Physical education is a key avenue for achieving SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) and SDG 4 (Quality education). Yet few measurement tools exist for Olympic values education in PE. This study developed and validated the Olympic Values Performance Scale for Physical Education (OVPSPE), targeting students aged 11–18 and grounded in the IOC's core values of excellence, respect, and friendship.
Methods
The scale was developed through four sequential studies. Study 1 used focus groups and expert consultations. Study 2 applied exploratory factor analysis, item analysis, and reliability testing. Study 3 confirmed validity through factor analysis, criterion-related evidence, invariance, and cross-validation. Study 4 tested reliability over time.
Results
Study 1 produced 48 items demonstrating content validity. Study 2 used EFA to construct the OVPSPE, identifying 5 factors with 23 items. Study 3 confirmed the model's goodness of fit and supported multiple aspects of validity. Study 4 demonstrated moderate to good test–retest reliability. Overall, the scale exhibits strong reliability and validity. Implications: The scale consists of five subscales—pursuit of excellence, team cohesion, friendly support, respect for rules and environment, and respect for self and others—comprising 23 items. By articulating Olympic values in greater detail, the instrument enables scholars to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of Olympic values education in physical education classes. It also serves as a practical tool for PE teachers to assess students’ Olympic values and provides a solid foundation for future research in Olympic values education.
DysonBHowleyDWrightPM. A scoping review critically examining research connecting social and emotional learning with three model-based practices in physical education: have we been doing this all along?Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2021; 27: 76–95.
2.
GordonBJacobsJWrightPM. Social and emotional learning through a teaching personal and social responsibility based after-school program for disengaged middle-school boys. J Teach Phys Educ2016; 35: 358–369.
3.
TeraokaEFerreiraHJKirkD, et al.Affective learning in physical education: a systematic review. J Teach Phys Educ2020; 40: 460–473.
4.
World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: More active people for a healthier world. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019.
5.
HellisonDR. Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.
6.
International Olympic Committee. The fundamentals of Olympic values education: A sport-based programme. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 2017.
7.
ChoiYMinD. The effect of Olympic values on sport involvement and prosocial behaviour: an empirical study of South Korean youth. Int J Appl Sports Sci2018; 30: 31–49.
HausenMTaylorLBachiniF, et al.Physical capacities and combat performance characteristics of male and female Olympic boxers. Res Q Exerc Sport2024; 95: 813–823.
10.
JuniorMNLopes-SilvaJPTakitoMY, et al.Cadet and junior performance is associated with senior’s world championship and olympics achievement in judo. Res Q Exerc Sport2024; 95: 54–59.
11.
MedernachJPHenzJMemmertD, et al.The climbing movement repertoire in Olympic bouldering: exploring its role in decision-making, performance, and time constraint management. Res Q Exerc Sport2025; 96: 677–688.
12.
KoenigstorferJPreussH. Perceived values in relation to the Olympic games: development and use of the Olympic value scale. Eur Sport Manag Q2018; 18: 607–632.
13.
RochaCMHongHJGrataoOA. Involvement with the Olympic and paralympic games and the values of sport. J Policy Res Tour Leis Events2021; 15: 353–376.
14.
HwangBHenryI. Identifying the field of Olympic education: a meta-narrative review. Eur Sport Manag Q2021; 23: 561–585.
15.
QuibralJPFabriquelB. Culturally sensitive physical education: perspectives of muslim female students in public schools. Sportis2026; 12: 1–25.
16.
ShenBLuXBoJ. Cross-cultural studies of motivation in physical education: a systematic review. Int J Phys Act Health2022; 1: 6.
17.
AndersonLWKrathwohlDR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Complete ed. London: Longman, 2001.
18.
BloomBSKrathwohlDR. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Book 1: Cognitive domain. London: Longman, 2020.
19.
KrathwohlDRBloomBSMasiaBB. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. In: Handbook 2: Affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964.
20.
Rico-GonzalezM. Developing emotional intelligence through physical education: a systematic review. Percept Mot Skills2023; 130: 1286–1323.
21.
Fernandez-RioJIglesiasD. What do we know about pedagogical models in physical education so far? An umbrella review. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2024; 29: 190–205.
22.
GordonBBeaudoinS. Expanding the boundaries of TPSR and empowering others to make their own contributions. J Teach Phys Educ2020; 39: 337–346.
23.
MainsbridgeCPIannucciCPillS, et al.Is there education in physical education? A narrative systematic review of research in physical education and learning. Sport Soc2025; 28: 1153–1177.
24.
RichardsKRShiverVN. “What’s worth doing?”: a qualitative historical analysis of the TPSR model. J Teach Phys Educ2020; 39: 300–310.
25.
WangBLiLLiuX. Social–emotional learning through teaching personal and social responsibility model. Strategies2025; 38: 21–28.
26.
WrightPMRichardsKA. Teaching social and emotional learning in physical education. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2021.
27.
PanYHHuangCHChangYY, et al.Construction and validation of the life skills scale of physical education for adolescents. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2025: 1–26.
28.
BinderD. Olympism revisited as context for global education: implications for physical education. Quest2001; 53: 14–34.
29.
AbabeiC. Study regarding the necessity to intensify the Olympic education actions in schools. Sport Soc2014; 14: 3–17.
30.
BulatovaMKucheriavyiOErmolovaV, et al.Distance-pedagogical technologies in Olympic education for schoolchildren. J Phys Educ Sport2019; 19: 2497–2503.
31.
HsuLHLKoheGZ. Aligning Olympic education with the liberal arts: a curriculum blueprint from Taiwan. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2015; 20: 474–489.
32.
ChatziefstathiouD. Olympic education and beyond: olympism and value legacies from the Olympic and paralympic games. Educ Rev2012; 64: 385–400.
33.
DuğanÖBozyiğitEIanH. Developing an instrument to evaluate the OLI Olympic education program in Turkey: case study of implementation. New Trends Issues Proc Humanit Soc Sci2017; 5: 23–33.
34.
SomphongS. A study of guideline and teaching for the Olympic education in Thailand. J Innov Educ Cult Res2021; 2: 60–66.
35.
ŠukysSMajauskieneDDumcieneA. The effects of a three-year integrated Olympic education programme on adolescents’ prosocial behaviours. Eur J Sport Sci2017; 17: 335–342.
36.
DeciELRyanRM. Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002.
37.
RyanRMDeciEL. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2017.
38.
Ferrer-CajaEWeissMR. Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in physical education. Res Q Exerc Sport2000; 71: 267–279.
39.
StandageMDudaJLNtoumanisN. A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. Br J Educ Psychol2005; 75: 411–433.
40.
BakerZGWatlingtonEMKneeCR. The role of rapport in satisfying one’s basic psychological needs. Motiv Emot2020; 44: 329–343.
41.
BozgeyikliH. The relationship between high school students’ psychological needs and human value perceptions. Procedia Soc Behav Sci2010; 9: 1798–1804.
42.
GunnellKESchellenbergBJWilsonPM, et al.A review of validity evidence presented in the journal of sport and exercise psychology (2002–2012): misconceptions and recommendations for validation research. In: Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York, NY: Springer, 2014, pp.137–156.
43.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, et al. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2014.
44.
MessickS. Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol1995; 50: 741.
45.
CroninLDAllenJ. Development and initial validation of the life skills scale for sport. Psychol Sport Exerc2017; 28: 105–119.
46.
SchutzRWParkI. Some methodological considerations in developmental sport and exercise psychology. In: WeissMR (eds) Developmental sport and exercise psychology: a lifespan perspective. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2004, pp.73–99.
47.
ClarkLAWatsonD. Constructing validity: new developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess2019; 31: 1412.
48.
JebbATNgVTayL. A review of key Likert scale development advances: 1995–2019. Front Psychol2021; 12: 637547.
49.
LeungSO. A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales. J Soc Serv Res2011; 37: 412–421.
50.
ChomeyaR. Quality of psychology test between Likert scale 5 and 6 points. J Soc Sci2010; 6: 399–403.
51.
GörgütİTutkunE. Views of physical education teachers on values education. Univ J Educ Res2018; 6: 317–332.
52.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ, et al.Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 2010.
53.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
54.
FerrandoPJLorenzo-SevaU. Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory item factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas2018; 78: 762–780.
AaslandEEngelsrudG. «Det er lett å se hvem av dere som har god innsats». Om elevers innsats og lærerens blikk i kroppsøving. J Res Arts Sports Educ2017; 1: 5–17.
57.
TremoenTSørensenALagestadP. The past and current role of pupil’s effort and physical tests in Norwegian physical education teacher’s assessment. Front Educ2024; 9: 1437937.
58.
HovdalDOGSigurdsenWO. Effort in physical education – what is the educative value?Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2026: 1–19.
59.
RadlJMillerL. Conceptual and methodological considerations on effort: an interdisciplinary approach. Am Behav Sci2021; 65: 1447–1456.
60.
HaggerMSHamiltonK. Grit and self-discipline as predictors of effort and academic attainment. Br J Educ Psychol2019; 89: 324–342.
61.
PaasFTuovinenJETabbersH, et al.Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol2003; 38: 63–71.
62.
ChenCLeeSYStevensonHW. Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychol Sci1995; 6: 170–175.
63.
LeeJWJonesPSMineyamaY, et al.Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale. Res Nurs Health2002; 25: 295–306.
64.
KimHSShermanDK. Express yourself”: culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. J Pers Soc Psychol2007; 92: 1–11.
65.
SongHChanJSRyanC. Differences and similarities in the use of nine emotion regulation strategies in western and east-Asian cultures: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cross Cult Psychol2024; 55: 865–885.
66.
Bores-GarcíaDHortigüela-AlcaláDFernandez-RioFJ, et al.Research on cooperative learning in physical education: systematic review of the last five years. Res Q Exerc Sport2021; 92: 146–155.
67.
HsuWTPanYHChouHS, et al.Measuring students’ responsibility in physical education: instrument development and validation. Int J Sport Psychol2014; 45: 487–503.
68.
WuCHWuYCHsuWY, et al.Development of the Taiwan relationship inventory for children and adolescents (TRICA) and its psychometric study. Psychol Test2008; 55: 535–557.
69.
BagozziRPYiY. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci1988; 16: 74–94.
70.
BrowneMWCudeckR. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: BollenKALongJS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, pp.136–162.
71.
SchumackerRELomaxRG.A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.
LittleTD. Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-culture data: practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behav Res1997; 32: 53–76.
74.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50.
SchnitzerMWaldeJScheiberS, et al.Do the youth Olympic games promote olympism? Analysing a mission (im)possible from a local youth perspective. Eur J Sport Sci2018; 18: 722–730.
77.
KooTKLiMY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med2016; 15: 155–163.
McKownC. Challenges and opportunities in the applied assessment of student social and emotional learning. Educ Psychol2025; 54: 205–221.
81.
PawłuckiA. Sport as Olympic modernism. Stud Phys Cult Tour2009; 16: 147–153.
82.
AhmadiANoetelMParkerP, et al.A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors recommended in self-determination theory interventions. J Educ Psychol2023; 115: 1158–1176.
83.
BiernatM. Motives and values to achieve: different constructs with different effects. J Pers1989; 57: 69–95.
84.
McClellandDC. Human motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
85.
MazeresFBrinkmannKRichterM. Implicit achievement motive limits the impact of task difficulty on effort-related cardiovascular response. J Res Pers2019; 82: 103842.
86.
MazeresFBrinkmannKRichterM. Motivated but not engaged: the implicit achievement motive requires difficult or unclear task difficulty conditions to exert an impact on effort. J Res Pers2021; 94: 104145.
87.
HellisonDWrightPMMartinekTJ, et al.Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity. 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2025.
88.
RoccasSSagivL (eds.). Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective. Cham: Springer, 2017.
89.
FischerR. From values to behavior and from behavior to values. In: RoccasSSagivL (eds) Values and behavior: taking a cross-cultural perspective. Cham: Springer, 2017, pp.219–235.
90.
KavussanuMStangerNBoardleyID. The prosocial and antisocial behaviour in sport scale: further evidence for construct validity and reliability. J Sports Sci2013; 31: 1208–1221.
91.
ŠukysSMajauskienD. Effects of an integrated Olympic education program on adolescent athletes’ values and sport behavior. Soc Behav Personal2014; 42: 811–821.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
