Preliminary development of the Portuguese Coach Motivation Questionnaire

Abstract

Purpose

Coaches' motivation is central to their coaching, however, few studies have examined coaches' motivation in different cultures. The aim of this study was to provide initial validation of the Portuguese version of the Coach Motivation Questionnaire.

Method

The participants were 369 coaches from various sports (males = 288) aged between 18 and 67 years old (M = 32.4, SD = 11.04). Confirmatory factor analysis, discriminant and nomological validity, and invariance across gender, team/individual sports and coaching experience were analysed.

Results

The hypothesised six-factor structure obtained acceptable values with the following robust adjustment indices: RTLI = .902; RCFI = .921; RGFI = .904 and RRMSEA (90% CI) = .066 (.058–.074). The amended model also showed high factor weights (λ ≥ .500) and appropriate individual reliabilities (λ² ≥ .25). The instrument's internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha (.646–.898) and composite reliability (.662–.900). Regarding discriminant validity, correlations among the factors were in general according to the hypothesised patterns, where closer factors were positively related and not close factors were less strongly related. Regarding nomological validity, results supported for the hypothesised relationships through the associations with measures of motivation at work, need satisfaction and need frustration. Lastly, the measurement model met configural and metric invariance across gender and coaching experience and also met configural invariance across team/individual sports.

Conclusions

The evidence from this study suggests that the Portuguese Coach Motivation Questionnaire is a promising and parsimonious questionnaire to assess coaches' motivation, albeit its development remains a work in progress.

Keywords

Basic psychological needs self-determination theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

McLean

Mallett

. What motivates the motivators? An examination of sports coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2011; 17: 21–35.

Ryan

Deci

Active human nature: self-determination theory and the promotion and maintenance of sport, exercise, and health. In: Hagger

Chatzisarantis

NLD

(eds). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport, Leeds: Human Kinetics Europe, 2007, pp. 1–19.

Mageau

Vallerand

. The coach–athlete relationship: a motivational model. J Sports Sci 2003; 21: 883–904.

McLean

Mallett

Newcombe

. Assessing coach motivation: the development of the Coach Motivation Questionnaire (CMQ). J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 34: 184–207.

Deci

Ryan

. The general causality orientations scale: intrinsic motivation and self-determination in personality. J Res Pers 1985; 19: 109–134.

Mallett

Hanrahan

. Elite athletes: why does the ‘fire’ burn so brightly?. Psychol Sport Exerc 2004; 5: 183–200.

Iachini

Amorose

Anderson-Butcher

. Exploring high school coaches' implicit theories of motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 291–308.

Bartholomew

Ntoumanis

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

. A review of controlling motivational strategies from a self-determination theory perspective: implications for sports coaches. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2009; 22: 215–233.

Pope

Hall

. Further validation of the Coach Identity Prominence Scale. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2014; 18: 286–298.

10.

Reis

Sheldon

Gable

et al.

Daily well-being: the role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2000; 26: 419–435.

11.

Stebbings

Taylor

Spray

et al.

Antecedents of perceived coach interpersonal behaviors: the coaching environment and coach psychological well-and ill-being. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 34: 481–502.

12.

Guzmán

Romagnoli

. Escala de motivación para entrenadores (EME): análisis inicial de sus propiedades psicométricas y validez. Eur J Hum Mov 2011; 27: 1–19.

13.

Rocchi

Pelletier

Desmarais

. The validity of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire (IBQ) in sport. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2016; 1: 1–11.

14.

Zepp

Schaffran

Kellmann

et al.

Behavioral regulation in coaches: a German version of the Coach Motivation Questionnaire (CMQ-G). Res Q Exerc Sport 2016; 87: S101–S102.

15.

Gagné

Forest

Gilbert

et al.

The motivation at work scale: validation evidence in two languages. Educ Psychol Meas 2010; 70: 628–646.

16.

Fernet

Senécal

Guay

et al.

The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). J Career Assess 2008; 16: 256–279.

17.

Sánchez-Oliva

Morin

Teixeira

et al.

A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling representation of the structure of the basic psychological needs at work scale. J Vocat Behav 2016; 98: 173–187.

18.

Brien

Forest

Mageau

et al.

The basic psychological needs at work scale: measurement invariance between Canada and France. Appl Psychol Health Well Being 2012; 4: 167–187.

19.

Chen

Vansteenkiste

Beyers

et al.

Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motiv Emot 2015; 39: 216–236.

20.

Muñiz

Hambleton

. Adaptación de los test de unas culturas a otras. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento 2000; 2: 129–149.

21.

Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Berry J and Lonner W (eds) Field methods in cross-cultural research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986, pp.137–164.

22.

Kline

. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2015, pp. 60-62–239.

23.

Byrne BM. Multivariate applications series. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2010, 83–84, pp.329–331.

24.

Bentler

. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 1998; 3: 424.

25.

Arbuckle

. Amos 17 user's guide, Chicago, IL: SPSS Incorporated, 2008.

26.

Messick

. Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychologist 1995; 50: 741–749.

27.

Fornell

Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981; 18: 39–50.

28.

Chen

. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2007; 14: 464–504.

29.

Ryan

Connell

. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 57: 749.

30.

Hair

Jr Anderson

Tatham

et al.

Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.

31.

Lonsdale

Hodge

Rose

. The Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (BRSQ): instrument development and initial validity evidence. J Sport Exerc Psych 2008; 30: 323.

32.

Ryan

Deci

Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci

Ryan

(eds). Handbook of self-determination research, Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002, pp. 3–33.

33.

Koestner

Losier

Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: a closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In: Deci

Ryan

(eds). Handbook of self-determination research, Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002, pp. 101–121.

34.

McLean

Mallett

. What motivates the motivators? An examination of sports coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2011; 17: 21–35.

35.

Mallett

Kawabata

Newcombe

. Progressing measurement in sport motivation: a response to Pelletier, Vallerand, and Sarrazin. Psychol Sport and Exerc 2007; 8: 622–631.

36.

Kawabata

Mallett

. Examining discriminant validity issues of the Sport Motivation Scale-6. J Sport Sci 2013; 31: 173–180.