View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development and Validation of the Teacher Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development and Validation of the Teacher Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire
Language: English
Authors: Alex C. Garn (ORCID 0000-0002-7824-4027), Kelly L. Simonton (ORCID 0000-0001-7261-2047), Kevin Mercier (ORCID 0000-0003-3505-2495)
Source: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2025 44(2):201-211.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Test Construction, Test Validity, Teacher Motivation, Physical Education, Psychometrics, Construct Validity, Physical Education Teachers, Gender Differences, Elementary Secondary Education, Teacher Characteristics, Value Judgment, Teacher Attitudes, Self Efficacy, Barriers, Teacher Persistence
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0335
ISSN: 0273-5024
1543-2769
Abstract: Purpose: Grounded in the expectancy-value theory framework, the purpose of this study was to develop and identify the psychometric properties of the Teaching Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire. Methods: The process included testing content validity with experts (n = 16), construct validity and measurement invariance using factor analysis, and convergent validity using structural equation modeling (SEM) in two physical education teacher samples (n = 373; n = 400). Results: Factor analysis identified a 17-item questionnaire measuring teachers' expectancy, value, and cost beliefs. Measurement invariance testing revealed equivalence between male and female as well as primary and secondary physical education teachers. Correlational and structural equation modeling analyses showed the adaptive nature of expectancy and subjective task value beliefs along with the maladaptive nature of cost beliefs. Discussion/Conclusion: The Teaching Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire provides a theoretically grounded approach to investigate physical education teachers' motivation toward curriculum and instruction.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1468704
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFj4beg3PGUhjSVPBq70iHzAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH8X794jXST93dYXBAIBEICBmxVOf9NAW0AzJJbpsUqnckBQS1xvt8WidDPyEGE1yuzkBTOJj3A2doRZPXTmym4bbnpRQ9vleUu1nwFxm27O3c-sjd6l7xNkL8LLpb1NbK-RB7qlCnepqpDq8R_BT7g3RrTxUQR2QZHzqoSKjBaEiniajpwJ7E67jye3FGKEV4V60F96rT6o9pSv9m7DoJIhlBIfUnzIILKQJga7
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183920121;0do01apr.25;2025Mar24.06:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183920121-1">Development and Validation of the Teacher Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire </title> <p>Purpose: Grounded in the expectancy-value theory framework, the purpose of this study was to develop and identify the psychometric properties of the Teaching Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire. Methods: The process included testing content validity with experts (n = 16), construct validity and measurement invariance using factor analysis, and convergent validity using structural equation modeling (SEM) in two physical education teacher samples (n = 373; n = 400). Results: Factor analysis identified a 17-item questionnaire measuring teachers' expectancy, value, and cost beliefs. Measurement invariance testing revealed equivalence between male and female as well as primary and secondary physical education teachers. Correlational and structural equation modeling analyses showed the adaptive nature of expectancy and subjective task value beliefs along with the maladaptive nature of cost beliefs. Discussion/Conclusion: The Teaching Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire provides a theoretically grounded approach to investigate physical education teachers' motivation toward curriculum and instruction.</p> <p>Keywords: teacher effectiveness; Expectancy-Value Theory; teacher beliefs</p> <p>Effective teaching in physical education (PE) is a complex process defined by student learning in the psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref1">54</reflink>]). Although the outcome of effective teaching is learner-centered achievement, it is important to recognize the crucial role of teachers in this process. The decisions that PE teachers make about curriculum and instruction have major implications on student learning ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]). In fact, researchers report curriculum and instruction as the two areas that PE teachers have the most control over, which lead to student learning ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref4">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref5">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref6">60</reflink>]). Ennis ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]) suggests that ineffective curriculum and instruction are a major disruptor to student learning in PE. Quality teaching in any subject, however, requires a great deal of effort, persistence, and commitment. For example, teachers must work diligently to identify and sequence content that students find meaningful, enjoyable, and developmentally appropriate ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]). Furthermore, PE teachers must use diverse instructional strategies that facilitate high levels of learning for students with different abilities, experiences, and personalities ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref9">50</reflink>]). However, teachers report that incorporating a diverse curriculum and the use of multiple instructional strategies require a great deal of time, knowledge, and skills, and in essence, perceived value for the use of differing techniques ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref11">44</reflink>]). To embark on these challenges and overcome the variety of barriers a teacher faces, they must have the motivation to initiate and continue developing effective and innovative practices ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref12">65</reflink>]). Thus, it is understood that teachers' psychosocial characteristics for feeling motivated to pursue effective practices are influenced by their motivational beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref14">36</reflink>]). Therefore, teachers' motivation represents an important precursor to effective teaching in PE ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref16">65</reflink>]). The current investigation explores PE teachers' motivation pertaining to curriculum and instruction.</p> <p>Pintrich ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref17">47</reflink>]) defines motivation as the energy and direction of behavior. Energy refers to the purposes that inspire action or inaction while direction addresses the continuum of approaching positive outcomes and achievement-related success to avoiding negative outcomes and achievement-related failure ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref18">64</reflink>]). While there is a plethora of research on student motivation in PE, less work has explored teacher motivation, especially as it pertains to effective teaching in PE. Despite the limited consensus on how effectiveness is defined and measured ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref20">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref21">60</reflink>]), it appears that an underlying factor of teacher achievement, job satisfaction, and student engagement related to the foci of PE is only pursued when teachers are motivated to do so. Washburn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref22">61</reflink>]) advocate for increased investigation of teacher motivation research in PE because of the wide variation within the profession (i.e., content knowledge, teaching philosophy beliefs, and contextual differences). For example, despite the different goals a teacher may pursue for their PE program, an underlying level of motivation is essential and needs to be further understood. More specifically, some PE teachers are highly devoted to growing their pedagogical craft in order to meet the learning needs of their students, while others view students in a negative light and focus their efforts elsewhere, which shifts teachers' motivation and subsequent teaching behavior. Zhang ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref23">65</reflink>]) also highlights the importance of investigating PE teacher motivation because of its influence on engagement and behavior for both teachers and students. In this case, teacher motivation factors (i.e., beliefs, values, and environmental appraisals) can increase understanding of an important antecedent of teaching effectiveness. Much like teachers from other subject areas ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]), school dynamics, such as student motivation, can impede teacher motivation ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref25">55</reflink>]). In addition, oftentimes PE is considered a marginalized, low-status subject in the school curriculum, which can create negative teacher beliefs and reduce motivation ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref27">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Achievement motivation frameworks help explain how and why some teachers and students thrive in educational contexts while others struggle ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref28">47</reflink>]). Social cognitive approaches to motivation emphasize the role of subjective interpretation in shaping one's beliefs, feelings, and behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]). Assessments of one's personal characteristics, social interactions, contextual surroundings, or achievements create the core elements of motivation and action more so than their objective facets. Therefore, in social cognitive approaches to motivation, a person's beliefs represent a cornerstone of motivation ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref32">47</reflink>]). The emphasis on beliefs also implies that effective teaching must include versatile pedagogy. From this research, we posit that PE teachers who use narrow curriculum and repetitive instructional strategies will likely facilitate strong motivational beliefs in small portions of students, undermining broader levels of learning.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-2">Expectancy Value Theory</hd> <p>Modern expectancy value theory (EVT) is a social cognitive framework that characterizes achievement motivation as the byproduct of three main types of beliefs (Barron & Hullman, 2014; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref35">64</reflink>]). <emph><bold>Expectancy</bold></emph><emph><bold>beliefs</bold></emph> focus on perceived competence and potential for future success on a task. <emph><bold>Subjective value beliefs</bold></emph> relate to the appealing qualities of a task, typically reflecting perceived interest/enjoyment (i.e., intrinsic value), importance (i.e., attainment value), and usefulness (i.e., utility value). <emph><bold>Cost beliefs</bold></emph> concern perceived threats, missed opportunities, and overexertion associated with a task. EVT theorists posit that these three types of beliefs influence achievement-related choices, self-regulation, behaviors, and performances ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>]). From a motivational standpoint, individuals must believe they have the ability to complete a task successfully and determine the task to be worthwhile in order to initiate and sustain action. On the other hand, avoidance and inaction occur when individuals question their ability or assess that threats and sacrifices associated with the task outweigh its benefits. Historically, the inclusion of cost beliefs within EVT research has received less attention; however, there has been a reemergence in education research ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref38">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]). Including cost beliefs in EVT research provides a more comprehensive perspective because it accounts for the avoidance direction of achievement motivation beyond low levels of approach-oriented beliefs.</p> <p>The focus of EVT research has expanded to investigate motivation in diverse settings and populations including students in PE ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref41">66</reflink>]) and teachers in other subjects ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>]). In fact, sociocultural influences including socialization, cultural norms, and previous achievement experiences shape the development of expectancy, subjective task value, and cost beliefs delineated in EVT ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref43">63</reflink>]). The diverse set of experiences and contexts that one inhabits can shape their beliefs, values, and motivational goals. Put simply, expectancy beliefs and value beliefs are closely associated with achievement-related outcomes and goals ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]). The intention of these goals is driven by the sociocultural influences on the teacher. From a developmental perspective, expectancy beliefs tend to be a strong predictor of future subjective task value beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>]). In EVT, these beliefs directly explain one's motivation.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-3">Teacher Motivation</hd> <p>Within PE teacher research, there has been a limited scope of teacher motivation research conducted. Zhang ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref46">65</reflink>]) presented a review of the literature identifying approximately 30 research articles conceptualizing many forms of PE teacher motivation. The predominant approaches included the evaluation of PE teacher self-efficacy and the social cognitive perspectives. The evidence provided by this review showed that while improvements have been made in connecting levels of teacher motivation to job satisfaction and burnout, the author suggests that there is still a lack of understanding regarding the regulatory mechanisms that influence teacher motivation. While it is fair to point out the myriad of factors that can influence teacher motivation, we focus our attention on beliefs related to the controllable items of teacher curriculum and instructional choices, which aligns with previous non-PE teacher motivation literature and the EVT framework.</p> <p>The EVT represents a robust approach to explore teacher motivation ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref48">62</reflink>]). Systematic investigation of PE teachers' expectancy, subjective task value, and cost beliefs regarding curriculum and instruction can advance understanding of their thoughts, feelings, interactions, and behaviors in the classroom. From a teacher perspective, expectancy beliefs reflect teachers' assessments of what they are good at teaching (i.e., believe to have taught well previously) as well as what they think they can teach effectively in the future ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>]). Teachers with low expectancy beliefs often report high levels of professional stress ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref51">48</reflink>]), while teachers with high expectancy beliefs report increased job satisfaction and engagement in professional development ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref52">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref53">62</reflink>]). Few researchers have explored teacher expectancy beliefs related to curriculum and instruction despite the substantial influence of embedded competence-related beliefs (i.e., belief they can teach well) within expectancy beliefs. Competence beliefs are rooted within conceptualized expectancy beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]) and have impact on decision making and behavior ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>]). Levels of teacher competence have been more traditionally explored in PE teacher research ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref56">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref57">60</reflink>]). Unique to PE, Ferry and McCaughtry ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]) revealed that many PE teachers make decisions about curriculum based on their own activity-related competencies over and beyond pedagogical competence. However, less is known about PE teachers' expectancy beliefs and their effectiveness (i.e., instructional and curriculum choices). In non-PE literature, Day ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref59">16</reflink>]) reported that math teachers with low expectancy beliefs toward certain types of instruction were unlikely to implement them long term, despite the potential benefits to their students. Similarly, Abrami et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]) underscored the importance of expectancy beliefs for secondary teachers making decisions about using novel instructional strategies, which increase student engagement and reduce boredom. It appears this same phenomenon could be true for PE teachers but has yet to be explored.</p> <p>Subjective value reflects teacher beliefs about tasks viewed as enjoyable, important, and useful ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]). Eccles ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref62">18</reflink>]) denotes subjective task value as a primary antecedent of decision making across contexts. Previous research suggests that subjective task value often guides teachers' decisions about curriculum and instruction ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref63">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]). Although there is a dearth of research exploring subjective task value in PE teachers' implementation of curriculum and instruction, previous studies highlight how value beliefs affect curriculum and instruction ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref65">25</reflink>]). For example, PE teachers make decisions about curriculum based on physical activities they like to do and use instructional strategies they believe are important, useful, and enjoyable to students. Although EVT interventions almost exclusively focus on increasing students' subjective task value ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref66">52</reflink>]) demonstrating its malleability and subsequent link to positive academic outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref67">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]), conceptualization of the concept of teacher value in EVT and the potential research interventions aimed at enhancing teachers' task value is nascent. Thus, developing a measure that could systematically measure and track teachers' subjective task value toward curriculum and instruction would be of benefit.</p> <p>The concept of cost, another form of value suggested within EVT, aligns closely with avoidance motivation ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref69">27</reflink>]) and has the potential to help explain why some PE teachers make decisions to use narrow curriculum and ineffective instruction. Cost beliefs occur when teachers determine the time, effort, and commitment needed to complete a task outweigh the potential benefits and/or resources available to complete it ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref70">16</reflink>]). The concept of cost is important to understand from a teaching perspective because workplace barriers can undermine teachers' motivation to expand curricular offerings and implement new instructional strategies, thus reducing motivation for nonfeasible approaches. In fact, teachers outside of PE report they do not have enough time to adopt innovative curriculum and instruction because of other work-related responsibilities ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>]). Similarly, many PE teachers get limited time to spend with students in any given week, which may impede commitment to new curricular and instructional strategies ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref72">58</reflink>]). Other constraints such as teacher socialization (e.g., pressure to maintain ineffective status quo), teacher-coach conflict ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref73">61</reflink>]), burnout ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref74">55</reflink>]), and isolation ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]) may also facilitate cost beliefs in PE teachers.</p> <p>In sum, research suggests that teacher motivation for quality curriculum and instructional delivery is heavily influenced by teacher beliefs that subsequently impact decision making and behavior. Based on the previous literature in this section, the newly developed PE teacher questionnaire based on EVT was theoretically tested against and in alignment with these concepts. For example, the PE teacher literature shows that teachers perceived mattering, job satisfaction, and professional accomplishments are concepts associated with highly motivated and effective teachers, but that has not been tested empirically yet. In addition, recent data suggest that PE teacher motivation is likely associated with career stage and/or years of teaching ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref76">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref77">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref78">57</reflink>]). The questionnaire explored in this study may support empirically a relationship between career and motivational beliefs regarding curriculum and instruction—something previous instrumentation has been unable to document.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-4">The Present Study</hd> <p>PE teachers have extensive autonomy over curriculum and instructional implementation ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref79">44</reflink>]). Motivation influences decisions that teachers make about curriculum and instruction ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>]). EVT is a framework that can advance knowledge about teacher motivation, decision making, and behavior ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref83">59</reflink>]). An important starting point for systematic investigation of teacher motivation in PE is creating a measure that consistently produces valid and reliable scores reflecting expectancy, subjective task value, and cost beliefs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Teaching Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire (TMPEQ). The validation process of creating TMPEQ items included content validity, construct validity, measurement invariance, and convergent validity testing in two samples of PE teachers in the United States. The following research questions (RQs) guided this study: (a) How effectively were the concepts of expectancy, value, and cost beliefs identified in the survey development (RQ1); (b) to what degree of reliability and invariance did the EVT-based questionnaire reach (RQ2); and (c) to what degree do the three belief concepts relate statistically to other theoretically related constructs through validity testing (RQ3). If shown to produce valid and reliable scores, the TMPEQ would allow for future research studies that would provide a better understanding of teacher motivation toward curriculum and instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-5">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183920121-6">Survey Development</hd> <p>Items related to curriculum and instruction, key tenets to effective teaching, were developed by the research team for each EVT component guided by existing literature. Specifically, following the assertions provided by Osman and Warner ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref84">45</reflink>]) and the SHAPE America ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref85">53</reflink>]) summary on effective instruction and curriculum design for PE teachers, items were created. Using the prompts and broad foci provided by Osman and Warner ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref86">45</reflink>]), instruction components and curriculum items were adapted to align with SHAPE America content on effective teaching. The expert research team agreed upon six items for expectancy beliefs, subjective task value beliefs, and cost beliefs were created for a total of 18 items. Within each component, three items were related to instructional strategies, and three items were related to curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-7">Content Validity</hd> <p>To establish content validity (RQ1), the 18-item instrument was sent to 40 current Physical Education Teacher Education professors, all with terminal degrees, and all with a record of peer-reviewed scholarship, from across the United States. In addition, all selected faculty had expertise in PE teacher beliefs and curriculum and instruction research. Sixteen Physical Education Teacher Education experts responded. Through a Qualtrics survey, these participants identified instruction or curriculum items and then placed them into one of three categories: (a) expectancy beliefs, (b) subjective task value beliefs, or (c) cost beliefs. A correct response occurred if the item was placed in the correct category and a correct response rate of 88% or higher was achieved on 17 of 18 items. This is considered to be high agreement ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref87">10</reflink>]). Language was revised for the remaining item and the newly worded item was sent to five additional Physical Education Teacher Education professors. Following the same procedures, all five experts placed the newly worded item in the correct category allowing us to be confident to proceed with further instrument testing.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-8">Participants and Procedures</hd> <p>Following researcher institutional review board approval, physical educators from multiple regions in the United States were contacted and recruited to participate in the study via email databases. A snowball recruitment technique was used encompassing publicly available email addresses, state-level organization databases, and university personnel networks. The recruitment email included the purpose of the study, a copy of the consent form, an explanation of the voluntary nature of the study, and the assurance of anonymity for participants. A link to the survey was included with a 2-month window of opportunity to complete. A 773 (<emph>N</emph> = 773) completed the study and were randomly split into two samples.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-9">Sample 1</hd> <p>Participants in Sample 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 373) consisted of elementary (48%) and secondary (52%) PE teachers (<emph>M</emph> age = 46.02, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.17) from 24 different states across the United States. Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 48 years (<emph>M</emph> = 18.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.52), and they reported working in suburban (49%), urban (34%), and rural (17%) schools. Approximately 75% of the sample reported teaching certification in PE. Most of the sample reported their race/ethnicity as White (89%) and Black/African American (5%) with a close representation of women (51%) and men (49%).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-10">Sample 2</hd> <p>Participants in Sample 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 400) included elementary (51%) and secondary (49%) PE teachers (<emph>M</emph> age = 46.25, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.29; 52% female; 48% male) from 23 different states across the United States. Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 42 years (<emph>M</emph> = 17.89, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.22) and they reported working in suburban (50%), urban (32%), and rural (18%) schools. PE teaching certification (74%) and race/ethnicity reports (90% White; 5% Black/African American) were similar to Sample 1 participant characteristics.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-11">Measures</hd> <p>All participants who volunteered to participate were asked to complete the survey, which included basic demographic information regarding the teacher, their teaching context, the TMPEQ, and a series of four previously validated tools. For each sample, a series of related variables were included to test construct reliability and theoretical relationships between the TMPEQ beliefs and the other heavily researched concepts within PE teacher beliefs. Specifically, in Sample 1, the PE teacher mattering scale and job satisfaction scale were included, and in Sample 2, perceived occupational accomplishment and job turnover were included as they have shown evidence in previous literature to be related to PE teacher beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref88">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref89">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref90">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref91">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-12">Motivation</hd> <p>The overarching aim of the current study was to develop the TMPEQ. The TMPEQ examines PE teachers' motivation from an EVT of achievement choice perspective ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref92">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref93">64</reflink>]). Specifically, the TMPEQ includes items related to expectancy beliefs, value beliefs, and cost beliefs within the context of PE instruction and curriculum. The final items of the TMPEQ can be found in Table 1. All items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from <emph>strongly disagree</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) to <emph>strongly agree</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref95">5</reflink>).</p> <p>Table 1 Model Fit and Simple Structure Findings From EFA Tests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Models</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">χ<sup>2</sup></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>df</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>p</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CFI</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">TLI</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">RMSEA</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">90% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">TM 3 Factor EFA</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">239.80</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">102</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.937</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.906</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.062</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.052,.072</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Indicator</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Factor 1 Expectancy</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Factor 2 Cost</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Factor 3 Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">E1. I am confident that I can use a variety of instructional strategies to meet student learning goals.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.71</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.08</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">E2. I believe I can use my instructional skills to increase student learning.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.72</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">E3. I know that I can organize activities that maximize student learning time.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.75</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.00</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">E4. I am confident that I can offer curriculum that targets all three learning domains (physical, cognitive, and affective).</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.72</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.01</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">E5. I believe I can design standards-based curriculum that engages students.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.70</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.06</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.02</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">E6. I know that I can present diverse curriculum that promotes student success.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.73</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.05</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">V1. Organizing instructional activities in a way that maximizes participation is valuable for students.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.25</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.04</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.52</bold></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">V2. I think it is useful to implement different types of instruction in my classes.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.38</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.06</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.38</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">V3. Giving students feedback is very gratifying to me.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.04</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.60</bold></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">V4. Providing students with curriculum that promotes personal development reflects my goals.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.79</bold></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">V5. I believe it is very useful for students to experience curriculum on health and fitness.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.10</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.04</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.56</bold></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">V6. Teaching is fun when I can see how my curriculum enhances students' conceptual knowledge.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.10</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.01</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.67</bold></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C1. I do not have enough time to design lessons that maximize student learning.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.73</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.07</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C2. Using a variety of instructional strategies requires too much effort.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.07</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.85</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.01</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C3. Individualizing instruction for different students is too hard.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.27</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.85</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.03</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C4. I do not have time to teach a diverse curriculum of activities.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.83</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.22</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C5. It requires too much effort to offer a standards-based curriculum.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.82</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.14</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C6. Teaching a curriculum that focuses on diverse learning outcomes is too stressful.</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.06</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>.86</bold></td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.01</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Eigenvalue</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.33</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.29</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.44</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note. </emph>Primary factor loadings are in bold. TM = teacher motivation; E = expectancy beliefs; C = cost beliefs; V = value beliefs; EFA = exploratory factor analysis; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-13">Perceived Mattering</hd> <p>The Perceived Mattering Questionnaire—Physical Education was used to measure PE teachers' sense of mattering ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref96">48</reflink>]). The Perceived Mattering Questionnaire—Physical Education consists of two factors: perceived mattering as a teacher and perceived mattering of PE as a discipline. Each factor is measured with four items. An example teacher item is: "How interested do you feel you are to other people at your school?" while an example PE discipline item is: "How important do you feel physical education is to other people in your school?" All eight items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "<emph>not at all</emph>" (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>) to "<emph>a lot</emph>" (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>). Previously reliability scores for the PE mattering and teacher mattering scales were reported as α =.79 and α =.88, respectively ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref99">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-14">Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>The three job satisfaction items from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref100">9</reflink>]) were adapted to target the job of PE teachers, which has been found to be reliable in previous research ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref101">49</reflink>]). Participants reported their level of agreement with each item. An example included, "all in all, I am satisfied with my job." All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "<emph>strongly disagree</emph>" (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>) to "<emph>strongly agree</emph>" (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>). Richards et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref104">49</reflink>]) report acceptable reliability scores for PE teachers using this questionnaire (α =.91).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-15">Perceived Job Accomplishment</hd> <p>To measure perceived job accomplishment, the Teacher Accomplishment subscale within the Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref105">34</reflink>]) questionnaire was used. The scale consisted of six items. An example included, "most days I feel a sense of accomplishment for what I do." Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "<emph>not at all</emph>" (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>) to "<emph>very much</emph>" (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref107">5</reflink>). Simonton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref108">56</reflink>]) report acceptable reliability scores for PE teachers (α =.82).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-16">Job Turnover Intention</hd> <p>PE teachers' job turnover intentions were measured with four items developed by Becker and Billings ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>]) and used reliably with PE teachers in previous research ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref110">56</reflink>]). Items included "It is likely I will actively look for a new job in the next year," "I often think about quitting teaching," "It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave teaching," and "There is not too much to be gained by sticking with teaching indefinitely." All items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from <emph>strongly disagree</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>) to <emph>strongly agree</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref112">5</reflink>). Simonton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref113">56</reflink>]) reported acceptable reliability scores in a sample of PE teachers (α =.84).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-17">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Analyses were conducted in Mplus (version 7.4, Muthen & Muthen) and IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27). Full information maximum likelihood handled missing data ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref114">20</reflink>]). A minimum of 10 participants per item variable or a total of 350 or more participants is recommended for the following analysis ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref115">37</reflink>]). Both samples exceeded those expectations during the exploration and validation phases. The researcher provided a rigorous and thorough analysis across multiple steps and across two samples in testing the validity and reliability of the sample. First, to address RQ1, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was tested with Sample 1, followed by descriptive statistics and correlational construct validation. Next, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was tested with a second sample, which included a factor structure evaluation addressing RQ1, measurement invariance testing to confirm a nonbias questionnaire based on teacher gender and contextual level of teaching to test RQ2, followed by a structural equation modeling (SEM) for further construct validation testing addressing RQ3. For EFA, CFA, and SEM calculations, tests of the TMPEQ were estimated with robust maximum likelihood procedures. We judged model fit for EFA and CFA tests using chi-square (χ<sups>2</sups>) estimates based on degrees of freedom and <emph>p </emph>value; however, the χ<sups>2</sups> can be sensitive to sample size and conceptual overlap of items ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref116">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref117">32</reflink>]) so other fit indices were evaluated as well. Specifically, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90% confidence intervals (CIs). CFI and TLI estimates of.90 and.95 or higher as well as RMSEA scores of.08 and.05 or lower were criteria used to judge adequate and good model fit, respectively ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref118">32</reflink>]). We used Chen ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref119">14</reflink>]) recommendations to make comparisons between nested models focusing on change of CFI (≥.01) and RMSEA (≥.015). Specifically, a more restrictive model is considered equivalent to a less restrictive comparison model if CFI does not decrease by.01 or more and RMSEA does not increase by.015 or more. Descriptive statistics, coefficient alpha estimates, as well as item-level and factor-level correlation matrices were calculated for Sample 1 and Sample 2. Finally, we examined relationships between TMPEQ factors and theoretically relevant external factors with both samples in order to evaluate convergent validity (RQ3).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-18">Sample 1</hd> <p>EFA using Geomin rotation represented the main Sample 1 analysis (RQ1). Specifically, we ran a series of EFAs, focusing on model fit, eigenvalues of one or higher, and simple structure ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref120">24</reflink>]). Simple structure occurs with each indicator has high primary factor loading on a single factor (e.g., ≥0.50) with low secondary factor loadings (e.g., ≤0.30) on other factors estimated in the model. Following factor selection using EFA, descriptive statistics were calculated. Finally, we explored initial convergent validity using a correlation analysis including PETM Scale factors along with external criteria related to Sample 1 teachers' job satisfaction and perceived mattering (i.e., PE content; teacher).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-19">Sample 2</hd> <p>We used CFA in Sample 2 to cross-validate the final EFA solution from Sample 1 (RQ1). Measurement invariance procedures were used to test RQ2 focused on the psychometric properties of the TMPEQ across gender (male <emph>n</emph> = 192; female <emph>n</emph> = 208) and teaching level (elementary <emph>n</emph> = 204; secondary <emph>n</emph> = 196). We followed a sequence that systematically tested increasingly restrictive models using equality constraints ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref121">42</reflink>]). The first test was a configural invariance model that freely estimated the same model for both groups. The second test was a weak invariance model that examined the same model with equal factor loadings across groups. The third test was a strong invariance model that tested the same model with equal factor loadings and intercepts across groups. The final test was a strict invariance model that tested the same model with equal factor loadings, intercepts, and unique variance estimates across groups. Finally, we investigated RQ3 (i.e., convergent validity) using a correlation matrix with the TMPEQ factors and perceived job accomplishment, job turnover, age, and years of PE teaching experience. We also tested a SEM of the situated TMPEQ factors as predictors of perceived job accomplishment and job turnover.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-20">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183920121-21">Sample 1</hd> <p>Results from the EFA produced three eigenvalues over one that reflected items related to expectations for success (6.33; <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 35%), cost (3.29; <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 18%), and value (1.44; <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 8%). Fit statistics suggested the three-factor model produced a good fit to these data, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref122">102</reflink>) = 239.80, <emph>p</emph> <.001, CFI =.937, TLI =.906, RMSEA =.062 (90% CI [.052,.072]), and better simple structure than other models. Table 1 presents Geomin-rotated factor loadings and cross-loadings for the three factors along with all model fit indices. Overall, simple structure met criteria for all items except subjective task value Item 2 ("I think it is useful to implement different types of instruction in my classes"). Due to the multiple iterations of theoretical evaluation of these items and the high cross-loading with the construct of value, researchers felt confident that this item may interfere with future model fit. In addition, the construct itself was sufficiently identified with the already established items. Therefore, we determined this item needed removal. Coefficient alpha estimates were adequate for expectations for success (.89), cost (.90), and value (.79). Collectively, these results supported the ability of the TMPEQ to identify EVT factors (i.e., RQ1). Table 2 displays descriptive statistics for expectations for success, value, and cost. Table 3 provides a correlation matrix including EVT factors and external criteria including perceived mattering and job satisfaction. Correlations followed expected patterns with positive correlations between expectations for success and perceived mattering and job satisfaction. Similar, but slightly weaker patterns emerged between cost and external criteria while cost produced negative relationships with these factors. The pattern of relationships provided support for the EVT factors of the TMPEQ to relate to theoretically relevant teacher outcomes (RQ3). The 17 retained items used in the TMPEQ are provided in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Sample 1 and Sample 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sample 1</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>M</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>SD</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Min</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Max</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Alpha</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Expectancy</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.53</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.51</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.89</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Cost</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.90</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.86</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.90</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Value</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.64</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.44</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.79</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mattering—physical education</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.85</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.67</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.77</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mattering—teacher</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.97</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.70</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.86</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Job satisfaction</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.86</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.28</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.80</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sample 2</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>M</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>SD</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Min</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Max</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Alpha</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Expectancy</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.54</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.51</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.88</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Cost</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.89</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.80</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.89</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Value</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.64</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.47</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.82</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Accomplishment</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.57</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.43</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.68</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Job turnover</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.84</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.51</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.79</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3 Correlation Matrix Results for Sample 1 and Sample 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sample 1</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Expectancy</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Cost</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.52**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Value</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.56**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.40**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mattering—physical education</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.19*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.21**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.13*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mattering—teacher</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.14*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.15*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.14*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.58**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Job satisfaction</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.18*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.18*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.08</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.44**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.25**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sample 2</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">7</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Expectancy</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Cost</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.41**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Value</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.56**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.25**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Accomplishment</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.63**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.36**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.36**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Job turnover</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.16*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.25**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.17*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.48**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Age</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.05</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.14*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.18*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Years physical education experience</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.14*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.01</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.01</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.13*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.13*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.73**</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-22">Sample 2</hd> <p>Coefficient alpha estimates for expectations for success (.88), cost (.89), and value (.82) were similar to Sample 1. Descriptive statistics for Sample 2 are provided at the bottom of Table 2 and a correlation matrix for Sample 2 factors can be found at the bottom of Table 3. Table 4 presents model fit statistics for CFA (RQ1), which showed an acceptable model fit, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref123">116</reflink>) = 221.27, <emph>p</emph> <.001, CFI =.947, TLI =.938, RMSEA =.049 (90% CI [.039,.059]), as well as the measurement invariance testing (RQ2), and SEM (RQ3). CFA results for the TMPEQ produced an adequate model fit. Standardized factor loadings for expectations for success (range = 0.70–0.81), value (range = 0.65–0.76), and cost (range = 0.64–0.80) revealed factors were well defined by their indicators.</p> <p>Table 4 Model Fit Statistics for CFA and Measurement Invariance Tests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">χ<sup>2</sup></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>df</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>p</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CFI</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">TLI</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">RMSEA</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">90% CI</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Δ CFI</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Δ RMSEA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">TM CFA</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">221.27</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">116</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.947</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.938</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.049</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.039,.059</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Invariance—sex</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Configural</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">379.12</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">232</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.933</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.922</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.058</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.047,.068</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Weak</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">406.50</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">249</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.928</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.922</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.058</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.048,.068</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.005</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Strong</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">426.09</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">263</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.926</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.923</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.057</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.047,.067</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.002</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.01</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Strict</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">440.40</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">280</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.927</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.929</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.055</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.045,.065</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.06</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Invariance—level</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Configural</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">379.12</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">232</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.933</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.928</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.058</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.048,.068</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Weak</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">389.61</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">249</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.935</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.938</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.056</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.046,.065</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.002</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.002</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Strong</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">409.89</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">263</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.937</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.934</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.055</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.046,.064</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.002</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Strict</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">423.84</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">280</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.001</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.935</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.936</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.053</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.044,.062</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.002</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.002</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> TM = teacher motivation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.</p> <p>Table 4 provides model fit statistics for measurement invariance testing by gender and teaching level (RQ2). In terms of gender, the configural model produced an adequate fit. Subsequent testing revealed minimal changes in CFI and RMSEA across the weak, strong, and strict configurations, suggesting the TMPEQ produced scores that were invariant for female and male PE teachers. Findings from the strong invariance model revealed that estimated latent means were not statistically different between males and females for any of the TMPEQ factors. Similar results emerged for TMPEQ measurement invariance testing by teaching level (RQ2). The configural model produced an adequate fit and changes in CFI and RMSEA did not reach the.01 or.015 thresholds identified by Chen ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref124">14</reflink>]), supporting invariance for elementary and secondary PE teachers. Findings from the strong invariance model revealed that secondary PE teachers reported slightly higher expectations for success beliefs (latent mean difference = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> =.03) compared with elementary. However, there were no statistical differences in value or cost beliefs. Taken together, the measurement invariance findings suggest that psychometric properties of the TMPEQ function in similar ways across gender and PE teaching levels.</p> <p>TMPEQ tests of convergent validity in Sample 2 included examination of a correlation matrix and SEM (RQ3). Findings from the correlation matrix (see Table 3) revealed that expectancy beliefs had a positive correlation with perceived job accomplishment (moderate magnitude) and years of PE experience (weak magnitude) and a negative correlation with job turnover (weak magnitude). Value beliefs had a positive correlation with job accomplishment (moderate/weak magnitude) and a negative correlation with job turnover (weak magnitude). Finally, cost had a positive correlation with job turnover (moderate/weak magnitude) and negative correlation with perceived job accomplishment (moderate/weak magnitude).</p> <p>Results from the SEM produced an adequate model fit, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib220" id="ref125">220</reflink>) = 350.11, <emph>p</emph> <.001, CFI =.948, TLI =.940, and RMSEA =.040 (90% CI [.032,.047]). Standardized factor loading ranges for factors were: expectations for success (range = 0.70–0.81), value (range = 0.65–0.76), cost (range = 0.64–0.80), perceived job accomplishment (range = 0.55–0.70), and job turnover (range = 0.51–0.79). Findings from the structural model of the SEM are presented in Figure 1. Expectancy beliefs were a positive predictor of perceived accomplishment, but did not predict job turnover. Value beliefs did not predict perceived accomplishment or job turnover. Cost beliefs were a negative predictor of perceived accomplishment and a positive predictor of job turnover. A total of 48% of the variance was explained in perceived accomplishment while only 7% of the variance was explained in job turnover.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 —Structural equation modeling results from Sample 2. * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-23">Discussion</hd> <p>Motivation is an important element that guides teachers' decisions about what and how to teach ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref126">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref127">65</reflink>]). The current PE teacher motivation literature has predominantly relied on self-efficacy of teaching skills and ecological models that measure teacher job satisfaction, which is a very narrow perspective on teacher beliefs and mechanisms regarding key pillars of their job ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref128">65</reflink>]). In response to this call, the development of psychometric questionnaires regarding the beliefs PE teachers hold that impact their day-to-day teaching decisions is needed. Despite a successful history of EVT advancing understanding of motivation in educational contexts ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref129">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref130">64</reflink>]), and the evidence for evaluating teacher motivation in EVT in non-PE arenas ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref131">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref132">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref133">45</reflink>]), there is currently no systematic approach to measure PE teachers' motivation toward curriculum and instruction from an EVT perspective. EVT is a framework that can help provide comprehensive insights into teachers' decision making and behaviors. Therefore, we developed and tested the psychometric properties of the TMPEQ using two samples of PE teachers to address this gap. After a substantive validity process framed with a strong theoretical basis, an 18-item questionnaire capturing teachers' expectancy, subjective task value, and cost beliefs was included in the TMPEQ.</p> <p>We used a construct validity process that started with investing simple structure of the TMPEQ items (EFA) and corroborating the solution using CFA in Sample 2. First, in targeting RQ1, the use of EFA results from one sample to set the benchmark for CFA testing in another sample is a common confirmation procedure used when developing survey instruments ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref134">38</reflink>]). EFA results demonstrated strong support for simple structure for 17 of the 18 original TMPEQ items. The only item that did not produce anticipated results was subjective task value Item 2 ("I think it is useful to implement different types of instruction in my class"). Specifically, this item did not show a clear primary loading and was subsequently removed leaving 17 total items. It is possible that many PE teachers spend a majority of their instructional time using similar direct teaching practices ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref135">43</reflink>]); thus, the "different types" wording did not resonate well with this sample of teachers. The three-factor EFA model produced an adequate model fit ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref136">32</reflink>]), explaining over 60% of the variance. Moderate correlations, <emph>r</emph> = |-.52 to.56|, suggested unique but related factors ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref137">37</reflink>]). Coefficient alpha estimates provided adequate support for the internal consistency of all three factors (RQ2). These findings provided substantial support for the initial construct validity scores produced by the TMPEQ in Sample 1 (RQ1). The support of RQs 1 and 2 provides future researchers the ability to make evidence-based arguments when using the TMPEQ in future studies to assess motivations PE teachers make about curriculum and instruction—aspects shown to have major implications on student learning ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref138">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Confirming EFA results with CFA in Sample 2 supported an adequate-to-good model fit ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref139">32</reflink>]) related to RQ1. Standardized factor loadings ranged from.64 to.81 across the three factors with moderate factor correlations slightly lower than Sample 1 results (Table 3). Overall, CFA results from Sample 2 demonstrated the TMPEQ's ability to replicate similar results in a different sample of PE teachers from across the United States. Demonstrating this type of confirmation results is a key element of developing a survey that can potentially produce valid results across different contexts ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref140">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref141">40</reflink>]). Thus, from a construct validity standpoint, the TMPEQ appears well suited to measure PE teachers' motivation from an EVT perspective in the United States.</p> <p>Another important step of establishing rigor in a measure like the TMPEQ includes demonstrating its ability to function similarly for male and female as well as primary and secondary PE teachers (RQ2). Using a series of multigroup CFAs with increasingly restrictive parameter constraints ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref142">42</reflink>]), results supported full measurement invariance across gender and school type. First, the TMPEQ items produced a three-factor solution with appropriate model fit for males and females and primary and secondary teachers ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref143">32</reflink>]). Second, factor loadings were equivalent for males and females and primary and secondary teachers. Third, the TMPEQ produced intercepts that functioned similarly for males and females and primary and secondary teachers, which is essential for making factor-level comparisons such as mean differences ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref144">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref145">41</reflink>]). Furthermore, there were no significant latent mean differences in either comparison. Finally, strict invariance showed that the residual variance including item and error variance item components (i.e., item variance not explained by factor) was similar across these group comparisons. Full support of measurement invariance provides evidence that factor-level comparisons (e.g., correlation, mean, and betas) represent true score differences rather than items failing to measure the same underlying construct among subgroups ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref146">8</reflink>]). Therefore, the TMPEQ functions in a similar fashion for male and female PE teachers from primary and secondary teaching contexts.</p> <p>Correlational and SEM results related to RQ3 found that teachers' expectancy beliefs (positively) and cost beliefs (negatively) were related to perceived mattering, job satisfaction, perceived accomplishment, and potential job turnover. This is particularly critical as teachers represent the gatekeeper of learning in PE. As PE teachers perceive greater success in their curriculum and accomplishment as a teacher, then the likelihood of the quality and effectiveness of their teaching are likely to follow ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref147">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref148">50</reflink>]). To this point, Klassen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref149">35</reflink>]) state that expectancies align with perceived efficacy and ability purporting that when goals are met, a strong increase in perceived ability to continue performing those skills will continue. Similarly, teachers are constantly engaged in decision making about what is of most worth to teach their students ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref150">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results related to RQ3 suggest that the PE teachers' expectancy beliefs related to positive outcomes in both Sample 1 and Sample 2. It was surprising that value beliefs did not hold prominent relationships with outcomes such as job mattering and job satisfaction. According to EVT, value beliefs should have meaningful links to achievement-oriented outcomes such as satisfaction ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref151">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref152">34</reflink>]). However, Eccles does suggest that the weight of different motivational beliefs in EVT is not always equal, with factors such as socialization, individual differences, contextual elements, and the salience of goals often causing variation. Previous research suggests that PE teachers are often very cognizant of implementing curriculum and instructional strategies that lead to comfortable and successful learning experiences, which may help explain the increased predictive strength of expectancy beliefs over value beliefs.</p> <p>To the point of perceived cost, our results suggest that teachers' motivation for improved teaching and curriculum choices was associated with reduced accomplishment and potential turnover based on the SEM in Sample 2 related to RQ3. Teachers' feelings of professional success likely decrease when they feel their efforts are not worth the time and potential rewards gained. Richards et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref153">48</reflink>]) refer to this sense of less value as perceived mattering. Essentially, when teachers' efforts do not lead to greater student achievement and when they are not externally recognized for said efforts, teachers are likely to experience reduced motivation for highly effective instruction and curricular decisions. These characteristics are associated with evidence of the marginality of PE and PE teachers as well ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref154">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref155">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-24">Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research</hd> <p>It is important to note that our findings represent a starting point for establishing construct validity in the TMPEQ. A more comprehensive picture of TMPEQ's construct validity will emerge after an accumulation of studies has been conducted and the consistency of results can be evaluated across studies. The large, representative sample size from across the United States is a strength. Furthermore, EVT reflects a strong theoretical basis for the TMPEQ. Another strength was the use of multiple analytical strategies to test both content and construct validity.</p> <p>This study is not without limitations. Although the sample of PE teachers came from across the United States and included a fairly even distribution of gender and school type, more samples are needed to confirm the factor structure of the questionnaire with more diverse populations of teachers through wider variety of career phases. A subsample of participants (5%) did not report ethnicity. In addition, all outcome measures were self-reported by teachers. Observational evidence of teaching behaviors, student achievement, and curricular development would be needed to align teachers' motivation beliefs with their actual teaching behaviors. The TMPEQ may be used to explore teacher motivation for effective instruction and curriculum alongside teacher knowledge and competence using observational methods. An essential area of need for evaluating teacher beliefs likely includes student assessment. Despite the wide variety of PE student assessment requirements (or lack thereof) by state and district, it is likely that a set of items regarding teacher assessment beliefs needs future consideration. This extension of future works likely provides an additional link to the holistic teacher experience. In addition, this study showed that a large percentage (∼25%) of teachers in each sample did not report having a teaching certification. Many states in the United States do not require certification for PE teachers in both public and private sectors. It stands to reason that those without teaching certification may not have received the proper intensive training to make appropriate curriculum and instructional decisions, and likewise, are not motivated to do so. Thus, future research may consider this variable as another area of consideration when comparing teachers and their motivational beliefs. Also, considerations for tracking teacher motivation throughout the phases of their career and in regard to their school environment would be key areas of interest to further understand teacher motivation in PE, which can often be marginalized, held unaccountable, and delayed in contemporary effective practices. Inservice and preservice PE teacher development may also improve my understanding of teacher motivation, its fluctuations, and its antecedents.</p> <p>One potential application of this tool could include the critical need to evaluate PE teacher' motivations throughout their career. From a spectrum of career perspective, early career PE teachers (teachers reporting less years in the field) have tended to report higher anxiety and less competence compared to middle or later-career-stage teachers ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref156">56</reflink>]). Thus, for early career teachers, cost may be associated with lack of time and resources to create and mold a quality curriculum and/or to test out important instructional strategies ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref157">7</reflink>]). The emotional toll that is associated with perceived cost may reduce motivation. Similarly, mid- to late-career teachers may also experience cost but for differing reasons, such as continued messaging of limited educational value by school colleagues, continually reduced resources provided over time, and messaging of limited value by students and community members. Investigating teacher motivation through an EVT lens across career stages may shed light on this phenomenon.</p> <hd id="AN0183920121-25">Conclusions</hd> <p>Statistical evidence for the TMPEQs used for evaluating PE teacher motivation through an EVT lens was confirmed, allowing information regarding PE teacher motivation to be accurately captured and discussed with confidence. The survey questionnaire was found to produce valid and reliable scores for measuring teacher expectancies, values, and costs invariant across male/female and primary/secondary PE teachers and in strong associations with other professional beliefs variables. EVT assumes that teacher motivation contributes to effective teaching and learning ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref158">29</reflink>]). Therefore, investigation into PE teacher motivation for effective practice and the associated professional beliefs needs greater consideration. PE teachers need to develop a greater sense of expected success and rewards in their efforts to feel accomplished, valued, and satisfied. The development of the TMPEQ provides a self-report survey method to investigate PE teachers' motivational beliefs from an EVT perspective.</p> <p>Simonton Jr https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7261-2047</p> <p>Mercier https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3505-2495</p> <p>Garn (garn0079@umn.edu) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7824-4027</p> <ref id="AN0183920121-26"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref60" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrami, P.C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24 (2), 201–216. 10.1080/0144341032000160146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref29" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education Behavior, 31 (2), 43–64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bardach, L., Klassen, R.M., & Perry, N.E. (2021). Teachers' psychological characteristics: Do they matter for teacher effectiveness, teachers' well-being, retention, and interpersonal relations? An integrative review. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09614-9">http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09614-9</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barron, K.E., & Hulleman, C. (2014). Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. In J.S.Eccles & K.Salmelo-Aro (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref95" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, T.E., & Billings, R.F. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177–190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref50" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Betoret, F.D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary schoolteachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26, 519–539.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beyer, P.N., Ponnock, A.R., & Rosenzweig, E.Q. (2022). Teachers' perceptions of cost: Associations among job satisfaction, attrition intentions, and challenges. The Journal of Experimental Education, 91 (3), 517–538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref146" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref100" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. University of Michigan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carmines, E.G., & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carson, R.L., & Chase, M.A. (2009). Physical education teacher motivation: An examination of self-determination theory. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14 (4), 335–353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant?. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19, 18–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, A., & Liu, X. (2009). Task values, cost, and choice decisions in college physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28 (2), 192–213. 10.1123/jtpe.28.2.192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equations Modeling, 14, 464–504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day, C.T. (2020). Expectancy value theory as a questionnaire to explore teacher beliefs and motivations in elementary mathematics instruction. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13 (2), 169–182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jesus, S.N., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation. Applied Psychology, 54, 119–134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles, J.S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A.J.Elliot & C.S.Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles, J.S., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T.Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). W.H. Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders, C.K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, C.D. (2006). Curriculum: Forming and reshaping vision of physical education in a high need, low demand world of schools. Quest, 58, 41–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, C.D. (2014). What goes around comes around... or does it? Disrupting the cycle of traditional, sports-based physical education. Kinesiology Review, 3, 63–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, C.D. (2015). Knowledge, transfer, and innovation in physical literacy curricula. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4, 119–124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272–299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferry, M., & McCaughtry, N. (2015). "Whatever is comfortable": Secondary physical educators' curricular decision making: Issues of knowledge and gendered performativity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34 (2), 297–315. 10.1123/jtpe.2014-0027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferry, M., & Westerlund, R. (2023). Professional networks, collegial support, and school leaders: How physical education teachers manage reality shock, marginalization, and isolation in a decentralized school system. European Physical Education Review, 29 (1), 74–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flake, J.K., Barron, K.E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, B.D., & Welsh, M.E. (2015). Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 232–244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J.A., & Eccles, J.S. (2005). Family socialization, gender, and sport motivation and involvement. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27 (1), 3–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, S.K. (2002). Using expectancy-value approach to examine teachers' motivational strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 989–1005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harackiewicz, J.M., Smith, J.L., Priniski, S.J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights and Behavioral Brain Science, 3 (2), 220–227.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hixon, E, Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L., & Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. The Internet and Higher Education, 15 (2), 102–107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equations Modeling, 6, 1–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulleman, C.S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B.L., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (4), 880–895.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kern, M.L., Waters, L., Adler, A., & White, M. (2014). Assessing employee wellbeing in schools using a multifaced approach: Associations with physical health, life satisfaction, and professional thriving. Psychology, 5, 500–513.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R.M., Durksen, T.L., & Tze, V.M. (2014). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. In P.W.Richardson, S.A.Karabenick, & H.M.G.Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 100–115). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R.M., & Tze, V.M. (2014). Teachers' self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R.B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knafl, G.J., & Grey, M. (2007). Factor analysis model evaluation through likelihood cross-validation. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 16 (2), 77–102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacPhail, A., Tannehill, D., Leirhaug, P.E., & Borghouts, L. (2023). Promoting instructional alignment in physical education teacher education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 28 (2), 153–164. 10.1080/17408989.2021.1958177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H.W., Martin, A.J., & Jackson, S. (2010). Introducing a short version of the physical self description questionnaire: New strategies, short-form evaluative criteria, and applications of factor analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32, 438–482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Millsap, R.E. (2011). Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance. Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2008). Teaching Physical Education. (1st ed.). Online: Spectrum Institute for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://spectrumofteachingstyles.org/assets/files/book/Teaching_Physical_Edu_1st_Online.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Sullivan, M., Calderón, A. & Moody, B. (2020) Can I teach what I want? Teacher autonomy in enacting a physical education curriculum. In S.Chapel & R.Blair (Eds.), Debates in physical education (2nd ed., pp. 206–219) Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osman, D.J., & Warner, J.R. (2020). Measuring teacher motivation: The missile link between professional development and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92, Article 103064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Østerlie, O., Løhre, A., & Haugan, G. (2019). The expectancy-value questionnaire in physical education: A validation study among Norwegian adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63 (6), 1–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 667–686.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., Gaudreault, K.L., & Woods, A.M. (2017). Understanding physical educators' perceptions of mattering: Validation of the perceived mattering questionnaire–physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23 (1), 73–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., Washburn, N.S., & Hemphill, M.A. (2019). Exploring the influence of perceived mattering, role stress, and emotional exhaustion on physical education teacher/coach job satisfaction. European Physical Education Review, 25, 389–408.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rink, J.E., (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 407–418.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rink, J.E., & Hall, T.J. (2008). Research on effective teaching in elementary school physical education. The Elementary School Journal, 108 (3), 207–218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenzweig, E., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2022). Beyond utility value interventions: The why, when, and how for next steps in expectancy-value intervention research. Educational Psychologist, 57 (1), 11–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SHAPE America, (2009). Appropriate instructional practice guidelines, K-12: A side by side comparison.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SHAPE America, (2013). National standards for K–12 physical education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., Garn, A.C., Kulik, N., & Fahlman, M. (2015). The relationship between teacher burnout and student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 519–532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonton, K.L., Gaudreault, K.L., & Olive, C. (2022). Examining marginality, isolation, and emotions and their relationship with physical educator intrapersonal job beliefs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 41 (3), 364–373. 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonton, K.L., Mercier, K., Richards, K.A.R., & Gaudreault, K. (2023). The association of perceived mattering and teacher emotions with physical educator teacher resilience. European Physical Education Review, 29, 582–600.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, I.M., Ntoumanis, N., & Smith, B. (2009). The social context as a determinant of teacher motivational strategies in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 235–243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urhahne, D., & Wijnia, L. (2023). Theories of motivation in education: An integrative framework. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P. (2013). The role of content knowledge in conceptions of teaching effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 431–440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Washburn, N.S., Richards, K.A.R., & Sinelnikov, O.A. (2020). The development of US physical education teachers' motivating styles: A socialization perspective. European Physical Education Review, 26 (2), 495–514.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watt, H.M.G., & Richards, P.W. (2015). Teacher motivation. In J.D.Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 64–73).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 68–81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E.Q., & Eccles, J. (2017). Achievement values: Interactions, interventions, and future directions. In A.Elliot, C.Dweck, & D.Yeager (Eds.) Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 116–134). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, T. (2021). Physical education teacher motivation: A conceptual review and reconceptualisation. Review of Education, 9 (3), Article e3301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, X., Sun, H., Chen, A., & Ennis, C.D. (2012). Measurement invariance of expectancy-value questionnaire in physical education. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 16 (1), 41–54.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Alex C. Garn; Kelly L. Simonton Jr and Kevin Mercier</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib220" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref145"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1468704
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development and Validation of the Teacher Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alex+C%2E+Garn%22">Alex C. Garn</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7824-4027">0000-0002-7824-4027</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kelly+L%2E+Simonton%22">Kelly L. Simonton</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7261-2047">0000-0001-7261-2047</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kevin+Mercier%22">Kevin Mercier</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3505-2495">0000-0003-3505-2495</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Teaching+in+Physical+Education%22"><i>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(2):201-211.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Motivation%22">Teacher Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Construct+Validity%22">Construct Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Value+Judgment%22">Value Judgment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Persistence%22">Teacher Persistence</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0335
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-5024<br />1543-2769
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: Grounded in the expectancy-value theory framework, the purpose of this study was to develop and identify the psychometric properties of the Teaching Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire. Methods: The process included testing content validity with experts (n = 16), construct validity and measurement invariance using factor analysis, and convergent validity using structural equation modeling (SEM) in two physical education teacher samples (n = 373; n = 400). Results: Factor analysis identified a 17-item questionnaire measuring teachers' expectancy, value, and cost beliefs. Measurement invariance testing revealed equivalence between male and female as well as primary and secondary physical education teachers. Correlational and structural equation modeling analyses showed the adaptive nature of expectancy and subjective task value beliefs along with the maladaptive nature of cost beliefs. Discussion/Conclusion: The Teaching Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire provides a theoretically grounded approach to investigate physical education teachers' motivation toward curriculum and instruction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1468704
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468704
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0335
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 201
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Construct Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Value Judgment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Persistence
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development and Validation of the Teacher Motivation in Physical Education Questionnaire
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alex C. Garn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kelly L. Simonton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kevin Mercier
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-5024
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1543-2769
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1