Factor structure of the Motivation Assessment Scale

Abstract

The Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) was developed to provide clinical information on four hypothesized functions that may control problem behaviour in persons with developmental disabilities. The original four‐factor structure of the MAS was based on face validity, with the items being grouped in terms of each of the hypothesized functions. Validation of the scale was provided in terms of correlations between teacher ratings of eight children on the MAS and ranking of the controlling variables from functional analogue tests. In this study, staff in residential facilities rated 60 residents and teachers in schools rated 96 students on the MAS. The target behaviour rated for both samples was self‐injury, with the institutional sample engaging in the behaviour more than 15 times an hour and the school sample, less than 15 times an hour. The results of factor analyses, with varimax rotation, provided a conceptually meaningful factor structure with the institutional sample, but not with the school sample. The 16 MAS items resolved into four factors that were conceptually related to four conditions that may maintain problem behaviour (i.e. sensory, escape, attention and tangible). The results suggested that the original MAS has a robust factor structure and may be clinically useful in predicting the controlling functions of problem behaviours, if the target behaviours occur at a rate no less than 15 responses per hour.

The Motivation of Stereotypic and Repetitive Behavior: Examination of Construct Validity of the Motivation Assessment Scale

“…And while Singh et al (1993) also confirmed Durand and Crimmins (1988b) findings with 60 adolescents and adults who resided in institutions, they found that neither 3-, 4-, nor 5-factor structures were meaningful with data from 96 adolescent students with intellectual disability who attended school. Singh et al proposed that this outcome was related to behavior frequency, which was much less in the school sample.…”

“…They also speculated that the level of intellectual disability in their school sample may have been higher than that in their institution-dwelling sample but that information was not available. Singh et al's (1993) speculations notwithstanding, Duker and Sigafoos (1998) also failed to support a 4-factor structure with data from 86 residential participants. They felt the differing results across studies stemmed from differences in the types of behaviors assessed in the various studies.…”

“…While it was developed to assess the motivation of self-injurious behaviors, its authors and others have promoted its use for assessment of problem behaviors in general. Researchers have used the MAS to examine a wide range of repetitive, disruptive and aggressive behaviors in other studies (Bihm et al 1991;Duker and Sigafoos 1998;Singh et al 1993).…”

“…Three groups of researchers (Bihm et al 1991;Duker and Sigafoos 1998;Singh et al 1993) have subsequently investigated the 4-factor structure of the MAS and examined the items loading on each factor structure (Singh et al 1993). The results have varied.…”

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation for Stereotypic and Repetitive Behavior

“…That is, if evidence for construct validity is lacking, the fault may be with the measure or with the theory (Streiner and Norman 2003). Although the MAS is widely used, particularly with individuals with intellectual disability, the results of three studies that have investigated its construct validity using exploratory factor analysis, have failed to reveal good evidence for construct validity (Bihm et al 1991;Duker and Sigafoos 1998;Singh et al 1993). In a previous study (Joosten and Bundy 2008), we used Rasch analysis to investigate whether the MAS might form a unidimensional construct rather than reflecting the four originally-hypothesised dimensions (i.e., to gain enhanced sensation, attention, a tangible object or to escape).…”