Temporal Stability of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory

Abstract

To examine the temporal stability of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory a Greek version was administered to 144 undergraduate students after an endurance field test. The same procedure was repeated one week later. Factor analysis followed by varimax rotation showed that three factors (Perceived Competence, Interest/enjoyment, and Effort/importance) explained 65.26% of the total variance. Computed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were .61 for the Perceived Competence subscale, .86 for the Interest/enjoyment, .60 for the Effort/importance, and .70 for the overall scale. The results, however, were modified when the sample was divided in two groups. The first represented small changes in perceived competence between the first and the second measurement, while the second one represented large changes between the two measurements. Recalculated intraclass correlation coefficients for individuals whose Perceived Competence score remained relatively stable yield a high value (.92), whereas individuals whose Perceived Competence changed yield an extremely low value (.60). It was concluded that the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory provides a temporally stable measure, given that perceived competence has not been markedly changed.

Effects of a dynamic hand orthosis for functional use of the impaired upper limb in sub-acute stroke patients: A multiple single case experimental design study

“…The 7-point Likert scale instrument was administered at the end of the follow-up phase to assess participants' interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort, value/usefulness, pressure/tension felt, and perceived choice while training with the dynamic springloaded hand orthosis [9]. Its reliability was found to be good [34].…”

The Retention Dilemma: Effectively Reaching the First-Year University Student

“…Items on these subscales hold high face validity, and some even emulate self-report responses. Due to the straightforward nature of the scale, it has been used in a variety of ways to accommodate research needs (e.g., McAuley & Tammen, 1989;Ryan, 1982;Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983;Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003). In the present study, five of the subscales were used.…”

Intrinsic motivation of preclinical medical students participating in high-fidelity mannequin simulation

“…Previous studies in various settings have recorded much lower scores for this subscale of the IMI (mean=5.69,23 4.2,22 and 3.25–3.526), suggesting that medical students who elected to participate in simulation during their free time have a relatively high level of intrinsic motivation for this activity relative to the populations and contexts previously examined using the IMI. This is an interesting finding suggesting that these medical students had a uniquely high intrinsic motivation when participating in simulation.…”

“…The IMI has content evidence because it was developed using a well-known framework by experts in the field and its components have demonstrated validity in other studies 17 20–22. While it has not been used in the context of simulation or medical education, it has been used to assess the motivational aspects of competitive sports,20 fitness classes,23 24 tests of endurance,22 a psychology class,25 memory,21 homework26 and other activities17 and found to have relationships with other variables that are consistent with its theoretical framework. Internal structure evidence for the intrinsic motivation and competence subscales has been demonstrated with internal consistency20 22 23 and temporal stability22 while the autonomy26 and relatedness17 25 subscales have rarely been assessed.…”

“…With an α of 0.05, a β of 0.2 and an SD of 1.3,20 22 23 16 participants were required to complete both sessions to find a one-point change on the Likert scale for the primary outcome (a magnitude of change we feel would be clinically significant). Since comparisons were planned between each of the four subscales, the α was corrected to 0.0125 with the Bonferroni correction,27 which increased the number of participants required to 22.…”