Author manuscript, cite as:

Tóth-Király, I., Orosz, G., Dombi, E., Jagodics, B., Farkas, D., & Amoura, C. (2017). Cross-
cultural comparative examination of the Academic Motivation Scale using exploratory
structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 130-135. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.048

Cross-cultural comparative examination of the Academic Motivation Scale using exploratory

structural equation modeling

István Tóth-Király1,2,†, Gábor Orosz2,3,†,*, Edina Dombi4, Balázs Jagodics5, Dávid Farkas3,
Camille Amoura6
1
Doctoral School of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
2
Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
3
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre for Natural Sciences,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
4
Department of Applied Pedagogy and Psychology, Juhász Gyula Faculty of Education,
University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
5
Institute of Psychology, University of Szeged, Hungary
6
Université d’Artois, Atelier Sherpas, France

† The first two authors (ITK and GO) contributed equally to this paper.

*Corresponding author:
Dr. Gábor Orosz
Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University
Izabella utca 46.
Budapest, H-1064, Hungary
E-mail.: gaborosz@gmail.com; orosz.gabor@ppk.elte.hu; orosz.gabor@ttk.mta.hu
Tel.: 00 36 70 237 9471

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding sources: Gábor Orosz was supported by the Hungarian Research Fund (NKFI PD
106027, 116686) and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Lendület Project LP2012-36).
Edina Dombi was supported by the TÁMOP-4.2.2.B-15/1/KONV-2015-0006 grant financed
by the European Union and European Council.

Acknowledgements: We are grateful for Fruzsina Lukács, József Salamon, and János Salamon
for the data gathering.

1
Highlights
• The factor of the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) was assessed.
• Hungarian and French high school and university students participated.
• Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) supported the 7-factor model.
• The AMS was reliable based on three different indices.
• Gender invariance was high, age- and language invariances were low.

Abstract
The goal of the present research was to the cross-cultural examination of the factor structure of
the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) and its extensive invariance testing with exploratory
structural equation modeling (ESEM). Three comprehensive samples were collected: a
Hungarian high school (N = 1139), a Hungarian university (N = 1163) samples, and a French
university (N = 1009) sample. Compared to confirmatory factor analysis, ESEM demonstrated
better model fit and less inflated inter-factor correlations in all three samples. Among Hungarian
high school students, intrinsic dimensions were less differentiated. Gender invariance was
confirmed on the level of latent means. As for age- and language invariance, only configural
invariance was supported. The AMS showed mostly adequate reliability and good temporal
stability. Based on the present and prior studies, ESEM appears to be the most adequate analytic
strategy for the deeper understanding of academic motivations measured by the AMS.

Keywords: academic motivation scale (AMS); confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); exploratory
structural equation modeling (ESEM); measurement invariance; temporal stability

2
1. Introduction
According to the self-determination theory (SDT) of Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000),
human behavior is driven by motivations that one wants to satisfy. Based on the levels of self-
determination, three main forms of human motivation can be separated. First, intrinsic
motivation (IM) suggests that one engages in a behavior or activity for internal reasons
(enjoyment, pleasure). Three forms of IM can be distinguished (Vallerand et al., 1992): intrinsic
motivation to know (IMTK) refers to gaining new knowledge about a certain topic. Intrinsic
motivation toward accomplishment (IMTA) is related to the aim of overcoming goals or
surpassing oneself. The third type of intrinsic motivation is connected to experiencing
stimulation (IMES) where one is rewarded by the experienced subjective sensations of the
activity (i.e., joy or arousal).
Second, extrinsic motivation (EM) manifests when an individual engages in an activity
for reasons that are external. Deci and Ryan (2000) distinguished four forms of extrinsic
motivation. Extrinsic motivation of external regulation (EMER) is generated by avoiding
punishment or obtaining reward following the behavior. Extrinsic motivation of introjected
regulation (EMIJ) characterizes those stances when the activity is internalized to a certain
degree and one performs an activity due to internal pressures (e.g., anxiety). Extrinsic
motivation of identified regulation (EMID) occurs when one identifies with the reasons behind
the activity which becomes important for the individual. Extrinsic motivation of integrated
regulation (EMIN) as the most self-determined form of EM supposes that the motivational
drives are the most inner, but they still have external sources that are separate from the activity.
The third element is amotivation (AM). It manifests when one does not find the
connection between his/her behavior and the experienced consequences. Therefore, the state of
amotivation lacks any forms of intrinsic or extrinsic motivations and also lacks the intention for
any kind of action related to a certain area.

1.1. The factorial structure of the AMS

One of the most frequently used instruments to measure different motivations of
students is the AMS. The original version was created by Vallerand, Blais, Brière and Pelletier
(1989) and was adapted to English (Vallerand et al. 1992, 1993). It includes seven dimensions1:
three forms of intrinsic motivation, three forms of extrinsic motivation and an amotivation
subscale. Regarding the psychometric properties of the AMS, previous results are mostly
consistent. The originally hypothesized seven-factor structure was confirmed in the original
(Vallerand et al., 1989) and the adaptation studies (Vallerand et al., 1992, 1993) as well.
Moreover, this seven-factor solution has been supported in most of the adaptations (for more
details, see Supplementary Material 1).
Although the results of previous validation studies appear to be mostly consistent,
several concerns can be raised. First, regarding the factor structure, not all studies demonstrated
adequate goodness-of-fit. Furthermore, in some cases, acceptable model fit was achieved by
using ad hoc correlated uniquenesses which—as stated by Marsh et al. (2014)—could lead to

1
The AMS does not measure the integrated regulation aspect of extrinsic motivation as it has been shown to
manifest in later phases of psychological development (Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senécal, 2007).

3
dubious results. Finally, correlations were noticeably high between adjacent motivational
factors (i.e., three forms of intrinsic motivation) that could undercut the discriminant validity
of the scale and question the tripartite model of intrinsic motivation (Carbonneau, Vallerand, &
Lafrenière, 2012).

1.2. A New Approach for Scale Assessment: exploratory structural equation modeling
The factorial structure of the AMS was mainly assessed with confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) where items are restricted to load on their respective factors without allowing
cross-loadings (Marsh et al., 2009). This method could result in (1) low goodness-of-fit indices
and (2) inflated factor correlations, limiting the discriminant validity of the instrument (e.g.,
Marsh et al., 2014). ESEM has been suggested as a new flexible method, combining EFA and
CFA methods as it integrates the less restrictive aspects of EFA (e.g., cross-loadings are
possible) and the statistical advantages of CFA (e.g., invariance testing). ESEM showed better
model fit and reduced inter-factor correlations than CFA, resulting in a more exact estimates of
correlation values (Morin, Marsh, & Nagengast, 2013). Therefore, ESEM is reasonable as
cross-loadings between the adjacent factors can be expected.

1.3. Measurement invariance for group differences

An important psychometric aspect of instruments such the AMS is whether it can be
used to compare individuals from different subgroups (e.g., males vs. females, younger vs. older
individuals) or over time. If the results can be replicated across-multiple subgroup, then the
comparisons are meaningful and could be generalized. This can be done by performing
measurement invariance testing (Meredith, 1993; Vanderberg & Lance, 2000).
Several levels of invariance can be differentiated: configural invariance tests whether
the respondents of two subgroups apply the same conceptual framework (the same factor
structure) without constraining any parameters. Weak (metric) invariance tests the factor
loadings and supposes that the same construct is measured across the subgroups. Strong (scalar)
invariance tests the item intercepts and supposes that individuals have comparable scores on
the items representing a construct (e.g., different types of motivations) regardless of subgroup
membership. Strict (residual) invariance tests item uniquenesses and suggests that the
measurement errors are similar in the different subgroups. Additionally, latent variances-
covariances and latent means can also be investigated. Multiple invariance tests were carried
out on AMS by comparing groups based on gender, types of high school, academic years, or
the abilities of students (e.g., Alivernini & Lucidi, 2008; Caleon et al., 2015; Guay et al., 2015;
Smith et al., 2010). The present study intends to test the replicability of these results and include
further subgroups in the analyses as well by comparing Eastern European and Western
European contexts.
Several differences warrant the testing of invariance in different nations. First, France
can be considered as a post-materialist country with an emphasis being put on individual values
such as self-growth or self-fulfillment. On the other hand, Hungary can be considered as a
materialist country where materialist values are still more prevalent with emphasis on financial
and material gain (Inglehart, 1977). These cultural differences could also reflect in the
motivations of students with post-materialist values being related to intrinsic motivation, while
materialist values to extrinsic motivation.

4
1.4. The present study
The first goal of the present study was the cross-cultural examination of the factor
structure and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale on Hungarian and French
samples with different age groups. The second goal was to extensively test the invariance across
different subgroups in order to investigate the comparability and the generalizability of the
scale.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
Three samples were used in the current research. Sample 1 consisted of 1139 Hungarian
high school students (629 females) who were aged between 14 and 20 years (MSample1=16.75,
SDSample1=1.22). Sample 2 consisted of 1163 Hungarian college and university students (676
females), aged between 18 and 59 years (MSample2=22.26, SDSample2=3.85). Sample 3 consisted
of 1009 French college and university students (586 females), aged between 18 and 45 years
(MSample3=19.83, SDSample3=1.99). For assessing temporal stability, a separate sample of 100
Hungarian university students (Mage=20.96, SDage=1.89) filled out the questionnaire over a
four-week period (similarly to Vallerand et al., 1992).

2.2. Measures
For high school students, the high school version of the AMS was used (Vallerand et
al., 1989), whereas the college version was used for the university students (Vallerand et al.,
1992, 1993). Students were asked the question of “Why do you go to school/college?”,
respectively. Three of the factors referred to intrinsic: IMTK (four items, e.g., “For the pleasure
that I experience in broadening my knowledge about subjects which appeal to me.”), IMTA
(four items, e.g. “For the pleasure that I experience while I am surpassing myself in one of my
personal accomplishments.”), IMES (four items, e.g. “For the pleasure that I experience when
I read interesting authors.”); another three to extrinsic motivation: EMID (four items, e.g.
“Because I believe that a few additional years of education will improve my competence as a
worker.”), EMIJ (four items, e.g. “To show myself that I am an intelligent person.”), EMER
(four items, e.g. “In order to have a better salary later on.”), and one measured AM (four items,
e.g. “Honestly, I don't know; I really feel that I am wasting my time in school.”). They
responded on a seven-point Likert scale (1=doesn’t correspond at all; 7=corresponds exactly).
Both versions of the AMS were translated to Hungarian and back translated by following the
protocol of Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin and Ferraz (2000).

2.3. Procedure
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and with the
approval of the Institutional Review Board of the related university. Students were informed
about the content of the questionnaire and volunteered for participation. In the case of Sample
1, the schools and parents were informed about the topic of the research through an opt-out
passive consent. Furthermore, students were assured of their anonymity and that teachers would
not be informed about their responses. The questionnaires were filled out during classes. In
Sample 2, questionnaires were filled out online. In Sample 3, data was collected for four years
(2010-2014) during lectures.

5
2.4. Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 22 and Mplus 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén,
1998-2015). As for structural analyses, maximum-likelihood estimation was used with the
oblique geomin rotation with an epsilon (ε) value of .5 as recommended by Morin et al. (2013).
Analyses were performed in multiple phases based on Marsh, Liem, Martin, Morin, and
Nagengast (2011): first, CFA and ESEM solutions were examined and compared in all samples.
In CFA, all items were set to load on their respective factor, while cross-loadings were set to
be zero. In ESEM, cross-loadings were allowed. Profile similarity index (PSI) was also
calculated, allowing the comparison of the factor loadings throughout ESEM and CFA (Marsh
et al., 2010).
Second, measurement invariance was tested on the final models (Meredith, 1993;
Vanderberg & Lance, 2000) across meaningful subgroups: gender (male vs. female), age
(Hungarian high school vs. Hungarian university students), and language (French university
students vs. Hungarian university students). After the identification of the baseline models, the
following sequence was applied from the least restrictive to the most restrictive one: configural
invariance, weak invariance, strong invariance, strict invariance, invariance of the variance-
covariance matrix, and latent mean invariance.
In the assessment of the models, apart from the chi-square test, several indices of
goodness of fit were observed (Brown, 2015) with different cut-off values (Brown, 2015; Hu
& Bentler, 1999): the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; ≥.95 good, ≥.90 acceptable), the Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI; ≥.95 good, ≥.90 acceptable), the Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA; ≤.06 good, ≤.08 acceptable) with its 90% confidence interval and the test of close fit
(CFit; ≥.10 good, ≥.05 acceptable). As for measurement invariance, relative changes in the fit
indices were observed (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002): ΔCFI≤.010; ΔTLI≤.010;
ΔRMSEA≤.015.
Concerning internal consistency, Cronbach’s alphas (Nunnally, 1978) were taken into
account (.70 is acceptable, .80 is good). Due to the its potentially decreased appropriateness
(e.g., Sijtsma, 2009), two additional indices were calculated. First, composite reliability (CR)
which may better represent the construct as it takes into account the factor loadings with their
respective measurement errors. It was computed based on the formula of Raykov (1997) and it
can be considered acceptable above .60 and good above .70 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Second,
factor determinacy (FD) which describes the correlation between the true and the estimated
factor scores, ranging from 0 (low reliability) to 1 (high reliability) (Muthén & Muthén 1998-
2015).

3. Results
3.1. Structural analysis
Goodness-of-fit results can be seen in Table 1, showing that the CFA models were
suboptimal in all samples (CFIs were around .90, TLIs were below .90). Although RMSEAs
were near .06, their test of close fits were still significant, indicating unsatisfactory fit for all
samples. Standardized parameter estimates revealed that all factors were well-defined with
substantial main loadings (overall λ=.45-.90, M=.74). However, inter-factor correlations were
inflated (overall r=|.01|-|.93|, M=.43), specifically between the adjacent factors, calling their
discriminant validity into question.

6
 Table 1
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics and Information Criteria for the Estimated Models on the Academic Motivation Scale
Model χ2 (df) CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI CFit Comparison Δχ2 (df) ΔCFI ΔTLI ΔRMSEA
M1a. Sample 1 – CFA 2058.343* (329) .902 .887 .068 .065-.071 .000 — — — — —
M1b. Sample 1 – ESEM 667.796* (203) .974 .951 .045 .041-.049 .988 — — — — —
M2a. Sample 2 – CFA 1935.877* (329) .910 .896 .065 .062-.068 .000 — — — — —
M2b. Sample 2 – ESEM 717.772* (203) .971 .946 .047 .043-.050 .927 — — — — —
M3a. Sample 3 – CFA 1677.086* (329) .905 .891 .064 .061-.067 .000 — — — — —
M3b. Sample 3 – ESEM 654.073* (203) .968 .941 .047 .043-.051 .893 — — — — —
Gender invariance
MGa. Male 812.497* (203) .971 .945 .046 .043-.049 .977 — — — — —
MGb. Female 1039.721* (203) .968 .941 .047 .044-.050 .973 — — — — —
MG1. Configural 1852.218* (406) .969 .943 .046 .044-.049 .997 — — — — —
MG2. Weak (loadings) 2133.624* (553) .966 .954 .042 .040-.043 1.000 MG2-MG1 281.406 (147) -.003 .011 -.004
MG3. Strong (loadings, thresholds) 2204.750* (574) .965 .954 .041 .040-.043 1.000 MG3-MG2 71.126 (21) -.001 .000 -.001
MG4. Strict (loadings, thresholds, uniquenesses) 2383.278* (602) .962 .952 .042 .041-.044 1.000 MG4-MG3 178.528 (28) -.003 -.002 .001
MG5. Latent variance-covariance 2606.360* (630) .958 .949 .044 .042-.045 1.000 MG5-MG4 223.082 (28) -.004 -.003 .002
MG6. Latent means 2809.452* (637) .954 .945 .045 .044-.047 1.000 MG6-MG5 203.092 (7) -.004 -.004 .001
Age invariance
MAa. Hungarian high school 667.796* (203) .974 .951 .045 .041-.049 .988 — — — — —
MAb. Hungarian university 717.772* (203) .971 .946 .047 .043-.050 .927 — — — — —
MA1. Configural 1385.568* (406) .972 .948 .046 .046-.048 .996 — — — — —
MA2. Weak (loadings) 2082.574* (553) .957 .941 .049 .047-.051 .761 MA2-MA1 697.006 (147) -.015 -.007 .003
MA3. Strong (loadings, thresholds) 2304.998* (574) .951 .936 .051 .049-.053 .183 MA3-MA2 222.424 (21) -.006 -.005 .002
MA4. Strict (loadings, thresholds, uniquenesses) 2867.913* (602) .936 .920 .047 .055-.059 .000 MA4-MA3 562.915 (28) -.015 -.016 -.004
MA5. Latent variance-covariance 3093.074* (630) .930 .917 .058 .056-.060 .000 MA5-MA4 225.161 (28) -.006 -.003 .011
MA6. Latent means 3700.945* (637) .913 .897 .065 .063-.067 .000 MA6-MA5 607.871 (7) -.017 -.020 .007
Language invariance
MLa. French university 654.073* (203) .968 .941 .047 .043-.051 .893 — — — — —

7
MLb. Hungarian university 717.772* (203) .971 .946 .047 .043-.050 .927 — — — — —
ML1. Configural 1371.845* (406) .970 .944 .047 .044-.050 .973 — — — — —
ML2. Weak (loadings) 2094.273* (553) .952 .934 .051 .048-.053 .315 ML2-ML1 722.428 (147) -.018 -.010 .004
ML3. Strong (loadings, thresholds) 2592.709* (574) .937 .917 .057 .055-.059 .000 ML3-ML2 498.436 (21) -.015 -.017 .006
ML4. Strict (loadings, thresholds, uniquenesses) 2979.814* (602) .926 .907 .060 .058-.062 .000 ML4-ML3 387.105 (28) -.011 -.010 .003
ML5. Latent variance-covariance 3332.674* (630) .915 .899 .063 .061-.065 .000 ML5-ML4 352.860 (28) -.011 -.008 .003
ML6. Latent means 3929.220* (637) .897 .878 .069 .067-.071 .000 ML6-ML5 596.546 (7) -.018 -.021 .006
Note. CFA=confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM=exploratory structural equation modeling; χ =Chi-square; df=degrees of freedom;
2

CFI=comparative fit index; TLI=Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA=root-mean-square error of approximation; 90% CI=90% confidence interval of
the RMSEA; CFit=RMSEA’s test of close fit; Δχ2=Chi-square difference test; ΔCFI=change in CFI value compared to the preceding model;
ΔTLI=change in the TLI value compared to the preceding model; ΔRMSEA=change in the RMSEA value compared to the preceding model; Bold
letters indicate the final models and final levels of invariance that were achieved.; * p<.01.

8
 In contrast, the results of the ESEM analyses revealed improved fit to the data: CFI
exceeded .95, TLI was close to or exceeded .95, whereas RMSEA was below .05 and CFit was
non-significant in all samples. Inter-factor correlations had similar patterns for all samples in
that the estimated correlations in ESEM were much lower than in CFA (overall r =|.00|-|.50|,
M=.23). However, other parameter estimates demonstrated differentiated results. In the case of
Sample 1 (Supplementary Material 2), although most of the main factor loadings were
substantial (λ=.00-.89, M=.52), not all factors were well-defined. The three aspects of intrinsic
motivation had high cross-loadings on their adjacent factors, indicating that these dimensions
might not be highly differentiable among Hungarian high school students. The three extrinsic
dimensions were adequately separate with low to moderate cross-loadings. A relatively low PSI
(r=.27) also supported that the seven-factor solutions were not similar in ESEM and CFA. In
the case of Sample 2 (Supplementary Material 3), the factors were well-defined by their main
loadings (λ=.06-.89, M=.58). While the intrinsic still had moderate cross-loadings, they were
better defined than in Sample 1, suggesting that these are more differentiated among Hungarian
university students. The PSI was moderate (r=.68), suggesting higher levels of similarity
between ESEM and CFA than in Sample 1. In the case of Sample 3 (Supplementary Material
4), the high main loadings (λ=.16-.90, M=.62) and the relatively high PSI (r=.84) demonstrated
that the hypothesized dimensions of academic motivations are well-defined and differentiated
among French university students.

3.2. Measurement invariance

In the second phase of the analyses, measurement invariance was tested across different
subgroups on the final ESEM solution (Table 1). In the case of gender invariance, all models
were successfully estimated with the gradually imposed constraints. Although almost all χ2 test
were significant, other fit indices (ΔCFI, ΔTLI, ΔRMSEA) diminished less than the
recommended cut-off values, indicating gender invariance on the level of latent means.
Regarding age invariance, only configural invariance was achieved. Indeed, when equality
constraints were imposed on the factor loadings, ΔCFI exceeded the suggested cut-off values
(ΔCFI=-.015). The language invariance results were highly similar; only the configural
invariance model was acceptable as both ΔCFI and ΔTLI decreased substantially (ΔCFI=-.018;
ΔTLI=-.010). As the factor loadings are not sufficiently invariant, comparisons based on age
and language groups might be biased and should be performed with caution.

3.3. Reliability and descriptive statistics

Reliability values and descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 2. All Cronbach alpha
and factor determinacy values were adequate in all samples. On the other hand, composite
reliability was higher in those cases when the factors were better defined, namely extrinsic
dimensions and amotivation. In the Hungarian high school sample, none of the intrinsic
dimensions showed acceptable model-based reliability, suggesting that these might not be well-
differentiated among them. In the Hungarian university sample, only IMTK and IMTA were
less reliable intrinsic factors. In the French university sample, all dimensions had satisfactory
reliability. Finally, temporal stability was assessed over a four-week period using a sample of
Hungarian university students. The average test-retest correlation was r=.69 (rIMTK=.72;

9
rIMTA=.68; rIMTES=.70; rEMID=.73; rEMIJ=.77; rEMER=.49; rAM=.71), indicating moderate
correlations between the two time-points.

10
Table 2
Reliability indices and descriptive statistics of the Academic Motivation Scale
Sample 1 (N=1139) Sample 2 (N=1163) Sample 3 (N=1009)
Scales Range
α CR FD M SD α CR FD M SD α CR FD M SD
1. IMTK 1-7 .84 .37 .88 4.38 1.39 .84 .43 .90 5.08 1.31 .87 .74 .92 5.16 1.17
2. IMTA 1-7 .85 .57 .92 3.86 1.47 .85 .51 .89 4.45 1.48 .83 .63 .89 3.93 1.41
3. IMES 1-7 .75 .35 .89 3.46 1.32 .85 .73 .94 4.05 1.50 .80 .70 .94 3.27 1.45
4. EMID 1-7 .81 .63 .89 5.14 1.29 .75 .62 .88 5.39 1.16 .69 .60 .86 5.73 1.00
5. EMIJ 1-7 .81 .61 .90 4.46 1.46 .83 .76 .94 4.54 1.48 .84 .74 .93 4.54 1.53
6. EMER 1-7 .81 .73 .92 5.63 1.23 .79 .77 .94 5.34 1.27 .82 .79 .95 5.17 1.43
7. AM 1-7 .85 .84 .94 2.07 1.29 .85 .83 .95 1.91 1.25 .85 .82 .93 1.61 1.03
Note. IMTK=IM to know; IMTA=IM towards accomplishment; IMES=IM to experience stimulation; EMID=identified regulation; EMIJ=EM
introjected regulation; EMER=EM external regulation; AM=amotivation; α=Cronbach’s alpha; CR=composite reliability; FD=factor determinacy;
M=mean score; SD=standard deviation.

11
4. Discussion
The primary goal of the present research was to examine of the factor structure of the
AMS with ESEM in an Eastern European context and compare it to a Western European one.
Using three comprehensive samples of Hungarian and French high school and university
students, the seven-factor ESEM solutions clearly proved to be superior. The scale also
demonstrated mostly adequate reliability based on different indices. The secondary goal was to
investigate its measurement invariance across meaningful subgroups (e.g., gender, age, and
language). High levels of gender invariance were achieved, but only configural invariance was
supported for age and language groups.
The present findings contribute to the knowledge about AMS (see Supplementary
Material 1) by being the first one to examine it in an Eastern European country. Similarly to
Guay et al.’s (2015) recent findings, the seven-factor ESEM solutions represented the data
better than the corresponding CFA solutions in all three samples in terms of improved model
fit and reduced inter-factor correlations. Their results have been replicated with different
samples and cultural backgrounds. Main loadings in ESEM differed from CFA due to the cross-
loadings which were higher in the case of adjacent factors (i.e., the three intrinsic dimensions),
suggesting potential conceptual overlaps between these dimensions. These relatively high
cross-loadings might account for the high inter-factor correlations uncovered in CFA.
In the Hungarian high school sample, the three intrinsic factors were less well-defined
due to the high cross-loadings. A potential explanation might be related to age: high school
students might not have clearly separated representations of the three intrinsic dimensions that
might become more differentiated in a later age, similar to the integrated regulation aspect of
extrinsic motivation (Ratelle et al., 2007). This assumption is corroborated by previous
validation studies where a five-factor model was identified with high school samples (e.g., Lim
& Chapman, 2015). Moreover, Grouzet et al. (2006) also used a high school sample when
examining the invariance of the AMS over a course of three years. However, they used a five-
factor AMS with only one intrinsic dimension representing the construct. In sum, intrinsic
motivation might become more differentiated with age. In the Hungarian and French university
samples, cross-loadings were less substantial and in turn factors were better defined. Higher
education is autonomy supportive: students are not obligated to be present in all lectures and
they can decide what and how they want to study which might increase their intrinsic
motivations. This notion might account for the structural differences between younger and older
students’ representations about academic motivations.
Language invariance testing resulted in configural invariance, indicating that Hungarian
and French university students had the same conceptual framework when responding to the
items. However, no higher levels of invariance (i.e., weak, strong, strict, latent variance-
covariance, and latent means) were achieved, indicating that there might be cultural
characteristics that influence one’s interpretation of these constructs. While the constructs
appear to be similar, the wording of the items can be different across languages which might
result in slight differences in the loadings and which could affect language invariance. Due to
the low level of language invariance, we cannot compare the mean scores of French and
Hungarian students, but these results can support the materialist vs. post-materialist differences
of the two countries (Inglehart, 1977). Finally, gender invariance was assessed. Previous studies
indicated various levels of gender invariance (e.g., Guay et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2010). Our

12
results reinforce these and give strong support for the complete invariance of male-female
groups on the level of latent mean invariance, further enhancing the cross-gender
generalizability of the AMS.
Although the present research has many strengths (such as the diverse samples and the
exhaustive statistical analyses), it is not without its limitations. The self-reported cross-sectional
nature of the questionnaires needs to be taken into consideration. Also, convergent-, divergent-,
and predictive validity of the AMS should be addressed in future studies. It would be fruitful to
assess these motivational patterns in every year of high school and university to better
understand the transitions between these periods. It would be useful to include postgraduate
students in both longitudinal and cross-sectional settings.

5. Conclusion
The present cross-cultural examination demonstrated that ESEM is an adequate
procedure for the examination of the multidimensional AMS. The seven-factor solution has
been supported in the Hungarian and the French high school and university students. The scale
also proved to be reliable. Complete gender invariance was achieved, but age- and language
invariance only to certain degree. This research could further be expanded in the future with
the inclusion of more countries, resulting in more exhaustive investigations in terms of both
methodology and underlying theory.

References
Alivernini, F., & Lucidi, F. (2008). The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS): Factorial structure,
invariance and validity in the Italian context. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in
Applied Psychology, 15(4), 211-220.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327
Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M.B. (2000). Guidelines for the process
of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (second edition). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Caleon, I.S., Wui, M.G.L., Tan, J.P.L., Chiam, C.L., Soon, T.C., & King, R.B. (2015). Cross-
cultural validation of the Academic Motivation Scale: A Singapore investigation.
Child Indicators Research, 8(4), 925-942. doi: 10.1007/s12187-014-9298-7
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R.J., & Lafrenière, M.A.K. (2012). Toward a tripartite model of
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1147-1178. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2011.00757.x
Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. doi:
10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

13
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi:
10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Grouzet, F.M.E., Otis, N., & Pelletier, L.G. (2006). Longitudinal Cross-Gender Factorial
Invariance of the Academic Motivational Scale. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1),
73-98. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1301_4
Guay, F., Morin, A.J.S., Litalien, D., Valois, P., & Vallerand, R.J. (2015). Application of
exploratory structural equation modeling to evaluate the academic motivation scale.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 51-82. doi:
10.1080/00220973.2013.876231
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-
55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among
Western Publics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Lim, S.Y., & Chapman, E. (2015). Adapting the academic motivation scale for use in pre-
tertiary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(3),
331-357. doi: 10.1007/s13394-014-0140-9
Marsh, H.W., Liem, G.A.D., Martin, A.J., Morin, A.J.S., & Nagengast, B. (2011).
Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling
(ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 322-346. doi:
10.1177/0734282911406657
Marsh, H.W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A.J.S., Trautwein, U., &
Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory
structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471-491. doi:
10.1037/a0019227
Marsh, H.W., Morin, A.J.S., Parker, P.D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation
modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-
clinpsy-032813-153700
Marsh, H.W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A.J.S., et al.
(2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA:
Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 439-476. doi:
10.1080/10705510903008220
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.
Psychometrika, 58(4), 525-543. doi: 10.1007/BF02294825
Morin, A.J.S., Marsh, H.W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation
modeling. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A
second course (pp. 395-436). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

14
Ratelle, C.F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous,
controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734-746. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184. doi: 10.1177/01466216970212006
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach's
Alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
Smith, K.J., Davy, J.A., & Rosenberg, D.L. (2010). An examination of the validity of the
academic motivation scale with a United States business student sample.
Psychological Reports, 106(2), 323-341. doi: 10.2466/pr0.106.2.323-341
Vallerand, R.J., Blais, M.R., Brière, N.M., & Pelletier, L.G. (1989). Construction et validation
de l’Echelle de Motivation en Education (EME). [Construction and validation of the
Echelle de Motivation en Education (EME)]. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 21(3), 323-349. doi: 10.1037/h0079855
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briére, N.M., Senécal, C., & Valliéres, E.F. (1992).
The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation in
education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003-1017. doi:
10.1177/0013164492052004025
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Brière, N.M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E.F. (1993).
On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence on
the concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 159-172. doi:
10.1177/0013164493053001018
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. doi: 10.1177/10944281003100

15
 Supplementary Materials for:

Cross-cultural comparative examination of the Academic Motivation Scale using exploratory

structural equation modeling

István Tóth-Király1,2,†, Gábor Orosz2,3,†,*, Edina Dombi4, Balázs Jagodics5, Dávid Farkas3,
Camille Amoura6

1
Doctoral School of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
2
Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
3
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre for Natural Sciences,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
4
Department of Applied Pedagogy and Psychology, Juhász Gyula Faculty of Education,
University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
5
Institute of Psychology, University of Szeged, Hungary
6
Université d’Artois, Atelier Sherpas, France

Content:
1. Prior validity and reliability characteristics of the Academic Motivation Scale
2. Parameter estimates for the CFA and ESEM solutions of the Academic Motivation Scale
on the Hungarian high school sample (Sample 1, N = 1139)
3. Parameter estimates for the CFA and ESEM solutions of the Academic Motivation Scale
on the Hungarian university sample (Sample 2, N = 1163)
4. Parameter estimates for the CFA and ESEM solutions of the Academic Motivation
Scale on the French college and university sample (Sample 3, N = 1009)
5. References for the Supplementary Material
6. Hungarian version of the Academic Motivation Scale for University and High School
students

16
Introductory notes for Supplementary Material 1
Regarding the psychometric properties of the AMS, previous results are mostly consistent
(see table below). The original seven-factor structure was confirmed (Vallerand et al., 1989, 1992,
1993). This solution has been supported in the United States (Akoto, 2014; Cokley, Bernard,
Cunningham, & Motoike, 2001; Cokley, 2015; Fairchild, Horst, Finney, & Barron, 2005; Smith,
Davy, & Rosenberg, 2010), Ghana (Akoto, 2014), Greece (Barkoukis, Tsorbatzoudis, Grouios, &
Sideridis, 2008), France (Blanchard, Vrignaud, Lallemand, & Dosnon, 1997), Singapore (Caleon
et al., 2015), Turkey (Can, 2015; Haslofca & Korkmaz, 2015; Karagüven, 2012; Yurt & Bozer,
2015), Malaysia (Chong & Ahmed, 2012), Brazil (Davoglio, Santos, & Lettnin, 2016), Canada
(Guay, Morin, Litalien, Valois, & Vallerand, 2015), Spain (Núñez, Martin-Albo, & Navarro, 2005;
Núñez, Martin-Albo, & Navarro, & Suárez, 2010), Paraguay (Núñez, Martin-Albo, & Navarro,
2006), Chile (Orsini et al., 2015), Argentina (Stover, de la Iglesia, Boubeta, & Liporace, 2012),
and China (Zhang, Li, Li, Li, & Zhang, 2015). Alternatively, a five-factor solution has also been
proposed in Italian (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2008) and Singaporean (Lim & Chapman, 2015) samples.
In these cases, the three intrinsic aspects usually merged into a single intrinsic dimension and were
complemented by the three extrinsic dimensions and the amotivation factor. Likewise, four-factor
solutions were also postulated in Germany (Wilkesmann, Fischer, & Virgillito, 2012) and the US
(Smith, Davy, & Rosenberg, 2012). The similarity in these two studies is that the general intrinsic
and amotivation factors were complemented by only two aspects of extrinsic motivation.
Apart from factor structure, the AMS demonstrated mostly acceptable levels of reliability
on various indices (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha, Hancock’s H index and McDonald’s composite
reliability). Finally, similar to Vallerand et al. (1992), temporal stability was also assessed in many
previous studies (Barkoukis et al., 2008; Can, 2015; Davoglio et al., 2016; Fairchild et al., 2005;
Haslofca & Korkmaz, 2015; Lim & Chapman, 2015; Núñez et al., 2005; Núñez et al., 2010; Orsini
et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015), giving further support for the reliability of the scale.

17
 Supplementary Material 1
Prior validity and reliability characteristics of the Academic Motivation Scale†
Final
Authors Nation Sample Analysis Characteristics IMTK IMTA IMES EMID EMIJ EMER AM Σ CFI TLI RMSEA
model
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
USA N = 267
CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .97 — .067 7-factor
(university) Mage = 24.76
Akoto Cronbach’s alpha .85 .85 .84 .77 .86 .71 .77
(2014) N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ghana N = 262
CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .93 — .050 7-factor
(university) Mage = 27.76
Cronbach’s alpha .65 .61 .66 .60 .77 .65 .69
Alivernini N of items 4 4 4 4 4
Italy N = 603
& Lucidi CFA Average loadings .79 .72 .78 .75 .79 20 .94 .93 .06 5-factor
(high school) Mage = 16.30
(2008)a Cronbach’s alpha .87 .81 .85 .83 .86
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Barkoukis et Greece N = 911
CFA Average loadings .77 .71 .51 .71 .65 .68 .66 28 .911 .897 .057 7-factor
al. (2008) (high school) Mage = 13.9
Cronbach’s alpha .79 .73 .55 .72 .74 .73 .73
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Blanchard et France N = 1540
CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 — .97 .047 7-factor
al. (1997) (high school) Mage = —
Cronbach’s alpha higher than .77
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Caleon et al. Singapore N = 1482
CFA Average loadings .76 .72 .70 .71 .73 .69 .69 28 .918 .906 .062 7-factor
(2015) (high school) Mage = —
Cronbach’s alpha .85 .80 .80 .79 .82 .77 .78
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Turkey N = 797
Can (2015)b CFA Average loadings .73 .80 .77 .59 .76 .65 .79 28 .96 .96 .071 7-factor
(university) Mage = 20.1
Cronbach’s alpha — — — — — — —
Chong & N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Malaysia N = 1919
Ahmed CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .92 .909 .055 7-factor
(university) Mage = —
(2012) Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .71 to .80
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cokley et al. USA N = 263
CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .90 — .070 7-factor
(2001) (university) Mage = 23.45
Cronbach’s alpha .83 .81 .85 .70 .86 .81 .86
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cokley USA N = 578 EFA-
Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .64 .60 .120 7-factor
(2015)c (university) Mage = 20.64 CFA
Cronbach’s alpha .60 .77 .73 .63 .70 .58 .75
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Davoglio et Brazil N = 715 EFA-
Average loadings .84 .76 .77 .76 .79 .81 .82 28 .93 .81 .07 7-factor
al. (2016)d (university) Mage = 22 CFA
Cronbach’s alpha .88 .81 .80 .77 .83 .84 .74
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Fairchild et USA N = 1406
CFA Average loadings .78 .83 .78 .68 .77 .78 .77 28 .967 — .055 7-factor
al. (2005) (university) Mage = 18
Cronbach’s alpha .86 .90 .86 .77 .85 .85 .85
Guay et al. Canada N = 1416 N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
ESEM 28 .989 .979 .048 7-factor
(2015)e (university) Mage = — Average loadings .63 .57 .66 .47 .63 .70 .80

18
 Cronbach’s alpha — — — — — — —
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Canada N = 4498
Average loadings .59 .50 .56 .57 .57 .60 .74 28 .989 .979 .041
(high school) Mage = 14.97
Cronbach’s alpha — — — — — — —
Haslofca & Turkey N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
N = 357
Korkmaz (sports high CFA Average loadings .66 .62 .52 .63 .67 .64 .69 28 .95 .94 .079 7-factor
Mage = 15.98
(2016) school) Cronbach’s alpha .76 .71 .59 .77 .64 .77 .88
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Karagüven Turkey N = 390 EFA-
Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .94 .93 .73 7-factor
(2012)f (university) Mage = 23 CFA
Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .67 to .87
Lim & Singapore N of items 5 4 4 4 4
N = 1610 EFA-
Chapman (math high Average loadings .82 .76 .76 .81 .81 28 .96 .95 .094 5-factor
Mage = 17.8 CFA
(2015)g school) Cronbach’s alpha .75 .73 .73 .73 .71
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Núñez et al. Spain N = 636
CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .93 — .05 7-factor
(2005) (university) Mage = 21.7
Cronbach’s alpha .82 .82 .81 .67 .84 .80 .76
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Núñez et al. Paraguay N = 411
CFA Average loadings .61-.75 .59-.67 .54-.69 .52-.68 .46-.79 .46-.79 .38-.83 28 .93 — .05 7-factor
(2006) (university) Mage = 21.67
Cronbach’s alpha .76 .73 .78 .68 .79 .74 .72
Spain N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Núñez et al. N = 425
(vocational CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .91 — .06 7-factor
(2010) Mage = 17.48
school) Cronbach’s alpha .86 .88 .73 .73 .82 .75 .82
Chile N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Orsini et al. N = 989
(dental CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .95 .93 .04 7-factor
(2015) Mage = 22.5
university) Cronbach’s alpha .78 .80 .80 .65 .81 .75 .83
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Smith et al. USA N = 2078
CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 .935 .925 .052 7-factor
(2010) (university) Mage = 21.8
Cronbach’s alpha .87 .83 .85 .79 .86 .83 .87
N of items 6 2 6 4
Smith et al. USA N = 2354 EFA-
Average loadings .71 .76 .72 .78 18 .937 .925 .072 4-factor
(2012)h (university) Mage = 21.81 CFA
Cronbach’s alpha .87 .74 .85 .89
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
Argentina N = 393
CFA Average loadings .71 .72 .69 .53 .62 .65 .67 27 — — — 7-factor
(high school) Mage = 15.24
Stover et al. Cronbach’s alpha .81 .82 .79 .61 .65 .70 .78
(2012)i N of items 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
Argentina N = 330
CFA Average loadings .69 .68 .62 .54 .53 .72 .69 27 — — — 7-factor
(university) Mage = 23.45
Cronbach’s alpha .80 .78 .71 .62 .61 .77 .78
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Canada N = 358
EFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 — — —
(university) Mage = 18.97
Vallerand et Cronbach’s alpha — — — — — — —
7-factor
al. (1989)i N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Canada N = 746
CFA Average loadings — — — — — — — 28 — — —
(university) Mage = 17.62
Cronbach’s alpha .85 .86 .84 .62 .85 .76 .84
N = 745 CFA N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 — — — 7-factor

19
Vallerand et Canada Mage = 21 Average loadings — — — — — — —
al. (1992)i (university) Cronbach’s alpha .84 .85 .86 .62 .84 .83 .85
N of items 8 3 5 3
Wilkesmann Germany N = 3687
EFA Average loadings .67 .77 .67 .80 19 — — — 4-factor
et al. (2012)j (university) Mage = —
Cronbach’s alpha .85 .77 .75 .80
Yurt & N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Turkey N = 343
Bozer CFA Average loadings .66 .63 .68 .69 .67 .56 .69 28 .90 — .06 7-factor
(high school) Mage = —
(2015) Cronbach’s alpha .78 .72 .77 .61 .80 .75 .78
N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
China N = 882
CFA Average loadings .77 .78 .64 .68 .66 .76 .60 28 .913 — .051 7-factor
(high school) Mage = 15.89
Zhang et al. Cronbach’s alpha .84 .86 .75 .77 .75 .81 .83
(2015)k China N of items 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
N = 419
(vocational CFA Average loadings .76 .78 .69 .71 .68 .72 .71 28 .932 — .045 7-factor
Mage = 16.07
school) Cronbach’s alpha — — — — — — —
Note. † = Literature search was performed on September 01, 2016.; Mage = mean age; N = number of participants; CFA = confirmatory factor
analysis; EFA = exploratory factor analysis; ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling; N of items = number of items; IM = intrinsic
motivation; IMTK = IM to know; IMTA = IM towards accomplishment; IMES = IM to experience stimulation; EM = extrinsic motivation; EMER
= EM external regulation; EMIJ = EM introjected regulation; EMID = identified regulation; AM = amotivation; Σ = total number of items in the
final version of the Academic Motivation Scale; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of
approximation.

a
Alivernini and Lucidi (2008) hypothesized one intrinsic dimension (intrinsic regulation), three extrinsic dimensions (identified-, introjected-, and
external regulation), and one amotivation dimension.
b
Can (2015) tested a seven-factor model with 27 items, resulting in negligible difference in model fit. As for reliability, Hancock’s H index was
calculated instead of Cronbach’s alpha.
c
After the unsatisfactory CFA model, Cokley (2015) performed an EFA which resulted in six factors (two general extrinsic motivation factors,
two general intrinsic motivation factors, an intrinsic motivation to achieve factor and an amotivation factor).
d
Davoglio et al. (2016) carried out an EFA as well which showed a five-factor solution as an alternative with a general intrinsic factor, three
separate extrinsic factors and an amotivation factor.
e
For assessing reliability, McDonald’s reliability estimate was calculated instead of Cronbach’s alpha value in the research of Guay et al (2015).
f
Similar to Davoglio et al. (2016), Karagüven (2012) also extracted five factors from a separate EFA: intrinsic motivation, amotivation, introjected
regulation to accomplish, external regulation, and identified regulation.
g
In the case of Lim and Chapman (2015), a five-factor solution emerged from the EFA and CFA results: a general intrinsic dimension, three
extrinsic dimensions and an amotivation dimension.

20
h
Smith et al. (2012) carried out an EFA first that suggested a four-factor solution (amotivation, external regulation, identified regulation, and
intrinsic motivation). They then performed CFA on this model.
i
Stover et al. (2012), Vallerand et al. (1989) and Vallerand et al. (1992) reported different goodness-of-fit indices (i.e., NFI, AGFI, GFI) than the
ones in the table above. However, these alternative indices showed that their model had adequate fit to the data.
j
Wilkesmann et al. (2012) used EFA to identify four factors: intrinsic motivation, introjected motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation.
k
In the study of Zhang et al. (2015), Cronbach alpha was calculated on the joint sample of high school and vocational school students.

21
Supplementary Material 2
Parameter estimates for the CFA and ESEM solutions of the Academic Motivation Scale on
the Hungarian high school sample (Sample 1, N = 1139)
ESEM
CFA (λ)1
1 (λ) 2 (λ) 3 (λ) 4 (λ) 5 (λ) 6 (λ) 7 (λ)
1. IM to know
imtk2 .76 .13 .10 .62 .11 .00 .06 -.09
imtk9 .85 .32 .18 .48 .05 .03 .03 -.03
imtk16 .79 .47 .23 .23 .06 .01 -.01 -.03
imtk23 .65 .51 .03 .02 .27 .05 .14 -.10
2. IM towards accomplishment
imta6 .75 .07 .49 .33 .04 .03 .02 .00
imta13 .80 .03 .78 .03 .07 .06 .04 -.05
imta20 .72 .18 .27 .27 .07 .21 -.09 .07
imta27 .81 .20 .43 .05 .13 .26 -.01 -.03
3. IM to experience stimulation
imes4 .65 .05 .05 .61 .10 .07 -.05 -.06
imes11 .45 .14 .05 .29 -.01 .09 -.10 .12
imes18 .71 .36 .14 .24 .07 .12 -.14 .09
imes25 .77 .50 .13 .23 -.01 .13 -.06 .01
4. EM identified
emid3 .69 -.12 .09 .16 .74 .04 -.03 -.04
emid10 .68 .08 .09 -.02 .35 -.04 .45 -.05
emid17 .74 .22 -.01 -.06 .51 .14 .15 -.01
emid24 .78 .19 .03 -.03 .57 .13 .10 -.05
5. EM introjected
emij7 .67 -.11 .08 .08 .08 .69 .08 -.03
emij14 .77 .09 .53 .03 .07 .25 .03 -.01
emij21 .67 .25 .12 .02 .03 .37 .16 .04
emij28 .73 .09 .04 -.05 .06 .76 .04 -.03
6. EM external regulation
emer1 .51 -.17 -.02 .13 .05 .14 .50 .10
emer8 .84 -.04 .03 .05 .17 .11 .71 -.04
emer15 .73 .11 .13 -.12 .12 .09 .57 -.06
emer22 .84 .07 -.02 -.06 .08 .13 .75 .00
7. AM
amot5 .70 .03 .01 -.09 -.15 -.05 .06 .64
amot12 .64 -.05 .02 .04 -.02 .09 -.12 .64
amot19 .85 -.03 -.07 -.04 -.06 -.03 .01 .80
amot26 .90 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.02 -.05 .00 .89
Factor correlations2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. IM to know — .50 .46 .37 .35 .09 -.08
2. IM towards accomplishment .89 — .48 .33 .47 .10 -.10
3. IM to experience stimulation .93 .88 — .24 .24 -.09 -.07
4. EM identified .64 .65 .51 — .38 .42 -.24
5. EM introjected .29 .34 .13 .75 — .28 -.05
6. EM external regulation .71 .89 .69 .72 .57 — -.09
7. AM -.30 -.25 -.16 -.38 -.21 -.23 —
Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling;
λ = standardized factor loadings; 1 = Each item loaded on their respective specific factor, while
cross-loadings were constrained to zero. IM = intrinsic motivation; IMTK = IM to know; IMTA
= IM towards accomplishment; IMES = IM to experience stimulation; EM = extrinsic
motivation; EMER = EM external regulation; EMIJ = EM introjected regulation; EMID =

22
identified regulation; AM = amotivation. Main factor loadings are in bold.; 2 = Values above
the diagonal are the ESEM inter-factor correlations. Values below the diagonal are the CFA
inter-factor correlations.; Non-significant parameters (p ≥ .05) are italicized.

23
Supplementary Material 3
Parameter estimates for the CFA and ESEM solutions of the Academic Motivation Scale on
the Hungarian university sample (Sample 2, N = 1163)
ESEM
CFA (λ)1
1 (λ) 2 (λ) 3 (λ) 4 (λ) 5 (λ) 6 (λ) 7 (λ)
1. IM to know
imtk2 .77 .50 .14 .17 .18 -.03 -.04 -.09
imtk9 .82 .63 .05 .21 .12 .06 .01 -.06
imtk16 .82 .38 .20 .28 .18 .00 -.05 -.08
imtk23 .63 .05 .31 .18 .33 .08 .05 -.06
2. IM towards accomplishment
imta6 .77 .55 .27 .10 -.04 .07 -.03 -.02
imta13 .76 .37 .48 .01 -.02 .12 .02 -.02
imta20 .78 .30 .38 .23 .09 .00 -.01 -.04
imta27 .76 .10 .67 .08 .02 .10 .05 -.08
3. IM to experience stimulation
imes4 .56 .32 .13 .21 .16 .02 -.05 .03
imes11 .81 .14 -.01 .75 .04 -.03 -.01 .01
imes18 .85 .05 .06 .84 -.04 .04 -.03 -.01
imes25 .87 .11 .16 .66 .09 .05 -.05 -.03
4. EM identified
emid3 .71 .15 -.03 -.03 .69 .02 .03 -.08
emid10 .71 .08 -.08 -.04 .60 .00 .21 -.14
emid17 .58 -.12 .22 .12 .43 .08 .13 .02
emid24 .63 -.10 .18 .11 .44 .07 .16 -.07
5. EM introjected
emij7 .82 .15 -.10 .00 .01 .88 .03 .00
emij14 .62 .05 .37 -.03 .01 .38 .10 .00
emij21 .71 -.11 .28 .06 .07 .53 .05 .09
emij28 .84 -.09 .12 .02 .00 .80 .04 -.04
6. EM external regulation
emer1 .48 -.05 -.07 .04 .01 .14 .45 .01
emer8 .81 .08 .01 -.06 .10 .08 .73 -.01
emer15 .69 -.01 .04 -.02 .18 .09 .58 .04
emer22 .87 -.06 .05 -.02 .02 .00 .89 -.03
7. AM
amot5 .70 -.02 -.08 -.02 -.18 .00 .08 .60
amot12 .64 .03 -.09 .01 -.20 .04 .07 .54
amot19 .89 -.05 .01 -.01 -.04 .00 -.05 .87
amot26 .89 -.03 -.01 -.01 .00 -.02 -.03 .89
Factor correlations2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. IM to know — .46 .49 .27 .10 -.07 -.17
2. IM towards accomplishment .90 — .43 .33 .39 .10 -.15
3. IM to experience stimulation .83 .76 — .26 .12 -.08 -.07
4. EM identified .60 .50 .38 — .15 .32 -.33
5. EM introjected .07 .11 -.06 .56 — .25 .01
6. EM external regulation .33 .50 .27 .35 .38 — -.01
7. AM -.39 -.30 -.18 -.49 -.06 -.09 —
Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling;
λ = standardized factor loadings; 1 = Each item loaded on their respective specific factor, while
cross-loadings were constrained to zero. IM = intrinsic motivation; IMTK = IM to know; IMTA
= IM towards accomplishment; IMES = IM to experience stimulation; EM = extrinsic
motivation; EMER = EM external regulation; EMIJ = EM introjected regulation; EMID =

24
identified regulation; AM = amotivation. Main factor loadings are in bold. 2 = Values above the
diagonal are the ESEM inter-factor correlations. Values below the diagonal are the CFA inter-
factor correlations.; Non-significant parameters (p ≥ .05) are italicized.

25
Supplementary Material 4
Parameter estimates for the CFA and ESEM solutions of the Academic Motivation Scale on
the French college and university sample (Sample 3, N = 1009)
ESEM
CFA (λ)1
1 (λ) 2 (λ) 3 (λ) 4 (λ) 5 (λ) 6 (λ) 7 (λ)
1. IM to know
imtk2 .76 .67 .18 .03 .04 -.04 -.02 -.08
imtk9 .80 .75 .10 .07 -.03 .05 -.01 -.07
imtk16 .73 .54 -.07 .24 .17 .05 .00 -.02
imtk23 .85 .62 .01 .17 .18 .10 -.03 -.08
2. IM towards accomplishment
imta6 .74 .20 .64 .06 .06 .06 -.10 -.02
imta13 .73 .06 .56 .14 .14 .13 -.08 .05
imta20 .76 .01 .51 .15 .03 .22 .11 -.05
imta27 .75 .06 .47 .13 -.03 .27 .20 -.03
3. IM to experience stimulation
imes4 .45 .16 .39 .16 .10 -.09 .03 .10
imes11 .87 .09 .03 .81 .01 .01 -.08 -.03
imes18 .88 .05 .04 .85 .04 .01 -.05 .01
imes25 .65 .10 .20 .51 -.03 .04 .11 .05
4. EM identified
emid3 .65 .03 .09 -.02 .63 -.02 -.01 -.10
emid10 .68 .06 -.04 .00 .61 .05 .06 -.15
emid17 .54 -.02 .00 .11 .49 .06 .11 .02
emid24 .56 .08 .12 .06 .34 .12 .18 .04
5. EM introjected
emij7 .73 .16 .06 .02 .10 .63 -.02 .03
emij14 .73 -.01 .24 .06 .07 .47 .16 .00
emij21 .75 .02 .18 .03 .01 .56 .18 .04
emij28 .83 .01 .03 .02 .07 .87 -.02 -.02
6. EM external regulation
emer1 .58 .01 -.03 -.10 .05 .06 .53 .14
emer8 .76 .00 .04 -.07 .26 .13 .59 -.05
emer15 .76 -.01 .04 -.03 .04 .05 .73 .06
emer22 .90 -.03 -.01 -.02 .07 .01 .90 -.02
7. AM
amot5 .81 -.07 -.08 .02 -.10 .00 .07 .75
amot12 .69 -.04 -.07 -.05 -.08 .04 .00 .64
amot19 .76 -.07 .06 .01 -.15 -.01 .01 .69
amot26 .85 -.07 .07 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.02 .83
Factor correlations2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. IM to know — .34 .41 .29 .19 -.04 -.23
2. IM towards accomplishment .63 — .38 .21 .44 .14 .00
3. IM to experience stimulation .65 .62 — .16 .17 -.08 -.03
4. EM identified .54 .49 .30 — .26 .28 -.29
5. EM introjected .42 .77 .33 .51 — .29 .00
6. EM external regulation .01 .25 -.11 .47 .44 — .09
7. AM -.41 -.13 -.12 -.47 -.07 -.04 —
Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling;
λ = standardized factor loadings; 1 = Each item loaded on their respective specific factor, while
cross-loadings were constrained to zero. IM = intrinsic motivation; IMTK = IM to know; IMTA
= IM towards accomplishment; IMES = IM to experience stimulation; EM = extrinsic
motivation; EMER = EM external regulation; EMIJ = EM introjected regulation; EMID =

26
identified regulation; AM = amotivation. Main factor loadings are in bold. 2 = Values above the
diagonal are the ESEM inter-factor correlations. Values below the diagonal are the CFA inter-
factor correlations.; Non-significant parameters (p ≥ .05) are italicized.

27
5. References for the Supplementary Material
Akoto, E. O. (2014). Cross-cultural factorial validity of the academic motivation scale. Cross
Cultural Management, 21(1), 104-125. doi: 10.1108/CCM-11-2011-0100
Alivernini, F., & Lucidi, F. (2008). The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS): Factorial structure,
invariance and validity in the Italian context. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in
Applied Psychology, 15(4), 211-220.
Barkoukis, V., Tsorbatzoudis, H., Grouios, G., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The assessment of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation: Validity and reliability of the Greek
version of the Academic Motivational Scale. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 15(1), 39-55. doi: 10.1080/09695940701876128
Blanchard, S., Vrignaud, P., Lallemand, N., & Dosnon, O. (1997). Validation de léchelle de
motivation en éducation aupres de lycéens francais [Validation of Academic
Motivation Scale on a French high school student sample]. Orientation Scolaire et
Professionnelle, 26(1), 33-56.
Caleon, I. S., Wui, M. G. L., Tan, J. P. L., Chiam, C. L., Soon, T. C., & King, R. B. (2015).
Cross-cultural validation of the Academic Motivation Scale: A Singapore
investigation. Child Indicators Research, 8(4), 925-942. doi: 10.1007/s12187-014-
9298-7
Can, G. (2015). Turkish Version of the Academic Motivation Scale. Psychological Reports,
116(2), 388-408. doi: 10.2466/14.08.PR0.116k24w5
Chong, Y. S., & Ahmed, P. K. (2012). Understanding student motivation in higher education
participation: A psychometric validation of the academic motivation scale in the
Malaysian context. doi: 10.7763/IPEDR. 2012. V53. 26
Cokley, K. (2015). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Academic Motivation Scale With
Black College Students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 48(2), 124-139. doi: 10.1177/0748175614563316
Cokley, K., Bernard, N., Cunningham, D., & Motoike, J. (2001). A psychometric investigation
of the Academic Motivation Scale using a United States sample. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counselling and Developement, 34(2), 109-120.
Davoglio, T. R., Santos, B. S. D., & Lettnin, C. D. C. (2016). Validação da Escala de Motivação
Acadêmica em universitários brasileiros [Validation of the Academic Motivation
Scale in Brazilian university students]. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em
Educação, 24(92), 522-545. doi: 10.1590/S0104-40362016000300002
Fairchild, A. J., Horst, S. J., Finney, S. J., & Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and new
validity evidence for the Academic Motivational Scale. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 30(3), 331-358. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.001
Guay, F., Morin, A. J. S., Litalien, D., Valois, P., & Vallerand, R. J. (2015). Application of
exploratory structural equation modeling to evaluate the academic motivation scale.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 51-82. doi:
10.1080/00220973.2013.876231
Haslofça, F., & Korkmaz, N. H. (2016). Reliability and validity of academic motivation scale
for sports high school students'. doi: shsconf/20162601104
Karagüven, M. (2012). The Adaptation of Academic Motivation Scale to Turkish. Educational
Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2611-2618.

28
Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2015). Adapting the academic motivation scale for use in pre-
tertiary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(3),
331-357. doi: 10.1007/s13394-014-0140-9
Núñez, J. L., Martin-Albo, J., Navarro, J. G. (2005). Validación de la versión española de la
Ëchelle de Motivation en Éducation [Validation of the Spanish version of the
Academic Motivation Scale]. Psicothema, 17(2), 334–349.
Núñez, J. L., Martin-Albo, J., Navarro, J. G., Grijalvo, F. (2006). Validación de la Escala de
Motivación Educativa (EME) en Paraguay [Validation of the Academic Motivation
Scale (AMS) in Paraguay]. Interamerican Journal of Psychology. 40(2), 185-192.
Núñez, J. L., Martin-Albo, J., Navarro, J. G., Suárez, Z. (2010). Adaptación y validación de la
versión española de la Escala de Motivación Educativa en estudiantes de educación
secundaria postobligatoria [Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the
Academic Motivation Scale in post-compulsory secondary education students].
Estudios de Psicología, 31(1), 89-100. doi: 10.1174/021093910790744590
Orsini, C., Binnie, V., Evans, P., Ledezma, P., Fuentes, F., & Villegas, M. J. (2015).
Psychometric validation of the academic motivation scale in a dental student sample.
Journal of Dental Education, 79(8), 971-981.
Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., & Rosenberg, D. L. (2010). An examination of the validity of the
academic motivation scale with a United States business student sample.
Psychological Reports, 106(2), 323-341. doi: 10.2466/pr0.106.2.323-341
Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., & Rosenberg, D. L. (2012). An empirical analysis of an alternative
configuration of the academic motivation scale. Assessment in education: Principles,
policy & practice, 19(2), 231-250. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2011.608347
Stover, J. B., de la Iglesia, G., Boubeta, A. R., & Liporace, M. F. (2012). Academic Motivation
Scale: adaptation and psychometric analysis for high school and college students.
Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 5, 71-83.
Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction et validation
de l’Echelle de Motivation en Education (EME). [Construction and validation of the
Echelle de Motivation en Education (EME)]. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 21(3), 323-349. doi: 10.1037/h0079855
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briére, N. M., Senécal, C., & Valliéres, E. F.
(1992). The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic and
amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003-
1017. doi: 10.1177/0013164492052004025
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
(1993). On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education:
Evidence on the concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 159-172. doi:
10.1177/0013164493053001018
Wilkesmann, U., Fischer, H., & Virgillito, A. (2012). Academic Motivation of Students-the
German Case. Dortmund: Zentrum für Weiterbildung. Retrieved on September 1,
2016, from < http://www.zhb.tu-
dortmund.de/wb/Wil/Medienpool/Downloads/DP_2012_21.pdf> .

29
Yurt, E., & Bozer, E. N. (2015) Akademik Motivasyon Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması [The
Adaptation of the Academic Motivation Scale for Turkish Context]. Gaziantep
University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(3), 669-685.
Zhang, B., Li, Y. M., Li, J., Li, Y., & Zhang, H. (2015). The Revision and Validation of the
Academic Motivation Scale in China. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
34(1), 15-27. doi: 10.1177/0734282915575909

30
 Academic Motivation Scale Hungarian version (AMS-HUN) for Higher Education
Students

A következő kérdőív alapján arra szeretnénk választ kapni, hogy miért tartod fontosnak azt,
hogy egyetemre/főiskolára jársz. Az alábbi skála alapján kérlek, jelöld, hogy az állítások
mennyire vannak összhangban azzal, hogy miért jársz iskolába!

1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7-
Egyáltalán
Mérsékelten Pontosan
nem illik Egy kicsit illik rám Nagyon illik rám
illik rám illik rám
rám.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Azért, mert csupán egy érettségivel nem találnék egy jól fizető állást a O O O O O O O
későbbiekben.
2. Azért, mert örömöt és elégedettséget érzek új dolgok tanulása közben. O O O O O O O
3. Azért, mert úgy gondolom, a felsőfokú oktatás segít jobban felkészülnöm O O O O O O O
az általam választott karrierre.
4. Azért az intenzív érzésért, amit akkor tapasztalok, amikor megosztom O O O O O O O
másokkal a saját ötleteimet.
5. Őszintén megvallva, nem tudom; teljesen úgy érzem, hogy elvesztegetem O O O O O O O
az időmet, mikor iskolában vagyok.
6. Azért az örömért, amit a tanulás során akkor érzek, amikor felülmúlom O O O O O O O
önmagam.
7. Azért, hogy bebizonyítsam magamnak, hogy képes vagyok megszerezni a O O O O O O O
diplomát.
8. Azért, hogy később egy nagyobb presztízsű álláshoz juthassak. O O O O O O O
9. Azért az örömért, amit akkor tapasztalok, amikor új, korábban nem látott O O O O O O O
dolgokat fedezek fel.
10. Azért, mert végső soron lehetővé teszi, hogy a munkaerőpiacon egy olyan O O O O O O O
területen helyezkedhessek el, ami érdekel.
11. Azért az örömért, amit akkor tapasztalok, amikor érdekes szerzők munkáit O O O O O O O
olvasom.
12. Régebben volt okom főiskolára/egyetemre járni; azonban most azon O O O O O O O
tűnődöm, folytassam-e.
13. Azért az örömért, amit akkor érzek, mikor kimagaslóan teljesítek egy saját O O O O O O O
korábbi eredményemhez képest.
14. Amiatt, hogy mikor sikeres vagyok a főiskolán/egyetemen, fontosnak O O O O O O O
érzem magam.
15. Azért, mert szeretnék majd gondtalanul élni. O O O O O O O
16. Azért az örömért, amit akkor élek meg, mikor bővítem a tudásomat O O O O O O O
azokban a tárgyakban, amik tetszenek.
17. Azért, mert segíteni fog jobb döntést hoznom a karrier irányultságommal O O O O O O O
kapcsolatban.
18. Azért az örömért, amit akkor tapasztalok, mikor egyes szerzők írásai O O O O O O O
teljesen magukkal ragadnak.
19. Nem is tudom, miért járok főiskolára/egyetemre és őszintén, nem is O O O O O O O
nagyon érdekel.
20. Azért a pozitív élményért, amit összetett tanulmányi tevékenységek O O O O O O O
elvégzése során érzek.
21. Azért, hogy bebizonyítsam magamnak, hogy intelligens vagyok. O O O O O O O
22. Azért, hogy később jobb fizetésem legyen. O O O O O O O

31
 23. Mert ha jól tanulok most, akkor a jövőben is sok olyan dologról O O O O O O O
tanulhatok, melyek érdekelnek engem.
24. Azért, mert úgy hiszem, hogy néhány plusz év a felsőoktatásban fejleszti a O O O O O O O
munkához szükséges kompetenciámat.
25. Azért a felemelő érzésért, amit akkor érzek, mikor érdekes dolgokról O O O O O O O
olvasok.
26. Nem tudom; nem értem, hogy mit keresek az iskolában. O O O O O O O
27. Azért, mert a főiskola/egyetem lehetővé teszi, hogy személyes O O O O O O O
elégedettséget érezzek, mikor kiválóan teljesítek tanulmányaim során.
28. Azért, mert be akarom bizonyítani magamnak, hogy sikeresen be tudom O O O O O O O
fejezni a tanulmányaimat.

Scoring:
Tanulásra irányuló intrinzik motiváció (Intrinsic motivation to know - IMTK): 2, 9, 16, 23
Dolgok elérésére vonatkozó intrinzik motiváció (Intrinsic motivation towards accomplishment
- IMTA): 6, 13, 20, 27
Stimuláció megélésére vonatkozó intrinzik motiváció (Intrinsic motivation to experience
stimulation - IMES): 4, 11, 18, 25
Extrinzik motiváció, identifikációs szabályozás (Extrinsic motivation of identified regulation -
EMID): 3, 10, 17, 24
Extrinzik motiváció, introjektált szabályozás (Extrinsic motivation of introjected regulation -
EMIJ): 7, 14, 21, 28
Extrinzik motiváció, külső szabályozás (Extrinsic motivation of external regulation - EMER):
1, 8, 15, 22
Amotiváció (Amotivation - AM): 5, 12, 19, 26

If you use this version, cite it as:

Tóth-Király, I., Orosz, G., Dombi, E., Jagodics, B., Farkas, D., & Amoura, C. (2017). Cross-
cultural comparative examination of the Academic Motivation Scale using exploratory
structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 130-135. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.048

32
 Academic Motivation Scale Hungarian version (AMS-HUN) for High School Students

A következő kérdőív alapján arra szeretnénk választ kapni, hogy miért tartod fontosnak azt,
hogy középiskolába jársz. Az alábbi skála alapján kérlek, jelöld, hogy az állítások mennyire
vannak összhangban azzal, hogy miért jársz iskolába!

1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7-
Egyáltalán
Mérsékelten Pontosan
nem illik Egy kicsit illik rám Nagyon illik rám
illik rám illik rám
rám.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Azért, mert szükségem van legalább egy érettségire, hogy később egy jól O O O O O O O
fizető állást kaphassak.
2. Azért, mert örömöt és elégedettséget érzek új dolgok tanulása közben. O O O O O O O
3. Azért, mert úgy gondolom, a középiskolai oktatás segít jobban O O O O O O O
felkészülnöm az általam választott karrierre.
4. Azért, mert tényleg szeretek iskolába járni. O O O O O O O
5. Őszintén megvallva, nem tudom; teljesen úgy érzem, hogy elvesztegetem O O O O O O O
az időmet, mikor iskolában vagyok.
6. Azért az örömért, amit a tanulás során akkor érzek, amikor felülmúlom O O O O O O O
önmagam.
7. Azért, hogy bebizonyítsam magamnak, hogy képes vagyok megszerezni az O O O O O O O
érettségit.
8. Azért, hogy később egy nagyobb presztízsű álláshoz juthassak. O O O O O O O
9. Azért az örömért, amit akkor tapasztalok, mikor számomra ismeretlen, új O O O O O O O
dolgokat fedezek fel.
10. Azért, mert végső soron lehetővé teszi, hogy a munkaerőpiacon egy olyan O O O O O O O
területen helyezkedhessek el, ami érdekel.
11. Azért, mert nekem az iskola mókás. O O O O O O O
12. Régebben volt okom iskolába járni; azonban most azon tűnődöm, O O O O O O O
folytassam-e.
13. Azért az örömért, amit akkor érzek, mikor kimagaslóan teljesítek egy saját O O O O O O O
korábbi eredményemhez képest.
14. Amiatt, hogy mikor sikeres vagyok az iskolában fontosnak érzem magam. O O O O O O O
15. Azért, mert szeretnék majd gondtalanul élni. O O O O O O O
16. Azért az örömért, amit akkor élek meg, mikor bővítem a tudásomat O O O O O O O
azokon a tárgyakban, amik tetszenek.
17. Azért, mert segíteni fog jobb döntést hoznom a karrier irányultságommal O O O O O O O
kapcsolatban.
18. Azért az örömért, amit akkor tapasztalok, mikor magával ragad egy-egy O O O O O O O
érdekes tanárral folytatott beszélgetés
19. Nem is tudom, miért járok iskolába és őszintén, nem is nagyon érdekel. O O O O O O O
20. Azért a pozitív élményért, amit összetett iskolai feladatok elvégzése során O O O O O O O
érzek.
21. Azért, hogy magamat intelligensnek érezzem. O O O O O O O
22. Azért, hogy később jobb fizetésem legyen. O O O O O O O
23. Mert ha jól tanulok most, akkor a jövőben is sok olyan dologról O O O O O O O
tanulhatok, melyek érdekelnek engem.
24. Azért, mert úgy hiszem, hogy a középiskolai tanulmányaim fejlesztik a O O O O O O O
munkához szükséges kompetenciámat

33
 25. Azért a “durván” jó érzésért, amit akkor érzek, mikor érdekes dolgokról O O O O O O O
olvasok.
26. Nem tudom; képtelen vagyok megérteni, mit keresek az iskolában. O O O O O O O
27. Azért, mert a középiskola lehetővé teszi, hogy személyes elégedettséget O O O O O O O
érezzek, mikor kiválóan teljesítek tanulmányaim során.
28. Azért, mert be akarom bizonyítani magamnak, hogy sikeresen be tudom O O O O O O O
fejezni a tanulmányaimat.

Scoring:
Tanulásra irányuló intrinzik motiváció (Intrinsic motivation to know - IMTK): 2, 9, 16, 23
Dolgok elérésére vonatkozó intrinzik motiváció (Intrinsic motivation towards accomplishment
- IMTA): 6, 13, 20, 27
Stimuláció megélésére vonatkozó intrinzik motiváció (Intrinsic motivation to experience
stimulation - IMES): 4, 11, 18, 25
Extrinzik motiváció, identifikációs szabályozás (Extrinsic motivation of identified regulation -
EMID): 3, 10, 17, 24
Extrinzik motiváció, introjektált szabályozás (Extrinsic motivation of introjected regulation -
EMIJ): 7, 14, 21, 28
Extrinzik motiváció, külső szabályozás (Extrinsic motivation of external regulation - EMER):
1, 8, 15, 22
Amotiváció (Amotivation - AM): 5, 12, 19, 26

If you use this version, cite it as:

Tóth-Király, I., Orosz, G., Dombi, E., Jagodics, B., Farkas, D., & Amoura, C. (2017). Cross-
cultural comparative examination of the Academic Motivation Scale using exploratory
structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 130-135. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.048

34