The current study presents the development and validation of a questionnaire on motivational competence in exercise and sport. Motivational competence characterises the self-determined ability to choose a suitable exercise and sport activity. Knowing one’s own preferences and what to expect in different activities helps people to make this choice, which, in turn, supports them in maintaining their physical activity (PA) on a long-term and regular basis. The developed items cover the following three components of motivational competence: 1) knowing one’s own preferences, 2) knowing what to expect in different exercise and sport activities, and 3) choosing and arranging an exercise and sport activity. Psychometric properties were checked using a sample with N = 667 adults (Mage = 42.49, SD = 14.71, 62% female). The final one-dimensional scale consists of four items. Construct validity showed positive relationships to intrinsic and identified motivation modes of self-concordance and conversely no relationship to introjected and low negative to extrinsic motivation. For criterion validity, the structural equation modeling demonstrated that motivational competence and PA-specific self-control are independently and positively associated with exercise and sport behaviour. Overall, the newly developed scale is a psychometrically sound and economical instrument to be used in exercise and sport promotion (e.g. counselling) and research.
When inactive people (re-)start with exercise and sport activities, they are often advised to choose an activity they enjoy doing (American College of Sports Medicine, 2018). The underlying assumption is that an exercise and sport activity which suits one’s preferences and, therefore, provides pleasure, is more likely to be maintained (Klusmann, Musculus, Sproesser, & Renner, 2016; Sudeck & Conzelmann, 2011). Maintaining the activity, in turn, is important to achieve various biopsychosocial health benefits, such as a reduced risk of obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental health conditions, and increased well-being and self-esteem (Eime, Young, Harvey, Charity, & Payne, 2013; Penedo & Dahn, 2005; Reiner, Niermann, Jekauc, & Woll, 2013; Warburton & Bredin, 2017).
However, finding the preferred exercise and sport activity is not a trivial matter. This is partly due to the wide variety of different possibilities and partly because it cannot be assumed that preferences, especially for inactive people, are known. Rather, a successful search necessitates so-called motivational competence. Rheinberg and Engeser (2010, p. 532) define motivational competence as “a person’s ability to reconcile current and future situations with his or her activity preferences such that he or she can function effectively, without the need for permanent volitional control”. Namely, motivational competence consists of three different components (Rheinberg, 2002; Rheinberg & Engeser, 2010, 2018; Rheinberg & Vollmeyer, 2018):
(1) It is important for people to know their own motives. Explicit motives can be defined as self-attributed needs and conscious goals (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018), in exercise and sport this indicates that a person is aware of what is important for him/her when active. For example, they may be looking to improve fitness, to be in contact with other people, or to reduce stress (Lehnert, Sudeck, & Conzelmann, 2011). (2) It is also important to correctly assess situations in terms of their incentives. This implies a person knows what to expect in specific exercise and sport activities. For instance, when fit boxing, you can experience how the heart is pumping and how you get out of breath. As a team member in a game-oriented sport activity, you can spend time with other people. Or while doing yoga, you can look inward and relax. (3) And finally, it is important to not only set your goals, but also manage your situation appropriately: this helps you realise your behaviour and ultimately result in joyful and efficient activity. Again when applying this to exercise and sport, the person is able to self-determinedly choose an activity that corresponds to their own preferences or to arrange and realise the activity accordingly (e.g. jogging outdoors instead of on the treadmill to reduce stress).
In general, the term competence can be embedded in different competence approaches. In the present paper, a functional–pragmatic approach of competence is assumed (Klieme, Hartig, & Rauch, 2008). Competencies should be operationalised in a specific context (Klieme et al., 2008; Koeppen, Hartig, Klieme, & Leutner, 2008). In the following, motivational competence is seen in the context of maintaining exercise and sport on a long-term and regular basis. The three above-mentioned components of motivational competence are variously demanding and complex (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Kratwohl, 2002). Components (1) and (2) refer to the acquisition and reproduction of (domain-specific) knowledge (e.g. knowing one’s own preferences in the context of exercise and sport or knowing the incentives of an activity). In contrast, component (3) is rather the application of one’s preferences. This means being able to use the knowledge in a concrete situation (e.g. selecting a suitable activity and arranging appropriate situations).
Motivational competence is linked to several psychological constructs. For one, motivational competence is connected with self-concordance (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), which is defined as the degree to which a chosen goal represents one’s own interests and values. Self-concordance represents a continuum ranging from a person’s intrinsic motivation mode, where the exercise and sport activity is inherently interesting, to an external motivation mode, where the person wants to be active owing to external pressure or positive consequences (Sheldon, 2009; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Research shows that intrinsic and identified motivation are positively associated with regular exercise and sport behaviour, whereas introjected and extrinsic motivation are mainly unrelated with behaviour (Teixeira, Carraca, Markland, Silva, & Ryan, 2012). Both motivational competence and self-concordance involve one’s personal interests. For both constructs, it is assumed that experiencing an activity as satisfying is important for participating long-term in exercise and sport (Rheinberg & Engeser, 2018; Teixeira et al., 2012). However, the two constructs are different in that self-concordance describes the quality of a more or less self-concordant goal, whereas motivational competence describes the knowledge and abilities needed to create conditions to pursue goals efficiently and joyfully.
In addition, motivational competence is closely linked to physical activity-related health competence (PAHCO; Carl, Sudeck, & Pfeifer, 2020; Schmid, Haible, & Sudeck, 2020; Sudeck & Pfeifer, 2016). PAHCO refers to the competencies required to lead a healthy, physically active lifestyle. Of particular interest for the present study is physical activity(PA)-specific self-regulation. It contains the motivational and volitional basis for regular PA. Thereby motivation is relevant for creating intentions, whereas volition is essential for pursuing intentions (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018). On the volitional side, self-control contains strategies to develop action and coping plans (Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2016; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006) and to suppress conflicting interests (Englert, 2016). PA-specific self-control is a key element for translating intentions into actual PA behaviour and building habits (Hagger, 2019). This volitional aspect as a subfacet of PA-specific self-regulation has already been empirically investigated (e.g. Carl, Sudeck, Schultz, & Pfeifer, 2020; Lenartz, 2012; Sudeck & Pfeifer, 2016). For the motivational side of PA-specific self-regulation within the PAHCO approach, operationalisation is missing. This is where the construct of motivational competence could fill the gap.
Purpose of the present investigation
In previous research motivational competence was viewed as a general psychological construct for explaining human behaviour (Rheinberg, 2002; Rheinberg & Engeser, 2010, 2018). However, it became clear that due to the various goals, the variety of activities and the different ways of arranging an activity, motivational competence might be important to maintain exercise and sport. Therefore, it could be beneficial to promote motivational competence by designing interventions and investigating their effectiveness. To do so, a well-validated questionnaire is needed. Hence, the overarching goal of this article is to develop and validate a theoretically underpinned and economical self-assessment scale in German for motivational competence. For this purpose, the following three research questions were posed:
Which items, that is, statements, are the most appropriate to measure motivational competence? To answer this question, items were developed based on theoretical considerations and communicative validation. Following this, factorial validity was checked with two independent samples.
How reliable is the scale? Factor, indicator and test–retest reliability were analysed.
How valid is the scale? To test further construct validity, we analysed how motivational competence is related to self-concordance. According to Sheldon and Elliot (1999), it can be hypothesised that motivational competence is positively related to self-concordant goals, such as intrinsic and identified motivation modes, whereas with non-self-concordant goals, such as introjected and extrinsic motivation mode, it is less or not at all related. To test criterion validity, we analysed how motivational competence is associated with PA-specific self-control and with the volume of exercise and sport. It can be assumed theoretically that motivational competence and PA-specific self-control are positively associated (Sudeck & Pfeifer, 2016). Furthermore, both constructs should make an independent contribution to explain the volume of exercise and sport, whereas PA-specific self-control may be more closely related, since it refers to the regularity of behaviour.
First, twelve items were developed in accordance with the construct of motivational competence (Rheinberg, 2002; Rheinberg & Engeser, 2010, 2018; Rheinberg & Vollmeyer, 2018). All Rheinberg and Vollmeyer’s components (2018) were covered with at least one item. In addition, the items contained knowledge and application from Kratwohl’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (2002) (see Electronic Supplementary Material 1). These initial items were developed by a focus group (Barbour, 2007) consisting of four sport scientists and one psychologist. These experts reviewed the items twice (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).
Second, to test comprehensibility, five qualitative interviews with adults (Mage = 42.00, three women, two men) with the think-aloud technique (Presser et al., 2004) were conducted. This revealed that some items were problematic because they contained terms that were either incomprehensible or ambiguous (e.g. characterise, interests, or experiences). Consequently, these itemsFootnote 1 were removed. Finally, seven items (see Electronic Supplementary Material 1) were selected for testing in the empirical study. Participants evaluated these seven items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from does not apply at all (1) to applies exactly (5).
Samples and data collection
The sample for this study was collected in two different ways. Firstly, participants were recruited via a health insurance’s online (newsletter, posts in social media) and print media (magazine, flyer, media release). In all, 466 adults followed the request and filled out the online questionnaire. Secondly, participants were recruited via service companies’ health management platforms. As a result, 201 adults completed the online or paper–pencil questionnaire. A subsample of 76 people accomplished the questionnaire again two weeks after and thus were used to check test–retest reliability. In total the overall sample contains 667 people (for details see Table 1).
Measures for validation
Sport- and exercise-related self-concordance
Self-concordance was assessed using the self-concordance of the sport- and exercise-related goals-scale (Seelig & Fuchs, 2006). This well-validated scale measures four modes of motivation (intrinsic, identified, introjected and extrinsic) with 12 items. Based on the sentence “I intend to exercise regularly within the next few weeks and months because …” statements such as, “it’s just fun for me” (intrinsic) or “other people tell me to be physically active” (extrinsic) had to be evaluated. Participants answered the statements on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from does not apply at all (1) to applies exactly (6). Cronbach’s α was acceptable to good (0.75 ≤ α ≥ 0.87).
PA-specific self-control was measured with the 3‑item scale developed and validated by Sudeck and Pfeifer (2016). Participants had to rate statements such as “when I decide to exercise more, I am very disciplined in implementing this plan” on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from does not apply at all (1) to applies exactly (5). Cronbach’s α was good (α = 0.88).
Exercise and sport behaviour
Exercise and sport behaviour was recorded with the Physical Activity, Exercise, and Sport Questionnaire (Fuchs, Klaperski, Gerber, & Seelig, 2015). Participants could indicate up to three different activities. Furthermore, they specified how often and how long they had performed each activity in the four weeks before data collection. A weekly volume of exercise and sport activity was calculated, based on frequency and duration of each specified activity given.
Data preparation and analysis
The entire sample was checked for multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance (χ2 at p < 0.001) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). A total of 22 individuals were removed from the data set. Missing values (0.62%) were estimated with the full information maximum likelihood procedure (Little & Rubin, 2020). For the seven items of motivational competence, the percentage of missing value was 0.04%, which corresponds to two missing values. The data were analyzed with MPlus Version 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017).
To examine factorial structure (research question 1), the total sample of 645 was randomly split half into halves: sample A and sample B (see Electronic Supplementary Material 2). Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2009) with the robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimator method and target rotation was used to check the initial factor structure of the item pool with sample A. Thereby, only factor loadings with > 0.50 were considered. According to Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, and Müller (2003), a good and acceptable model fit is given if the comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.97 and ≤ 0.95, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ 0.97 and ≤ 0.95, the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ 0.05 and ≤ 0.10, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.05 and ≤ 0.08, respectively. To cross-validate the factorial structure, metric measurement invariance tests across samples A and B were conducted. As a precondition, configural measurement invariance was examined, whereby a separate ESEM was conducted for each sample. According to Chen (2007), measurement invariance is given if ∆CFI ≤ 0.010 and ∆RMSEA ≤ 0.015.
Composite reliability (CR) (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012) and the average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) were calculated to determine the reliability of the factors (research question 2). In addition, Cronbach’s α was calculated. To estimate the reliability of the indicators, squared multiple correlations (SMC) were computed. CR ≥ 0.70, AVE ≥ 0.50, Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.80, and SMC ≥ 0.40 were used as cut-offs for good reliabilities. To consider test-retest reliability (rtt) in the subsample, the Pearson coefficient was used over a period of 14 days (M = 14.45 days, SD = 1.53). If rtt is ≥ 0.70, it is satisfactory.
Construct validity and criterion validity
To assess construct and criterion validity (research question 3), two different analyses were made. Firstly, based on a structural equation modeling, latent correlation coefficients between motivational competence and intrinsic, identified, introjected, and extrinsic modes of motivation of self-concordance (Seelig & Fuchs, 2006) were calculated. According to Cohen (1988), effect sizes with 0.10 were classified as small, 0.30 as medium and 0.50 as large. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05, except when testing the null hypotheses, where it was set at p < 0.10. Secondly, a structural equation modeling with motivational competence and PA-specific self-control was conducted to see how these constructs are associated with the weekly volume of exercise and sport. The same cut-offs for a good and acceptable model fit apply as listed above. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. In addition, the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) for motivational competence and PA-specific self-control was calculated, which is given when AVE of a factor is greater than the square variance between the factors.
To start, one- to three-factor models were examined. However, when two and three factors were targeted, no clearly distinguishable factor structure (e.g. high cross-loadings) can be identified. That is why the following analysis refers to a one-factor solution only. We started with a 7-item model in sample A. There it became clear that MC6 should be dropped out due to relatively low factor loading, worse kurtosis and low item difficulty (Table 2).
From a statistical perspective, the remaining items can be classified as comparably good when considering the 6‑item model. Nevertheless, two more items were deleted because of the economy of the measurement tool and based on theoretical and content-related assumptions. Thus, MC5 was removed, since MC5 is quite similar in content to MC3 (see Electronic Supplementary Material 1). Both items are about people knowing their own preferences and thus establishing a fit with a suitable exercise and sport activity. Despite this similarity, MC3 covers the competence category knowledge (i.e. “I know exactly …”) more appropriately (Kratwohl, 2002). Finally, MC7 was excluded. Both, MC7 and MC4 aim at identifying different incentives, whereby the wording of MC7 “… what to expect in various exercise and sport activities” is broader than the wording of MC4 “… what characterises different exercise and sport activities”. Thus, MC4 is closer in content to the original theoretical construct. The final 4‑item version displayed the best model fit (CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.006, TLI = 1.000, and RMSEA = 0.000) in comparison to the other models (see Electronic Supplementary Material 3). In addition, all items had satisfactory high factor loadings (Table 2). Only the factor loading of MC4 was slightly lower. It should be noted that the 3‑item model did not cover the whole facet of motivational competence, which is why it was not pursued in detail.
Furthermore, configural measurement invariance was independently demonstrated in sample A and sample B (Table 3). In addition, both samples combined met the cut-off values (∆CFI ≤ 0.010 and ∆RMSEA ≤ 0.015) for metric measurement invariance.
Therefore, the metric measurement invariance of the final 4‑item model means that equal factor loadings in these two samples can be assumed and that statements about correlations with other constructs are allowed. Thus, the two samples were merged for further analysis.
The reliability tests showed satisfactory results. All coefficients exceed the cut-off values with CR = 0.86, Cronbach’s α = 0.86 and AVE = 0.62. All items showed good values for SMC (0.49–0.69). In addition, test–retest reliability (rtt) over a period of two weeks displayed a positive correlation of rtt = 0.79 (p < 0.001, n = 76), which is satisfactory.
Construct validity and criterion validity
As expected, motivational competence correlated with the constructs included to test the scale’s construct validity. A large positive correlation was found for the intrinsic motivation mode (r = 0.63, p < 0.001), whereas a medium-sized correlation was manifested for the identified motivation mode (r = 0.44, p < 0.001). Furthermore, as hypothesised, no correlation with the introjected motivation mode (r = −0.00, p = 0.970) was found, whereas the extrinsic motivation showed a small and negative correlation (r = −0.11, p = 0.062).
For criterion validity, both factors—motivational competence and PA-specific self-control—met the Fornell–Larcker criterion (AVEMC = 0.62 > (0.65)2 = 0.42; AVESC = 0.71 > (0.65)2 = 0.42). In addition, the structural equation model fitted the data well (CFI = 0.999, SRMR = 0.010, TLI = 0.998, and RMSEA = 0.014). Motivational competence (β = 0.13, p = 0.008) and PA-specific self-control (β = 0.48, p > 0.001) were positively associated with the weekly volume of exercise and sport (Fig. 1). The model explains 33% of the variance of weekly volume of exercise and sport. Furthermore, a positive correlation between motivational competence and PA-specific self-control (β = 0.65, p > 0.001) occurred.
The aim of this current study was to develop and validate a German self-assessment scale to measure motivational competence. We have shown that motivational competence can be measured on a one-dimensional scale. This scale covers three components by Rheinberg and Vollmeyer (2018), namely, (1) awareness of one’s own preferences, (2) knowledge of the incentives of various exercise and sports activities, and (3) corresponding selection and arrangement of a suitable exercise and sport activity.
This newly developed instrument on motivational competence meets the quality criteria for psychometric properties. The analysis displays favourable values for the reliability of the factor, the indicators and the test–retest. Likewise, the positive relationships to intrinsic and identified motivation of self-concordance (Seelig & Fuchs, 2006) indicate good validity. The results may assume that people with a high level of motivational competence do exercise and sport activities which are rather congruent to their motives. In addition, they need less volitional control for execution (Rheinberg, 2002; Rheinberg & Engeser, 2018). This increases the chance of engaging intentionally in motive-fitting situations. Conversely, no relationship to introjected and a low negative relationship to extrinsic motivation is revealed, which underlines the statement above. The results of the structural equation model provide additional evidence for validity. Both PA-specific self-control and motivational competence are independently associated with the volume of exercise and sport, whereby the association with PA-specific self-control is strongest. These findings are consistent with previous research (Sniehotta, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005), where both motivation and volition are related to exercise and sport behaviour; however the correlation to volition is comparably higher. To sum up, the theoretical expectations and validation hypotheses posed have been confirmed and a satisfactory validity is indicated.
The present findings support the two-sidedness of PA-specific self-regulation, which is the basis for regular PA. Motivational competence as the motivational side of PA-specific self-regulation represents the self-determined ability to choose a suitable exercise and sport activity and arrange it efficiently and joyfully. In contrast, self-control—as the volitional side—represents the planning of this exercise and sport activity. Thus, motivational competence and PA-specific self-control are two substantial and discriminant determinants of exercise and sport behaviour which complement each other. In the future, how the two constructs interact could be investigated in more detail, for example, whether there is a compensation mechanism as assumed by Rheinberg and Vollmeyer (2018).
Although the questionnaire demonstrates good psychometric properties, four limitations need to be pointed out. The first limitation concerns the one-dimensionality of the scale. This implies that specific changes in a component (e.g. knowing one’s own motives) cannot be analysed separately. To its credit, however, a short scale is economical. The second limitation concerns the sample. Due to the absence of a random selection, the representativeness of the sample is slightly limited. Women (62%), people with a higher education (e.g. university degree; 55%), and people with a high activity level (≥ 75 min/week; 58%) are overrepresented, which might influence the results. The third limitation concerns the assessment of exercise and sport behaviour. The volume of exercise and sport was assessed using self-reports. Consequently, it could be that people overestimate themselves in declaring their PA. This potential bias of memory and social desirability must be taken into account (Nigg et al., 2020). Here, the use of an accelerometer would provide objective data of PA. The fourth limitation concerns the study design. The relationships examined in this study are cross-sectional. When it comes to the maintenance of PA, however, longitudinal data are particularly important.
Future research should examine how motivational competence can be promoted. A possible intervention could be in the form of an exercise and sport counselling (Schmid, Conzelmann, & Sudeck, 2013; Schmid, Schorno, Gut, Sudeck, & Conzelmann, in press), in which the three components from motivational competence are addressed. For example, people could become more aware of their preferences (component 1) through the assessment of their motives and the discussion of the individual motive profile (e.g. Sudeck, Lehnert, & Conzelmann, 2011). Various exercise and sport sessions could help people gain experiences and understand the incentives of different activities (component 2). Finally, a guided reflection with a counsellor about the experienced activities (e.g. what did you like? Why did you (not) like it?) could help people to find an exercise and sport activity that suits them (component 3). In addition to motivational competence, such a counselling also ideally promotes PA-specific self-control, by planning actions (e.g. how to implement the activity in everyday life) or addressing barrier management, for example. A promotion from motivational and volitional aspects should contribute to the fact that no intention–behaviour gap arises, and thus people are regularly and for a long-term active (Fuchs, Göhner, & Seelig, 2011; Milne, Orbell, & Sheeran, 2002). Such an intervention can be implemented in a non-clinical or clinical setting (e.g. at the end of a rehabilitation program). Future research should investigate the effectiveness of a counselling on motivational competence using a longitudinal design, whereby the newly developed questionnaire may be used to measure the impact. Further studies should additionally examine general factors influencing motivational competence (e.g. implicit associations) and the effect on exercise and sport behaviour (e.g. Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018).
In the present study motivational competence as a general construct was examined in the domain of exercise and sport. Overall, results show that motivational competence is a relevant domain-specific construct that should be given more attention both in research and practice. Furthermore, the questionnaire is a useful tool for the assessment of motivational competence and to check the effectiveness over time, especially for the planning of interventions that promote motivational competence.
For example, the item “I can estimate very well what to expect in various exercise and sport activities” cannot be answered by inactive people, because they may not have previous experience. In the item “I find it very easy to estimate what characterises different exercise and sports activities” the expression characterises was interpreted differently.
American College of Sports Medicine (2018). Exercising to lose weight. https://www.exerciseismedicine.org/support_page.php/weight-loss/. Accessed March, 25, 2020.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 8–34.
Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Brand, R., & Ekkekakis, P. (2018). Affective–Reflective theory of physical inactivity and exercise. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 48(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-017-0477-9.
Carl, J., Sudeck, G., & Pfeifer, K. (2020). Competencies for a healthy physically active lifestyle—reflections on the model of physical activity-related health competence. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 1, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2019-0442.
Carl, J., Sudeck, G., Schultz, K., & Pfeifer, K. (2020). Competencies for a healthy physically active lifestyle—Validation of an integrative model. ResearchSquare. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.20632/v1.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(98), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-98.
Englert, C. (2016). The strength model of self-control in sport and exercise psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00314.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fuchs, R., Göhner, W., & Seelig, H. (2011). Long-term effects of a psychological group intervention on physical exercise and health: The MoVo concept. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8(6), 794–803. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.8.6.794.
Fuchs, R., Klaperski, S., Gerber, M., & Seelig, H. (2015). Messung der Bewegungs- und Sportaktivität mit dem BSA-Fragebogen: Eine methodische Zwischenbilanz [Measurement of physical activity and sport activity with the BSA questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 23, 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1026/0943-8149/a000137.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2016). Planning promotes goal striving. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications (pp. 223–244). New York: Guilford.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
Hagger, M. S. (2019). Habit and physical activity: theoretical advances, practical implications, and agenda for future research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.007.
Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2018). Motivation and action: introduction and overview. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (3rd edn., pp. 1–14). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (1st edn., pp. 3–22). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Klusmann, V., Musculus, L., Sproesser, G., & Renner, B. (2016). Fulfilled emotional outcome expectancies enable successful adoption and maintenance of physical activity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1990), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01990.
Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.61.
Kratwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lehnert, K., Sudeck, G., & Conzelmann, A. (2011). BMZI – Berner Motiv- und Zielinventar im Freizeit- und Gesundheitssport [BMZI—Bernese motive and goal inventory in leisure and health sports]. Diagnostica, 57, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000043.
Lenartz, N. (2012). Gesundheitskompetenz und Selbstregulation [Health competence and self-regulation]. Göttingen: V & R unipress.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2020). Statistical analysis with missing data (3rd edn.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
Milne, S., Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2002). Combining motivational and volitional interventions to promote exercise participation: Protection motivation theory and implementation intentions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 163–184.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Nigg, C. R., Fuchs, R., Gerber, M., Jekauc, D., Koch, T., Krell-Roesch, J., Lippke, S., Mnich, C., Novak, B., Ju, Q., Sattler, M. C., Schmidt, S. C. E., van Poppel, M., Reimers, A. K., Wagner, P., Woods, C., & Woll, A. (2020). Assessing physical activity through questionnaires—A consensus of best practices and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 50, 101715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101715.
Penedo, F. J., & Dahn, J. R. (2005). Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18, 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001504-200503000-00013.
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109–130.
Reiner, M., Niermann, C., Jekauc, D., & Woll, A. (2013). Long-term health benefits of physical activity—A systematic review of longitudinal studies. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-813.
Rheinberg, F. (2002). Emotionen in die Tat umsetzen: Freude am Kompetenzerwerb, Flow-Erleben und motivpassende Ziele [Putting emotions into practice. Enjoyment in acquiring competence, flow experience and motiv-congruent goals]. In M. von Salisch (Ed.), Emotionale Kompetenz entwickeln: Grundlagen in Kindheit und Jugend [Develop emotional competence: Basics in childhood and youth] (pp. 179–206). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Rheinberg, F., & Engeser, S. (2010). Motive training and motivational competence. In O. C. Schultheiss & J. C. Brunstein (Eds.), Implicit motives (pp. 510–548). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rheinberg, F., & Engeser, S. (2018). Intrinsic motivation and flow. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (3rd edn., pp. 579–622). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Rheinberg, F., & Vollmeyer, R. (2018). Motivation (9th edn.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
Schmid, J., Conzelmann, A., & Sudeck, G. (2013). Effekte einer individualisierten Sportberatung im Betrieb [Effects of individualized exercise counselling in the workplace]. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, 8(2), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-012-0366-x.
Schmid, J., Haible, S., & Sudeck, G. (2020). Patterns of physical activity-related health competence: stability over time and associations with subjective health indicators. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 50, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-020-00650-1.
Schmid, J., Schorno, N., Gut, V., Sudeck, G., & Conzelmann, A. (in press). “What type of activity suits me?” Development and implementation of the exercise and sport counselling approach COMET. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie. https://doi.org/10.1026/1612-5010/a000309.
Seelig, H., & Fuchs, R. (2006). Messung der sport- und bewegungsbezogenen Selbstkonkordanz [Measuring sport- and exercise-related self-concordance]. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, 13, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1026/1612-5010.13.4.121.
Sheldon, K. M. (2009). Changes in goal-striving across life span: Do people learn to select more self-concordant goals as they age? In M. C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult learning and development (pp. 553–569). London: Routledge.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.522.
Sniehotta, F. F., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: Planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychology & Health, 20(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440512331317670.
Sudeck, G., & Conzelmann, A. (2011). Motivbasierte Passung von Sportprogrammen: Explizite Motive und Ziele als Moderatoren von Befindlichkeitsveränderungen durch sportliche Aktivität [Motive-based tailoring of sports programes: explicit motives and goals as moderators of mood changes through sports activities]. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 41, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-011-0194-8.
Sudeck, G., & Pfeifer, K. (2016). Physical activity-related health competence as an integrative objective in exercise therapy and health sports—Conception and validation of a short questionnaire. Sportwissenschaft, 46(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-016-0405-4.
Sudeck, G., Lehnert, K., & Conzelmann, A. (2011). Motivbasierte Sporttypen: Auf dem Weg zur Personorientierung im zielgruppenspezifischen Freizeit- und Gesundheitssport [Motive-based types of sports person: towards a person-oriented approach in target group-specific leisure and health sports]. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, 18, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1026/1612-5010/a000032.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th edn.). London: Pearson.
Teixeira, P. J., Carraca, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 78–108. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-78.
Warburton, D. E. R., & Bredin, S. S. D. (2017). Health benefits of physical activity: a systematic review of current systematic reviews. Current Opinion in Cardiology, 32(5), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000437.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendation for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127.
This research was supported by the health insurance Atupri. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Open access funding provided by University of Bern
Conflict of interest
N. Schorno, G. Sudeck, V. Gut, A. Conzelmann and J. Schmid declare that they have no competing interests.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants or on human tissue were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Human Sciences of the University of Bern’s Faculty of Human Science approved the study design and procedures (number: 2018-11-00004). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Electronic Supplementary Material 1: Original wording of the items in German, the English translation, and assignment of the items to the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Kratwohl, 2002) and to the component of motivational competence
Electronic Supplementary Material 3: Factorial validity of the 7‑, 6‑, 5‑, and 4‑item models of motivational competence with sample A (n = 323)
About this article
Cite this article
Schorno, N., Sudeck, G., Gut, V. et al. Choosing an activity that suits: development and validation of a questionnaire on motivational competence in exercise and sport. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 51, 71–78 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-020-00698-z