivation has been a topic of recent interest, especially
with commentaries on the limitations of self-report (i.e., Kagan 2007) and the expanding
methodological options available to overcome these limitations (i.e., for measuring selfregulation, see Zimmerman 2008). Although the consideration of alternative approaches is
needed, it is also vital to extend our current understanding of existing methods through
further research and theory development. This is especially relevant in the self-report
approach in order to understand the most reliable and valid applications of existing and
novel measures. Particularly in the case of a diverse, complex construct such as motivation,
multiple perspectives, and the interactions between these perspectives must be utilized
(Yeung 2004). The review of the approaches to the study of motivation and basic attempts
at integration provides a rationale for a measure that retains the best characteristics of selfreport measures (e.g., reliability and desirable scaling properties for use in statistical
analyses) and behavioral measures (e.g., context-specificity and face validity). Construction
of complementary measurement devices should integrate the two significant aspects of
motivation, as suggested by the theoretical work of Ainslie (1992): (1) an attitudinal or
emotional orientation component typically assessed through self-report or phenomenological methodologies and (2) a task-oriented component assessing the engagement and
involvement with an activity, which corresponds to behavioral methodologies.
Pintrich (2003) recommended the integration of cognitive-individual and social-cultural
approaches, as individual or contextual approaches on their own will not generate new
knowledge in the field. Cognition and motivation must be examined from the outside in
through a contextual and cultural lens, rather than focusing solely on individual and
intrapsychological processes (Pintrich 2003). The integration of behavioral and neuropsychological models of motives and needs with social-cognitive approaches, and the
combination of implicit and explicit constructs, will give rise to a more comprehensive
understanding of motivation through a multiplicity of experimental designs and
methodologies (Pintrich 2003). Furthermore, the measurement of motivation should be
carried out in natural, authentic learning contexts (Jarvenoja and Jarvela 2005; Veermans
and Tapola 2004).
One possibility for functional integration of motivation measures from different methodological traditions we propose is the inputoutput approach. As mentioned above, superficial
combination of measurement methods has led to inconsistent results and questions about the
validity of each measure separately. To combine measures functionally, the output from one
measure could form the input for another. For example, a multidimensional self-report scale
of motivation for reading may be used initially, generating a score profile across interest,
241
effort, and perceived competence. Low-scale scores on one or more could form the basis for
open-ended or phenomenological assessment focusing on that aspect of motivation. Similarly,
the output from a behavioral measure of motivation could be used to detect changes in selfreport of motivation. The degree of discrepancy between self-reports before and after either
success or failure conditions in a behavioral measure may indicate whether the self-appraisal
motivation system is intact or robust. Such a functional approach would capitalize on the
strength of individual approaches but simultaneously be able to address complex motivational
systems that operate in learning situations.
Using one method of measurement to contextualize the results of another reframes the
lack of inter-measure consistency from a methodological problem to a potential way to
advance theory in the area. For example, Turner et al. (2002) found classroom-level
differences in the relation between middle school students avoidance strategies and their
perceptions of the classroom goal structure through student self-report. To thoroughly
understand and contextualize these relationships and between-classroom differences, audio
transcripts and observational notes of teacher discourse were examined in nine classrooms.
The selected classrooms had dissimilar patterns of avoidance strategies and perceptions of
goal structure (e.g., low avoidance/high mastery; high avoidance/low mastery). The
triangulation of methods leads to a more detailed analysis of how variations in instructional
and motivational discourse may have related to quantitative differences in students selfreport responses. This methodology also advanced theory in the area of classroom mastery
goal structure through noting the importance of both cognitive and motivational support in
classroom discourse, where the focus had been primarily on cognitive features.
As suggested recently by Kagan (2007), the lack of consistency between measurement
modes may stem from the differing origins and intrapersonal contexts of responses to a
particular self-report item or score on an observational checklist. Contextually qualified
measurement opens the possibility for contextually relevant theories of motivation. In summary,
although this review of various approaches to motivation methodology is not exhaustive, it does
demonstrate the usefulness and necessity of understanding various theoretical foundations of
motivation and the development of an integrative measurement approach. Novel measures to
study the relationship between motivation and academic achievement must incorporate ideal
characteristics, including the strengths of self-report, while overcoming the limitations of this
method through the incorporation of additional methodological and conceptual approaches.
The diversities within and between the phenomenological/authentic, neuropsychological/
physiological, and behavioral approaches allow for multiple permutations in designing novel
instruments and scales. Although integration will be challenging due to diverse definitions of
motivation and instruments that measure different aspects of motivation, it is essential if we are
to advance the study of motivation.
References
Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the
person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alagumalai, S., Curtis, D. D., Hungi, N. (Eds.). 2005. Applied Rasch measurement: A book of exemplars.
New York: Springer.
Andrich, D. (2005). Rasch models for ordered response categories. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 16981707). Chichester: Wiley.
Arana, F. S., Parkinson, J. A., Hinton, E., Holland, A. J., Owen, A. M., & Roberts, A. C. (2003). Dissociable
contributions of the human amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex to incentive motivation and goal selection.
Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 96329638.
242
Axelrod, B. N., Fichtenberg, N. L., Millis, S. R., & Wertheimer, J. C. (2006). Detecting incomplete effort
with digit span from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scalethird edition. Clinical Neuropsychologist,
20, 513523.
Ball, S. (1982). Motivation. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of educational research (5th ed., pp. 1256
1263). New York: Macmillan.
Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., & Manning, M. A. (2002). Self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A
meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 31, 405427.
Beatty, J. (1982). Phasic not tonic papillary responses vary with auditory vigilance performance.
Psychophysiology, 19, 167172.
Beauchaine, T. (2001). Vagal tone, development, and Grays motivational theory: Toward an integrated model of
autonomic nervous system functioning in psychopathology. Development & Psychopathology, 13, 183214.
Berridge, K. C. (2004). Motivation concepts in behavioral neuroscience. Physiology & Behavior, 81, 179209.
Binder, L. M. (2002). The Portland Digit Recognition Test: A review of validation data and clinical use.
Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 2(34), 2741.
Blair, C., Peters, R., & Granger, D. (2004). Physiological and neuropsychological correlates of approach/
withdrawal tendencies in preschool: Further examination of the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral
Activation System scales for young children. Developmental Psychobiology, 45, 113124.
Boersma, F. J., & Chapman, J. W. (1992). Perception of ability scale for students. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their
solutions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149165.
Bracken, B. A. (1992). Multidimensional self concept scale. Austin: Pro-Ed.
Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 40, 109131.
Byrne, B. M. (1996). Academic self-concept: Its structure, measurement, and relation to academic
achievement. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 287316). New York: Wiley.
Byrne, B. M. (2002). Validating the measurement and structure of self-concept: Snapshots of past, present,
and future research. American Psychologist, 57, 897909.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to
impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
67, 319333.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young childrens reading self-concepts: An
examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87, 154167.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience sampling method.
Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 175, 526536.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598608). New York: Guilford.
Cumming, J., Olphin, T., & Law, M. (2007). Self-reported psychological states and physiological responses
to different types of motivational general imagery. Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology, 29, 629644.
Drnyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualization of student
motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 519538.
Dubrovinskaya, N. V., & Machinskaya, R. I. (2002). Reactivity of and EEG frequency bands in
voluntary attention in junior schoolchildren. Human Physiology, 28, 520525.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 10401048.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 109132.
Elbaum, B., & Vaughn, S. (2003). For which students with learning disabilities are self-concept interventions
effective? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 101108.
Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2007). Color and psychological functioning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16, 250254.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 22 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 80, 501519.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and
application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613628.
Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Binser, M. J., Friedman, R., & Pekrun, R. (2009). The effect of red on avoidance
behavior in achievement contexts. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 35, 365375.
Elliott, A. J. (2004). Multimethod approaches in educational research. International Journal of Disability,
Development & Education, 51, 135149.
243
Elliott, R., Newman, J. L., Longe, O. A., & Deakin, J. F. W. (2003). Differential response patterns in the
striatum and orbitofrontal cortex to financial reward in humans: A parametric functional magnetic
resonance imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 303307.
Ernst, M., Nelson, E. E., McClure, E. B., Monk, C. S., Munson, S., Eshel, N., et al. (2004). Choice selection
and reward anticipation: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 42, 15851597.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a
structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 257274.
Frijters, J.C., De Palma, M., Barron, R.W., & Lovett, M.W. 2005. Motivation as a moderator of response to
remedial reading instruction: A (modifiable) aptitude x treatment interaction. Symposium paper
presented at the 12th Annual Meetings of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading: Toronto,
ON, June 2426, 2005.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The
Reading Teacher, 49, 518533.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56, 803813.
Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M., & Hayes, A. (2003). A comparative study of mastery motivation in young
children with Downs syndrome: Similar outcomes, different processes? Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 47, 181190.
Goltz, F. (1960). On the functions of the hemispheres. In G. von Bonin (Ed.), The cerebral cortex.
Springfield: Thomas.
Gottfried, A. E. (1986). Manual for the children's academic intrinsic motivation inventory. Odessa:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 85, 541553.
Green, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grill, H. J., & Norgren, R. (1978). Neurological tests and behavioral deficits in chronic thalamic and chronic
decerberate rats. Brain Research, 143, 299312.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation & Emotion, 24, 175213.
Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 63, 165178.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom:
Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300312.
Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 8797.
Harter, S. (1985). The self-perception profile for children: Revision of the perceived competence scale for
children manual. Denver: University of Denver.
Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young
children. Child Development, 55, 19691982.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Future directions in self-concept research. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.),
Handbook of self-concept (pp. 421462). New York: Wiley.
Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short-cuts on the long way to
action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal-directed behavior: Psychological theory and research on
action. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Henderlong, J., & Paris, S. G. (1996). Childrens motivation to explore partially completed exhibits in handson museums. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 111128.
Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring
how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48, 470482.
Hickey, D. T. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 175193.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (1992). The present state of interest research. In K. A. Renninger, S.
Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 433447). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Hillman, C. H., Rosengren, K. S., & Smith, D. P. (2004). Emotion and motivated behavior: Postural
adjustments to affective picture viewing. Biological Psychology, 66, 5162.
Husserl, E. (1958). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. London: Allen & Unwin.
Jarvenoja, H., & Jarvela, S. (2005). How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational
experiences during the learning process: A qualitative approach. Learning & Instruction, 15, 465480.
244
Jones, A.C., & Gosling, S.D. 2008. Individual differences in approach and avoidance motivation in animals.
In A.J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 165187). Boca Raton: CRC.
Justice, L. M., Chow, S. M., Capellini, C., Flanigan, K., & Colton, S. (2003). Emergent literacy intervention
for vulnerable preschoolers: Relative effects of two approaches. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 12, 320332.
Kagan, J. (2007). A trio of concerns. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 361376.
Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R., et al. (2007).
Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean?
Educational Psychologist, 42, 139151.
Keith, L. K., & Bracken, B. A. (1996). Self-concept instrumentation: A historical and evaluative review. In
B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 91170). New York: Wiley.
Kline, P. (2000). A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association Books.
Klopfer, F. J., & Madden, T. M. (1980). The middlemost choice on attitude items: Ambivalence, neutrality, or
uncertainty. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 97101.
Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2005). The measurement of attitudes. In D. Albarracin, B. T.
Johnson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 2176). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1998). Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms
and psychophysiology. Biological Psychiatry, 44, 12481263.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling method. New Directions for
Methodology of Social & Behavioral Science, 15, 4156.
Lau, K. (2004). Construction and initial validation of the Chinese Reading Motivation Questionnaire.
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the
classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184196.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 155.
Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition
& Emotion, 19, 793814.
Liu, W., Wong, A. F. L., Divaharan, S., Peer, J., Quek, C., & Williams, M. D. (2006). Students intrinsic
motivation in project-based learning using an asynchronous discussion platform. Educational Research
Journal, 21, 217234.
Lucas, R. E., & Baird, B. M. (2006). Global self-assessment. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of
multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 2942). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., & Oliver, P. H. (2008). A latent transition analysis of
academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through adolescence. Educational Research & Evaluation,
14, 411427.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Negative item bias in rating scales for preadolescent children: A cognitivedevelopmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22, 3749.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of
Marsh, H. W. (1992a). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic selfconcept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 3542.
Marsh, H. W. (1992b). Self description questionnaireII manual. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1991). Self-concepts of young children 5 to 8 years of age:
Measurement and multidimensional structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 377392.
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley, J. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Evaluation of the Big-Two-Factor
Theory of academic motivation orientations: An evaluation of jinglejangle fallacies. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 38, 189224.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation
Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise
& Sport, 60, 4858.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation,
and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487503.
Michell, J. (1990). An introduction to the logic of psychological measurement. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual
for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Mizuno, K., Tanaka, M., Ishii, A., Tanabe, H. C., Onoe, H., Sadato, N., et al. (2008). The neural basis of
academic achievement motivation. NeuroImage, 42, 369378.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
245
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 353.
Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment,
and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800814.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice,
and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328346.
Nurmi, J.-E., & Aunola, K. (2005). Task motivation during the first school years: A person-oriented approach
to longitudinal data. Learning & Instruction, 15, 103122.
Paris, S. G., Yambor, K. M., & Packard, B. W. (1998). Hands-on biology: A museumschooluniversity partnership for enhancing students interest and learning in science. Elementary School Journal, 98, 267288.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., Anderman, L. H., Middleton, M., Linnenbrink, L., Hruda, L. Z., et al. (1997).
Manual for Observing Patterns of Adaptive Learning (OPAL): A protocol for classroom observations.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Peklaj, C., & Bucik, N. (2003). Vprasalnik bralne motivacije za mlajse ucence [Reading motivation
questionnaire for young students]. In: S. Pejak (Ed.), Bralna motivacija kot dejavnik uinkovitega
uenja in izobraevanja. Raziskovalno poroilo [Reading motivation as a factor of effective learning and
education. Research report]. Ljubljana: Znanstveni intitut Filozofske fakultete.
Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student
interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 515.
Piers, E. V. (1984). PiersHarris childrens self-concept scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Pierson, J. M. (1999). Transforming engagement in literacy instruction: The role of student genuine interest
and ability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 307329.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544555.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and
teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667686.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53, 801813.
Rao, N., & Sachs, J. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 59, 10161029.
Ratner, C. (1993). Contributions of sociohistorical psychology and phenomenology to research methodology.
In H. J. Stam, L. P. Mos, W. Thorngate & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (Vol.
III, pp. 503510). New York: Springer.
Reeve, J., & Cole, S. G. (1987). Integration of affect and cognition in intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Psychology, 121, 441449.
Reeve, J., & Nix, G. (1997). Expressing intrinsic motivation through acts of exploration and facial displays
of interest. Motivation & Emotion, 21, 237250.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollet, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503529). New York: Academic.
Ross, S. R., Putnam, S. H., & Adams, K. M. (2006). Psychological disturbance, incomplete effort, and
compensation-seeking status as predictors of neuropsychological test performance in head injury.
Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 28, 111125.
Schiefele, U., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics experience
and achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 163181.
Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story: How story impacts
emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games. Human
Communication Research, 30, 361375.
Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2005). An implicit motive perspective on competence. In A. J. Elliot
& C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207231.
Shedivy, S. L. (2004). Factors that lead some students to continue the study of foreign language past the
usual 2 years in high school. System, 32, 103119.
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbachs alpha.
Psychometrika, 74(1), 107120.
246
Smith, R. M. (1996). A comparison of methods for determining dimensionality in Rasch measurement.

Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 2540.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. N. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions.
In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243310). New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Spinelli, E. (1989). The interpreted world: An introduction to phenomenological psychology. London: Sage.
Swalander, L., & Taube, K. (2007). Influences of family based prerequisites, reading attitude & selfregulation on reading ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 206230.
Taylor, S. F., Welsh, R. C., Wager, T. D., Phan, K. L., Fitzgerald, K. D., & Gehring, W. J. (2004). A
functional neuroimaging study of motivation and executive function. NeuroImage, 21, 10451054.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., et al. (2002). The
classroom environment and students reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88106.
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98, 354365.
Veermans, M., & Tapola, A. (2004). Primary school students motivational profiles in longitudinal settings.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 373395.
Velleman, P. F., & Wilkinson, L. (1993). Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. The
American Statistician, 47, 6572.
Vestewig, R. E., & Paradise, C. A. (1977). Multidimensional scaling of the TAT and the measurement of
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 595603.
Washburn, D. A., & Putney, R. T. (2001). Attention and task difficulty: When is performance facilitated?
Learning & Motivation, 32, 3647.
Watkins, M. W., & Coffey, D. Y. (2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96, 110118.
Waugh, R. F. (2006). Rasch measurement. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of measurement and
statistics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Waugh, R. F., & Chapman, E. S. (2005). An analysis of dimensionality using factor analysis (True Score
Theory) and Rasch measurement: What is the difference? Which method is better? Journal of Applied
Measurement, 6, 8099.
Weiner, B. (1992). Motivation. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of educational research (6th ed., pp.
860865). New York: Macmillan.
West, J. (2002). Motivation and access to help: The influence of status on one childs motivation for literacy
learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18, 205229.
Wicker, F. W., Brown, G., Wiehe, J. A., & Shim, W. (1990). Moods, goals, and measures of intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Psychology, 124, 7586.
Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 32, 5968.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of childrens motivations for reading: An initial study.
Reading Research Report, 34, 125.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of childrens motivation for reading to the amount and
breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420432.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., et al. (1997).
Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years:
A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451469.
Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2007). First grade students' motivation and achievement for reading, writing,
and spelling. Reading Psychology, 28, 257282.
Worrell, F. C. (1997). An exploratory factor analysis of Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents with
academically talented students. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 57, 10161024.
Wright, B. D. (1996). Comparing Rasch measurement and factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3,
324.
Yeung, A. B. (2004). The octagon model of volunteer motivation: Results of a phenomenological analysis.
Voluntas, 15, 2144.
Young, P. T. (1950). Motivation. In W. S. Monroe (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of educational research (revised
edition) (pp. 755761). New York: Macmillan.
Zalla, T., Koechlin, E., Pietrini, P., Basso, G., Aquino, P., Sirigu, A., et al. (2000). Differential amygdala
responses to winning and losing: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study in humans. European
Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 17641770.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166183.

A Review of Self-Report and Alternative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review of Self-Report and Alternative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educ Psychol Rev (2009) 21:219246