575909

research-article2015
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282915575909Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentZhang et al.

Article
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
2016, Vol. 34(1) 15­–27
The Revision and Validation © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
of the Academic Motivation sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282915575909
Scale in China jpa.sagepub.com

Bo Zhang1, Yi Ming Li1, Jian Li1,2, Ye Li1, and Houcan Zhang1,2

Abstract
Self-determination theory (SDT) has contributed greatly to our understanding of human
motivation. Based on SDT, the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) was developed to assess
students’ motivation to learn. AMS has been successfully applied to the educational context in
Western cultures. However, no psychometrically validated version is available in China. The
present study aimed to revise and validate AMS in China. The AMS was administered to 882
traditional high school students and 419 vocational high students. A retest was administered to 67
traditional high school students 2 months later. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated
that the seven-factor model fitted the data well in both samples. Further analysis revealed that
each subscale showed satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest reliability. The AMS also
showed significant correlations with criteria such as basic psychological needs, school satisfaction,
perceived autonomy in the classroom, and other motivational counterparts, demonstrating good
criterion-related validity. Group comparison showed that traditional high school students were
more intrinsically motivated, less extrinsically motivated, and less amotivated than vocational high
school students, providing support for its discriminant validity. In conclusion, the Chinese version
of AMS was psychometrically sound and could be applied in China.

Keywords
self-determination theory, academic motivation, revision, validation

Introduction
As one of the most studied topics in educational psychology over the past 30 years, motivation has
been demonstrated to have significant influences on various academic outcomes, such as aca-
demic achievement (Côté & Levine, 2000; Fortier, Vallerand, & Guay, 1995a; Meece, Anderman,
& Anderman, 2006; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992), intention to drop out
(Alivernini & Lucidi, 2011; Legault, Green-Dermers, & Pelletier, 2006; Vallerand, Fortier, &
Guay, 1997), and absenteeism (Moore, Armstrong, & Pearson, 2008; Otis, Grouzet, & Pelletier,
2005). Many motivation theories have been proposed, and one of the most far-reaching theories is
the self-determination theory (SDT; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

1Beijing Normal University, China

2Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, China

Corresponding Author:
Jian Li, School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China.
Email: jianli@bnu.edu.cn
16 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(1)

Figure 1.  Motivational continuum.

SDT is a macro-theory that concerns the function of personality and human development in
different contexts (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self-determination refers to the sense of choice an
individual feels when he can initiate and control his actions or behaviors. Theorists consider
motivation as a continuum of self-determination. Amotivation constitutes one end of the moti-
vational continuum with the lowest level of self-determination. Amotivated individuals believe
that their actions are determined by things out of their control, and they therefore lose the
intent or drive to pursue an activity. Extrinsic motivation makes up the middle part of the moti-
vational continuum. Extrinsically motivated individuals pursue an activity for a sense of obli-
gation or as a means to an end. Lying at the other end of the motivational continuum is intrinsic
motivation. Intrinsically motivated individuals engage in an activity just for the satisfaction or
pleasure directly derived from it (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Researchers further distinguished
between different forms of extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and intrinsic motivation
(Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989). Specifically, they divided extrinsic motivation
into External Regulation (EMER), Introjected Regulation (EMIN), and Identified Regulation
(EMID). Intrinsic motivation was divided into Intrinsic Motivation to Know (IMTK), Intrinsic
Motivation to Accomplish (IMAC), and Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation
(IMTE). It should be noted that, however, while the three extrinsic motivations are ordered
along the continuum, the three intrinsic motivations are “conceptually at the same level on the
self-determination continuum” (Carbooneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, 2012). Their relative
locations on the continuum are shown in Figure 1.
The application of SDT in academic contexts resulted in the construction of the Academic
Motivation Scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1989; Vallerand et al., 1992). AMS consists of an amoti-
vation subscale, three extrinsic motivation subscales, and three intrinsic motivation subscales. The
psychometric properties of AMS have been examined in several countries, including Canada (Guay,
Morin, Litalien, Valois, & Vallerand, 2015; Vallerand et al., 1992), the United States (Cokley, 2000;
Cokley, Bernard, Cunningham, & Motoike, 2001; Fairchild, Horst, Finney, & Barron, 2005),
Britain (Baker, 2004), Greece (Barkoukis, Tsorbatzoudis, Grouios, & Sideridis, 2008), Argentina
(Stover, Iglesia, Boubeta, & Liporace, 2012), and Ghana (Akoto, 2014). Most studies found accept-
able reliability and temporal stability for each subscale. Regarding its structural validity, although
most studies championed the seven-factor structure over the five-factor structure or three-factor
structure, some studies found inadequate model fit (Cokley et al., 2001; Vallerand et al., 1992).
Furthermore, if the motivational continuum hypothesis does hold true, namely, the simplex struc-
ture, stronger positive correlations between adjacent than distant motivations are to be expected
(Vallerand et al., 1993). However, previous studies produced mixed results (Guay et al., 2015;
Vallerand et al., 1993). More evidences are needed to further clarify these problems.
Zhang et al. 17

We must be aware that most of the studies mentioned above were conducted in Western con-
texts. Will the seven-factor structure hold in eastern cultures, such as China? What is the correla-
tion pattern like in Chinese culture? Because researchers’ enthusiasm on academic motivation
would never fade, a cross-culturally validated instrument is a prerequisite for a deeper under-
standing of academic motivation itself and its impact on academic outcomes. In addition, a cross-
cultural examination of AMS will also contribute to the validity of SDT.
Therefore, the present study attempted to revise the AMS into Chinese and examine its psy-
chometric properties. Specifically, we aimed to address four research questions: (a) the factor
structure underlying AMS; (b) the reliability of each subscale, including the Cronbach’s alpha
and test–retest reliability; (c) the correlation pattern between subscales; and (d) criterion-related
validity.
As for the criterion-related validity of AMS, we mainly focused on its relationship with moti-
vational antecedents, consequences, and counterparts. In accordance with SDT, the fulfillment of
three basic psychological needs, namely, the need for competence, the need for autonomy, and the
need for relatedness, is a necessary precursor to intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Fortier,
Vallerand, & Guay, 1995b). It can be predicted that students whose basic psychological needs are
better satisfied are more likely to be intrinsically motivated. More specifically, if students’ school-
related basic psychological needs are satisfied, they are likely to show higher level of intrinsic
academic motivation. Therefore, the general fulfillment of basic psychological needs and per-
ceived autonomy in learning environments were adopted as motivational antecedents. As defined,
intrinsic motivation means doing an activity for its inherent satisfaction (Vallerand et al., 1992).
Therefore, the more students are intrinsically motivated, the more they will enjoy school life and
thus be more satisfied (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, and
Senécal (2007) found that when moving from external regulation to intrinsic motivation, the pre-
dictive power of motivation on school satisfaction increased monotonically. In addition, evidence
found in organizational research provided further evidence for the relationship between motiva-
tion and satisfaction. For example, researchers found that intrinsically motivated workers were
more likely to be satisfied with their work than extrinsically motivated workers (Gagné et al.,
2010; Millette & Gagné, 2008; Stringer, Didham, & Theivananthampilla, 2011). Accordingly, we
predicted that intrinsic academic motivation would be more predictive of school satisfaction than
extrinsic motivation. Therefore, school satisfaction was chosen as a motivational consequence.
Furthermore, the Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation subscales of Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) were chosen as counterparts of AMS to examine its construct validity.
Higher positive correlations are expected between the same constructs. Previous studies have also
shown that vocational students study for more extrinsic reasons than intrinsic ones (Berings &
DeFruyt, 1991; Jacobs, 1994). Many of them are even amotivated (Creten, Lens, & Simons,
2001). Therefore, these differences are expected to be revealed by AMS as well.

Method
Participants
The sample consists of 882 Grade 10 students (478 female) from three traditional high schools
and 419 Grade 10 students (132 female) from two vocational schools, Mage-traditional = 15.89,
SDage-traditional = 0.97, Mage-vocational = 16.07, SDage-vocational = 1.02.

Measures
The AMS and Learning Climate Scale (LCS) were translated into Chinese, blindly back-translated
into English, and then translated into Chinese again by two researchers proficient in Chinese and
18 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(1)

English to avoid any potential misunderstandings and ensure translation accuracy. Some slight
modifications in phrasing were made to make items more appropriate for Chinese students.

Academic Motivation Scale (AMS).  The AMS contains 28 items, 4 items per subscale. Participants
rated how those statements apply to them on a 7-point Likert-type scale. A higher score indicates
higher level of academic motivation, except for the Amotivation subscale, in which a higher
score indicates lower level of motivation. Its psychometric properties were reported in the
“Results” section in detail.

School Satisfaction (SS).  The SS is an eight-item one-factor scale designed to measure students’
satisfaction with school life. It is adopted from the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction
Scale (MLSSS, Huebner, 1994). Its psychometric properties have been established in Chinese
culture (Leung, McBridge-Chang, & Lai, 2004; Liu, Tian, & Gilman, 2005). Participants rated to
what degree they agreed with those statements on a 6-point Likert-type scale. A higher total score
indicates higher level of school satisfaction. The alpha coefficient was .86 in the present study.

Learning Climate Scale (LCS).  The LCS is a 15-item SDT-based one-factor scale that measures the
perceived autonomy provided by instructors (Williams & Deci, 1996). The LCS has been used in
many studies (Black & Deci, 2000; Williams, Saizow, Ross, & Deci, 1997). Participants rated to
what degree they agreed with those statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale. A higher score
reflects higher level of perceived autonomy in learning environments. The alpha coefficient was
.93 in the present study. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that a single factor model
fitted the data well in the present study, Satorra–Bentler chi-square (S-B χ2) = 632.95, df = 90,
comparative fit index (CFI) = .92, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07.

Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS).  The BPNS is also an SDT-based 21-item scale that mea-
sures the degree to which individuals’ basic psychological needs are satisfied (Gagné, 2003). It
contains three subscales that measure the need for autonomy, the need for competence, and the
need for relatedness. The BPNS has been used in several domains (Deci et al., 2001; Milyavs-
kaya & Koestner, 2011; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). The three-factor structure demonstrated good
fit to a Chinese sample (Guo et al., 2014). Participants rated to what degree they agreed with
those statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The alpha coefficients were .62, .62, and .76 for
the Autonomy subscale, Competence subscale, and Relatedness subscale, respectively, in the
present study.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Scale (IEMS).  The eight-item IEMS assesses students’ intrinsic
and extrinsic academic motivation. It is adopted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, García, & McKeachie, 1993). Its psychometric proper-
ties have been validated in both Western (Hilpert, Stempien, van der Hoeven Kraft, & Husman,
2013) and Chinese culture (Rao, Moely, & Sachs, 2000; Rao & Sachs, 1999). Each item is scored
on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A higher score reflects higher
level of academic motivation. The alpha coefficients were .73 for the Intrinsic Motivation sub-
scale and .75 for the Extrinsic Motivation subscale in the present study.

Procedure
School coordinators arranged the time for all participants to complete the questionnaire battery at a
fixed time. Each class was equipped with a trained research assistant. Standardized instruction
about the purpose of the study was delivered first. Students were reminded to complete the battery
all by themselves. The head teacher of each class was also present to keep order. When they
Zhang et al. 19

Table 1.  Model Fit Statistics for the Three Competing Academic Motivation Models.

Sample Model χ2 df RMSEA RMSEA CI CFI

Traditional 7 Factors 1,074.328 329 0.051 [0.047, 0.054] 0.913
  5 Factors 1,271.652 340 0.056 [0.052, 0.059] 0.892
  3 Factors 2,116.759 347 0.076 [0.073, 0.079] 0.795
Vocational 7 Factors 613.321 329 0.045 [0.040, 0.051] 0.932
  5 Factors 675.429 340 0.051 [0.045, 0.056] 0.920
  3 Factors 908.129 347 0.065 [0.060, 0.070] 0.865

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; CFI = comparative fit index.

finished, students handed in the battery directly to the research assistant. Two months later, 67 tra-
ditional high school students participated in the retest, which followed the same procedure.

Statistical Analysis
Data missing rate in this study was below 2%. To avoid reduction in variances/covariances
among observed variables, we adopted the multiple imputation method proposed by Schafer
(1997) to handle missing data, which is by default in Mplus 7.1. We first conducted three CFAs
to compare competing theoretical models to explain the relationships among observed variables
using Mplus 7.1. For its robustness to possible violations of normality assumption, estimation
was based on the maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLM; Muthén &
Muthén, 1998-2012). The S-B chi-square, RMSEA, and CFI were adopted as three primary
indexes to evaluate model fitness. RMSEA less than .06 and CFI more than .90 indicate adequate
fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). No residual correlations were allowed, and correlations among factors
were freely estimated.
In addition to CFA, researchers examined the internal consistency reliability and test–retest
reliability of each subscale. Criterion-related validity was also examined by relating it to various
criteria. All analyses were performed using SPSS 17.0.

Results
Factor Analysis
Three competing CFA models were tested: (a) a seven-factor model based on Vallerand et al.’s
(1992) proposal; (b) a five-factor model in accordance with Deci and Ryan’s (1985) definition of
theory of self-determination, which made no differentiation of intrinsic motivation; and (c) a
three-factor model with an amotivation factor, a general intrinsic motivation factor, and a general
extrinsic motivation factor. Two sets of CFAs were performed in the traditional high school sam-
ple and vocational high school sample separately. Factor analysis results were shown in Table 1.
As observed, the seven-factor model fitted the data best in both samples, which supported the
original proposal. Examination of the factor loadings revealed that only factor loadings of Item 1
and Item 7 fell below .60 (.57 and .59, respectively) in the traditional high school sample. In the
vocational high school sample, only factor loadings of Item 1 and Item 21 fell below .60 (.53 and
.54, respectively). Most of the factor loadings were above .70 (see Table 2) in both samples.

Reliability
Given the adequate fitness of the seven-factor model, Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest correla-
tions were calculated for the seven subscales (see Table 3). The seven subscales demonstrated
20 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(1)

Table 2.  Standardized Factor Loadings for Each Sample.

Traditional high school students (n = 882) Vocational High School Students (n = 419)

  AM EMER EMIN EMID IMTK IMAC IMTE AM EMER EMIN EMID IMTK IMAC IMTE

V05 .69 (.03) .62 (.04)  

V12 .70 (.02) .61 (.05)  
V19 .79 (.02) .79 (.03)  
V26 .84 (.02) .83 (.03)  
V01 .57 (.03) .53 (.04)  
V08 .78 (.03) .79 (.03)  
V15 .78 (.02) .74 (.04)  
V22 .89 (.02) .80 (.03)  
V07 .59 (.03) .72 (.03)  
V14 .60 (.03) .70 (.03)  
V21 .69 (.03) .54 (.04)  
V28 .76 (.02) .76 (.03)  
V03 .64 (.03) .63 (.04)  
V10 .60 (.03) .67 (.03)  
V17 .73 (.03) .77 (.03)  
V24 .74 (.03) .75 (.03)  
V02 .73 (.02) .77 (.03)  
V09 .79 (.02) .71 (.03)  
V16 .76 (.02) .80 (.02)  
V23 .79 (.02) .77 (.03)  
V06 .78 (.02) .79 (.02)  
V13 .75 (.02) .75 (.03)  
V20 .79 (.02) .78 (.03)  
V27 .81 (.02) .80 (.02)  
V04 .61 (.02) .66 (.03)
V11 .57 (.03) .66 (.03)
V18 .67 (.03) .75 (.03)
V25 .72 (.02) .67 (.04)

Note. Values in parentheses are standard errors of factor loadings. AM = Amotivation; EMER = External Regulation; EMIN =
Introjected Regulation; EMID = Identified Regulation; IMTK = Intrinsic Motivation to Know; IMAC = Intrinsic Motivation to
Accomplish; IMTE = Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation.

Table 3.  Reliability, Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation Matrix of the Seven Subscales.
Cronbach’s Test–
α retest MT MV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. AM .83 .70 2.40 (1.12) 3.01 (1.44) −.16** −.41** −.39** −.43** −.49** −.44**
2. EMER .81 .64 5.21 (1.41) 5.52 (1.23) .01 .65** .73** .50** .46** .40**
3. EMIN .75 .67 4.64 (1.34) 4.74 (1.35) −.14** .59** .83** .85** .94** .85**
4. EMID .77 .57 5.51 (1.20) 5.32 (1.21) −.35** .59** .59** .81** .78** .81**
5. IMTK .84 .81 5.56 (1.12) 5.12 (1.33) −.50** .19** .50** .58** .95** .96**
6. IMAC .86 .74 5.24 (1.23) 4.93 (1.38) −.51** .24** .70** .58** .85** .92**
7. IMTE .75 .81 4.86 (1.21) 4.64 (1.35) −.52** .16** .55** .61** .91** .88**  

Note. Latent variable correlations were reported. Correlations above the diagonal were computed from the
vocational high school sample and correlations below the diagonal were computed from the traditional high school
sample. MT refers to the mean of the traditional sample; MV refers to the mean of the vocational sample. AM =
Amotivation; EMER = External Regulation; EMIN = Introjected Regulation; EMID = Identified Regulation; IMTK =
Intrinsic Motivation to Know; IMAC = Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplish; IMTE = Intrinsic Motivation to Experience
Stimulation.
**p < .01.
Zhang et al. 21

acceptable internal consistency reliability and temporal stability, except the EMID subscale,
whose test–retest reliability was .57.

Simplex Structure
To test the motivational continuum hypothesis, we investigated the correlation pattern between
the AMS subscales. Correlations among latent constructs were obtained from CFAs to reduce
measurement error. In both samples, external regulation showed equal or stronger correlation
with EMID (rt = .59 and rv = .731) than with EMIN (rt = .59 and rv = .65). At the same time, EMIN
showed higher correlations with IMAC (r = .70) than with identified motivation (r = .59) in the
traditional sample. In the vocational sample, EMIN showed higher correlations with IMTK (r =
.85) and IMAC (r = .94) than with EMID (r = .83). In total, the results did not support the moti-
vational continuum hypothesis.

Criterion-Related Validity
In accordance with previous sections, we also computed correlations between AMS subscales
with different criteria separately. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4.
In both samples, AM showed stronger negative correlation with IN (rt = −.33 and rv = −.37)
than with EM (rt = −.06 and rv = −.23). The three intrinsic motivation subscales showed higher
correlations with IN (rt = .49–.57 and rv = .56–.62) than with EM (rt = .13–.26 and rv = .41–.44).
EMER showed a stronger correlation with EM (rt = .46 and rv = .47) than with IN (rt = .06 and rv
= .34). In the traditional sample, EMIN showed stronger correlation with EM (rt = .47) than with
IN (rt = .33). In the vocational sample, EMIN showed nearly the same degree of correlation with
both EM (r = .52) and IN (r = .58). However, EMID showed a higher correlation with IN (rt = .34
and rv = .54) than with EM (rt = .29 and rv = .44), which is contrary to our expectation. In addi-
tion, amotivation showed significant negative correlations with both motivational antecedents (rt
= −.43−.30 and rv = −.38−.28) and motivational consequences (rt = −.61 and rv = −.53). When
moving from amotivation to the more self-determined end of the continuum, correlation magni-
tude between AMS subscales and motivational antecedents/consequences displayed a monotoni-
cally increasing pattern in the traditional sample. Although the correlation pattern was not strictly
monotonic in the vocational sample, the general pattern still showed an increasing trend.

Differences Between Student Types

As shown in Table 5, vocational high school students displayed higher level of amotivation than
traditional high school students (t = 8.09, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.45). In addition, vocational
students were more externally regulated (t = 3.81, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.21) than traditional
high school students. Traditional high school students were found to be more intrinsically moti-
vated than vocational school students (t = 2.95–6.21, ps < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.16–0.36), as antici-
pated. Contrary to expectation, however, traditional high school students scored higher on the
EMID subscale (t = 2.54, p = .01, Cohen’s d = .24). They showed the same level of introjected
motivation (p = .23).

Discussion
Although the factorial structure of AMS has been extensively studied in Western countries, little
information is available about AMS in eastern cultures. The current study investigated the facto-
rial structure, reliability, and validity of the AMS in China and found support for its use in Chinese
culture.
22 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(1)

Table 4.  Correlational Statistics of AMS and Criterion.

Traditional students (n = 882)

  M (SD) AM EMER EMIN EMID IMTK IMAC IMTE

LC 5.28 (1.02) −.43** .10** .29** .39** .45** .50** .53**
AU 4.48 (0.91) −.35** −0.06 .16** .24** .32** .32** .34**
CO 4.39 (1.00) −.34** −0.06 .21** .23** .37** .41** .39**
RE 5.39 (0.92) −.30** .08* .22** .23** .30** .33** .35**
SS 4.39 (0.94) −.61** 0.03 .29** .38** .53** .54** .66**
IN 5.46 (1.03) −.33** 0.06 .33** .34** .57** .54** .49**
EM 5.10 (1.24) −0.06 .46** .47** .29** .14** .26** .13**
  Vocational students (n = 419)
  M (SD) AM EMER EMIN EMID IMTK IMAC IMTE
LC 5.37 (1.14) −0.36** .36** .47** .51** .50** .50** .52**
AU 4.45 (0.93) −0.38** .12* .34** .28** .38** .38** .38**
CO 4.30 (0.95) −0.28** .13** .35** .31** .38** .40** .36**
RE 5.19 (0.99) −0.35** .29** .29** .35** .35** .29** .38**
SS 4.28 (1.00) −0.53** .29** .49** .55** .53** .58** .65**
IN 5.02 (1.27) −0.37** .34** .58** .54** .57** .62** .56**
EM 5.02 (1.24) −0.23** .47** .52** .44** .42** .44** .41**

Note. AM = Amotivation; EMER = External Regulation; EMIN = Introjected Regulation; EMID = Identified Regulation;
IMTK = Intrinsic Motivation to Know; IMAC = Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplish; IMTE = Intrinsic Motivation to
Experience Stimulation; LC = Learning Climate; AU = Autonomy; CO = Competence; RE = Relatedness; SS = School
Satisfaction; IN = Intrinsic Motivation; EM = Extrinsic Motivation.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 5.  Test of Group Differences.

MT (SD) MV (SD) t P Cohen’s d

AM 2.40 (1.12) 3.01 (1.44) −8.09 .000 .45
EMER 5.21 (1.41) 5.52 (1.23) −3.81 .000 .21
EMIN 4.64 (1.34) 4.74 (1.35) −1.19 .234 .07
EMID 5.51 (1.20) 5.32 (1.21) 2.54 .011 .14
IMTK 5.56 (1.12) 5.12 (1.33) 6.21 .000 .36
IMAC 5.24 (1.23) 4.93 (1.38) 4.02 .000 .22
IMTE 4.86 (1.21) 4.64 (1.35) 2.95 .003 .16

Note. MT = mean of traditional high school; MV = mean of vocational high school; AM = Amotivation; EMER = External
Regulation; EMIN = Introjected Regulation; EMID = Identified Regulation; IMTK = Intrinsic Motivation to Know; IMAC =
Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplish; IMTE = Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation.

Consistent with the original hypothesis (Vallerand et al., 1992), two separate sets of CFAs
both demonstrated that the seven-factor model outperformed the five-factor and three-factor
models. Unlike results of some previous studies (Stover et al., 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992),
adequate fitness of the seven-factor model was achieved without the addition of any error covari-
ances, let alone the deletion of items. Inspection of factor loadings revealed that 18/28 and 19/28
loadings exceeded .70 in the two samples, respectively, and the lowest loading was .53,
Zhang et al. 23

indicating that most items adequately measure the construct. Therefore, the seven-factor model
fits in Chinese culture as well.
Acceptable Cronbach’s alpha was found for each subscale. Furthermore, higher Cronbach’s
alpha was found for EMID than in many previous studies (Cokley et al., 2001; Stover et al., 2012;
Vallerand et al., 1992, 1993), where the EMID subscale was usually proven to be less reliable.
Considering the long test-retest interval, the present study also found acceptable test–retest reli-
ability for the three intrinsic motivation subscales, EMIN, EMER, and AM, which is in accor-
dance with previous studies (Barkoukis et al., 2008; Vallerand et al., 1992). Also consistent with
previous studies (Ratelle, Guay, Larose, & Senécal, 2004), relatively lower test–retest reliability
was found for the EMID subscales. This difference may be explained by the longer test–retest
interval of the present study. A longer interval may lead to greater fluctuations in students’ extrin-
sic motivation (Allen & Yen, 1979/2002).
As with many previous SDT-based motivation studies (Chemolli & Gagné, 2014; Fairchild
et al., 2005; Guay et al., 2015; Webb, Soutar, Mazzarol, & Saldaris, 2013), this study also called
the motivational continuum hypothesis into question. Many explanations could account for this
result, such as the indistinctiveness of the three intrinsic motivation subscales (Carbonneau,
Vallerand, & Lafrenière, 2012), or the inappropriate analytic techniques (Guay et al., 2015).
However, the fact that much more evidences are against the motivational continuum than sup-
porting it leads us to believe that the hypothesis itself may be untenable. If motivational regula-
tions indeed differ in degree instead of kind, they should be clustered into one dimension, which
is apparently not the case (Guay et al., 2015; Vallerand et al., 1992). Even recent neuroscientific
evidences supported qualitative differences instead of quantitative differences among different
motivational regulations (Lee, Reeve, Xue, & Xiong, 2012; Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997). Therefore,
different motivational regulations should reflect different motivation types.
As expected, amotivation showed negative correlations with both motivational antecedents
and consequences. When the learning environment is less autonomy-supportive or individuals’
basic psychological needs are less satisfied, their behaviors are less self-determined. Therefore,
they would fail to see the contingencies between their actions and the consequences (Pelletier,
Fortier, Vallerand, & Briére, 2001). Amotivated individuals had no sense of purpose, no expecta-
tion of reward, and no expectation that the present course of events could be changed; thus, they
were less satisfied with their surroundings (Lachapelle et al., 2005). When moving from external
regulation to the three intrinsic motivation types, correlations with all validity criteria followed a
strict monotonically increasing pattern in the traditional sample and a general increasing trend in
the vocational sample as well. In sum, the evidence strongly supported the validity of inferences
made from AMS scores.
The finding that vocational students are more amotivated is consistent with previous studies.
Researchers found that vocational students displayed more amotivated behaviors such as disrupt-
ing classrooms activities and truancy (Molnar & Lindquist, 1989; Olweus, 1993). In line with a
previous study (Jiang & Yu, 2006), vocational students are also more externally regulated and
less intrinsically motivated. It is in accordance with reality. Students who are from relatively low-
income families or underachieve in traditional school are more likely to attend vocational school
(Yu, 2010). On one hand, they have to acquire necessary work skills to make a living, which is
definitely an external drive. On the other hand, researchers found that they usually show low
interest in learning challenging knowledge, which may account for their lower level of intrinsic
motivation (Creten, Lens, & Simons, 1998). As the EMID subscale measures the internalized
extrinsic motives (e.g., a student is willing to devote much extra effort to C++ because he believes
it is important for continuing success at programming), an identified regulator has attributed
personal value to their behaviors (Vallerand et al., 1992). It is no surprise, therefore, that tradi-
tional high school students scored higher on this subscale.
24 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(1)

Although the current study provided some initial evidences for the cross-cultural applicability
of AMS, much more work is needed. First, cross-cultural measurement invariance should be an
important issue for future studies. Measurement invariance refers to the extent to which item
responses preserve their meaning across populations (Millsap & Kwok, 2004). Equivalence of
measurement model is a prequisite for further theoretical interpretations of group differences and
examination of cross-cultural applicability of theories and models (Sue, 1999). Meanwhile, cor-
relations among the three intrinsic motivation subscales were very high and there was no sub-
stantial difference of fit indexes (e.g., RMSEA) between the seven-factor model and five-factor
model, indicating lack of discriminant validity of the three subscales. We chose to conform to the
well-documented seven-factor structure because the present study was mainly intended to intro-
duce the AMS into Chinese culture. Future studies, however, should delve further to explore the
feasibility and necessity of dividing intrinsic motivation into sub-dimensions from a psychomet-
ric perspective.
In summary, the present study revised the AMS into Chinese and validated its psychometric
properties against various criteria. The results are consistent with studies performed in other
countries. Therefore, we conclude that the Chinese version is sufficiently suitable for research
with Chinese high school students.

Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank Xiang Qin Shen from the Affiliated High School of Beijing Normal University, Jing
Yi Liu from Chaoyang Branch of Beijing Institute of Education, and You Peng Chen from Beijing
Xinxian Hutong Elementary School, without whose help the present research would not be carried out so
fluently. Also, we deeply appreciate the help of the Affiliated High School of Beijing University of
Technology Beijing No. 17 High School, Beijing Electrical Engineering School, and Beijing Qiushi
Vocational School.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This research was supported by Beijing Higher Education Young Elite Teacher Project
YETP0247 and Ministry of Education in China Project of Humanities and Social Sciences Project
09YJCXLX001.

Note
1. rt stands for correlation coefficient of traditional sample; rv stands for correlation coefficient of the
vocational sample.

References
Akoto, E. O. (2014). Cross-cultural factorial validity of the academic motivation scale. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 21, 105-125.
Alivernini, F., & Lucidi, F. (2011). Relationship between social context, self-efficacy, motivation, aca-
demic achievement, and intention to drop out of high school: A longitudinal study. The Journal of
Educational Research, 104, 241-252.
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Waveland Press.
(Original work published 1979)
Baker, S. R. (2004). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational orientations: Their role in university adjustment,
stress, well-being, and subsequent academic performance. Current Psychology, 23, 189-202.
Zhang et al. 25

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
Motivation Scale. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 39-55.
Berings, D., & De Fruyt, F. (1991). Schoolmoeheid en de rol van leerlinggebonden factoren: Een corre-
lationeel onderzoek in het beroepssecundair onderwijs [School weariness and pupil characteristics: A
correlational study in secondary vocational education]. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 16, 234-251.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous
motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,
84, 740-756.
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenière, M. A. (2012). Toward a tripartite model of intrinsic motiva-
tion. Journal of Personality, 80, 1147-1178.
Chemolli, E., & Gagné, M. (2014). Evidence against the continuum structure underlying motivation mea-
sures derived from self-determination theory. Psychological Assessment, 26, 575-585.
Cokley, K. O. (2000). An investigation of academic self-concept and its relationship to academic achieve-
ment in African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 148-164.
Cokley, K. O., Bernard, N., Cunningham, D., & Motoike, J. (2001). A psychometric investigation of the
Academic Motivation Scale using a United States sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 34, 109-119.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2000). Attitude versus aptitude: Is intelligence or motivation more important
for positive higher-educational outcomes? Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 58-80.
Creten, H., Lens, W., & Simons, J. (1998, March). The role of perceived instrumentality in student moti-
vation. Paper presented at the Sixth Workshop on Achievement and Task Motivation, Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Creten, H., Lens, W., & Simons, J. (2001). The role of perceived instrumentality in student motivation. In
A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 37-
45). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-determination in person-
ality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfac-
tion, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-
cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-
determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.
Fairchild, A. J., Horst, S. J., Finney, S. J., & Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and new validity
evidence for the Academic Motivation Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 331-358.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995a). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward
a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 257-274.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995b). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting:
Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 1161-1176.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engage-
ment. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199-223.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M. H., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The Motivation at Work
Scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70,
628-646.
Guay, F., Morin, A. J., Litalien, D., Valois, P., & Vallerand, R. J. (2015). Application of exploratory struc-
tural equation modeling to evaluate the Academic Motivation Scale. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 83, 51-82. doi:10.1080/00220973.2013.876231
Guo, K. Y., Zhu, W. L., Zhu, Q., Zhu, M. L., Zuo, P. Y., & Lin, D. H. (2014). Parent-child communication
and perceived well-being: The mediating effects of basic psychological needs satisfaction among rural
children in China. Psychological Development and Education, 30, 129-136. [In Chinese]
Hilpert, J. C., Stempien, J., van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., & Husman, J. (2013). Evidence for the latent factor
structure of the MSLQ: A new conceptualization of an established questionnaire. SAGE Open, 3(4),
1-10.
26 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(1)

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Huebner, E. S. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale
for children. Psychological Assessment, 6, 149-158.
Jacobs, C. (1994). De motivatie van leerlingen in het beroepsonderwijs: Een beschrijvend onderzoek waar-
bij de leerlingen zelf aan het woord komen [Student motivation in vocational education: A descriptive
study where students have their saying] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Leuven, Belgium.
Jiang, Z. P., & Yu, G. L. (2006). The development of the mental health scale for middle vocational school
students. Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine Science, 15, 389-391.
Lachapelle, Y., Wehmeyer, M. L., Haelewyck, M. C., Courbois, Y., Keith, K. D., Schalock, R., & Walsh,
P. N. (2005). The relationship between quality of life and self-determination: An international study.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 740-744.
Lee, W., Reeve, J., Xue, Y., & Xiong, J. (2012). Neural differences between intrinsic reasons for doing
versus extrinsic reasons for doing: An fMRI study. Neuroscience Research, 73, 68-72.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the
classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 98, 567-582.
Leung, C. Y. W., McBride-Chang, C., & Lai, B. P. Y. (2004). Relations among maternal parenting
style, academic competence, and life satisfaction in Chinese early adolescents. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 24, 113-143.
Liu, W., Tian, L., & Gilman, R. (2005). A cross-cultural study on life satisfaction between Chinese and
American middle school students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 319-321. [In Chinese]
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation,
and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.
Millette, V., & Gagné, M. (2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and
performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 32,
11-22.
Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O. M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in
two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93-115.
Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-
determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 387-391.
Molnar, A., & Lindquist, B. (1989). Changing problem behavior in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Moore, S., Armstrong, C., & Pearson, J. (2008). Lecture absenteeism among students in higher educa-
tion: A valuable route to understanding student motivation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 30, 15-24.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Otis, N., Grouzet, F. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an academic setting: A
3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 170-183.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briére, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived
autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and
Emotion, 25, 279-306.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological mea-
surement, 53, 801-813.
Rao, N., Moely, B. E., & Sachs, J. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies, and mathematics attain-
ment in high-and low-achieving Chinese secondary school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 287-316.
Rao, N., & Sachs, J. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 1016-1029.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2004). Family correlates of trajectories of academic
motivation during a school transition: A semiparametric group-based approach. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 743-754.
Zhang et al. 27

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, 734-746.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: An organizational view of social
and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Development and
Psychopathology, 9, 701-728.
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London, England: Chapman & Hall.
Stover, J. B., de la Iglesia, G., Boubeta, A. R., & Liporace, M. F. (2012). Academic Motivation Scale:
Adaptation and psychometric analyses for high school and college students. Psychology Research and
Behavior Management, 5, 71-83.
Stringer, C., Didham, J., & Theivananthampillai, P. (2011). Motivation, pay satisfaction, and job satisfac-
tion of front-line employees. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8, 161-179.
Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070-
1077.
Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction and validation of the
Motivation Toward Education Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science Revue Canadienne,
21, 323-349.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting:
Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 1161-1176.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992).
The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.
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, 159-172.
Webb, D., Soutar, G. N., Mazzarol, T., & Saldaris, P. (2013). Self-determination theory and consumer behav-
ioural change: Evidence from a household energy-saving behavior study. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 35, 59-66.
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behav-
ior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98, 222-244.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test
of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779.
Williams, G. C., Saizow, R., Ross, L., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Motivation underlying career choice for inter-
nal medicine and surgery. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 1705-1713.
Yu, H. J. (2010). Empirical study on reasons of students selecting secondary vocational schools. Vocational
and Technical Education, 32(620), 40-43.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment:
The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal,
29, 663-676.