Download pdf - Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability ...selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014_Katz... · Background Applying Benson’s program of validation

This article was downloaded by: [Ben Gurion University of the Negev], [Idit Katz]On: 14 July 2014, At: 07:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Intellectual and Developmental DisabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjid20

Assessing autonomous motivation in students withcognitive impairmentIdit Katza & Rinat Cohena

a Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, IsraelPublished online: 10 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Idit Katz & Rinat Cohen (2014): Assessing autonomous motivation in students with cognitive impairment,Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2014.934791

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2014.934791

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Assessing autonomous motivation in students with cognitiveimpairment†

IDIT KATZ & RINAT COHEN

Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel

AbstractBackground Applying Benson’s program of validation (Benson, 1998) we provide evidence supporting the validity of aprojective instrument that assesses the autonomous motivation of students with impaired cognitive abilities.Method Eighty-eight grade 7–9 students diagnosed with cognitive impairment participated in this study. Participants’motivation was assessed using a projective instrument. Participants’ affect, task value, and perception of the teachers assupportive were also assessed. The questionnaires were applied individually. Zero order correlation and regressionanalysis were conducted.Results The study demonstrated internal relations among the observed elements of the projective instrument, as well asrelations between the projective instrument with other constructs and the predictive validity of the instrument.Conclusions The evidence provided herein suggests that the projective instrument can be used to validly measure theautonomous motivation of students with cognitive impairment.

Keywords: autonomous motivation, cognitive impairment, projective method

Introduction

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis-orders considers people with intelligence test scoresbetween 70 and 85 to have “borderline intellectualfunctioning” (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychia-tric Association, 2013). In Israel, such studentsusually study in special classes within mainstreamschools or in special education schools. Studieshave shown that the academic performance andwellbeing of students are influenced by their intelli-gence quotient and by their personality and motiva-tional orientations (Deci, 2004; Zigler, 2001).However, insufficient attention has been given tothe motivational orientations and the effect of theeducational environment on the motivation of stu-dents with cognitive impairment. This could bepartly due to the difficulty in determining a validmeasurement of motivation in students with cogni-tive impairment.

Motivational orientation is usually assessed usingself-report questionnaires (Pintrich & Schunk,

2002). However, this method is questionable whenused for participants with low levels of psychologicalself-awareness as it decreases the measure’s validity(Assor & Connell, 1992; Katz, Assor, & Kanat-Maymon, 2008). This is particularly the case withyoung students and students with cognitive impair-ment. Various other characteristics of students withcognitive impairment, such as difficulties withreading and abstract thinking (Panek, 1997), mightalso limit their ability to respond to self-reportedquestionnaires. Therefore, the motivation of thesestudents must be assessed in other ways in order toobtain valid results (Andrews & Rose, 2010;Hutzler & Korsensky, 2010).Projective assessment is a technique by which par-

ticipants respond to ambiguous stimuli that theoreti-cally reveal hidden emotions and internal conflicts(Meyer & Kurtz, 2006). This technique is used toassess various personality and emotional variables inpeople with cognitive impairment (Panek, 1997).Katz et al. (2008) developed and validated a new

© 2014 Australasian Society for Intellectual Disability, Inc.

†This manuscript was accepted under the Editorship of Susan Balandin.Correspondence: Idit Katz, Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2014.934791

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

projective method for assessing autonomous motiv-ation in elementary school students according tothe self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan,2000). Given that projective methods are less suscep-tible to the effects of insufficient self-knowledge, andmight be able to overcome the specific problem ofmeasuring motivation in students with cognitiveimpairment, it is important to assess the validity ofthis instrument in this context. Moreover, SDT pro-vides a general theoretical humanistic conception ofstudents’ motivation, and also offers more practicalsuggestions to support the development of adaptivemotivation; this means it is important to have areliable instrument with which to assess this type ofmotivation in children with cognitive impairment.The purpose of this study was to provide evidence

that supports the validity (cf. Benson, 1998) of Katzet al.’s (2008) projective instrument for autonomousmotivation in assessing the autonomous motivationof students with impaired cognitive abilities.Benson’s (1998) program of validation includesthree stages. The first is the substantive stage, inwhich the researcher defines the theoretical andempirical domains of the construct. This is followedby the structural stage, in which the researcherdemonstrates the internal relations among theobserved elements of the construct. Finally, in theexternal stage, the researcher tests the hypothesisedrelations of the construct with other constructs inits nomological network. In this article, which isbased on Benson’s (1998) program of validation,we discuss the literature on the assessment of motiv-ation in general, with emphasis on motivating chil-dren with cognitive impairment (the substantivestage). We then move on to the structural stage, inwhich we demonstrate the internal relations amongthe observed elements of the instrument. Next, inthe external stage, we investigate the external validityof the instrument by testing hypothesised relations ofthe autonomous motivation construct with otherconstructs in its nomological network. We concludeby examining the instruments’ predictive validity.These steps also follow those proposed by Messick(1995) and the Standards for Educational andPsychological Testing (American EducationalResearch Association, American PsychologicalAssociation, & National Council on Measurementin Education [AERA, APA, & NCME], 1999) forvalidating educational instruments.

Autonomous motivation within self-determinationtheory

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan& Connell, 1989) posits four main types of perceived

motivations (that is, sources or reasons for inten-tional action) that can be placed along a continuumof autonomy. The least autonomous motivation—external—represents behaviours controlled by exter-nal contingencies involving the threat of punishmentor the offering of a material reward rather than byvolition (Ryan & Connell, 1989). The second motiv-ation is introjection—behaviours controlled by thedesire to avoid feeling guilty, ashamed, or unworthyand to strive for highly positive evaluations. Next,identified motivation is considered relatively auton-omous because the person has accepted the value ofthe activity as his or her own. The most autonomousmotivation is intrinsic, which involves engagement inan activity for its own sake and is characterised byenthusiasm, spontaneity, excitement, intense con-centration, and joy. The four types of motivationare often grouped into two categories: controlledmotivations (external and introjected) and auton-omous motivations (intrinsic and identified; Black& Deci, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser,2004; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, &Matos, 2005).Within SDT, autonomous motivation is often

assessed via self-report questionnaires modelledafter Ryan and Connell’s Perceived Locus of Causal-ity questionnaire (1989), in which participantsrespond to a set of items that reflect differentreasons for acting. The reasons represent the motiv-ations that exist at different points on the perceivedautonomy continuum. Young children and studentswith cognitive impairment may not be able to relateto such items because they may have difficultieswith activities that involve symbolic, abstract, or con-ceptual thinking, and their ability to reply to cogni-tively complex sentences might be low (Malik,2009; Panek, 1997).The limitations of self-report measures are most

visible in students with special needs but are notexclusive to this group. Consequently, researchersdealing with autonomous motivation have sought touse behavioural measures of autonomous motivationsuch as free choice, effort investment, and time ontask to overcome the various limitation of self-report-ing (King, 1995; Spangler, 1992; Thrash & Elliot,2002). The existing behavioural measures arecomplex to administer and are therefore generallyused only in laboratories. The administration ofsuch a complex procedure in the field (in a class-room, for example) is cumbersome and its validationis questionable due to the difficulty of controllingvarious confounding variables. It can be even moreproblematic to use behavioural measures for peoplewith cognitive impairment as they may experiencelearning disability, motor disability, sensory issues,

2 I. Katz & R. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

or concentration problems (Malik, 2009) that couldinterrupt the measurement of motivation. Research-ers generally agree that projective methods might bethe best way to assess motivation, personality, andemotional variables for people with cognitive impair-ment (Panek, 1997).

Motivation of people with cognitive impairment

For more than 30 years, two groups—the Peabody-Vanderbilt Group (Haywood & Switzky, 1986) andthe Yale Group (Zigler, 2001)—have investigatedthe motivational orientations of people with cognitiveimpairment. Both groups describe the deficiency ofintrinsic motives in people with cognitive impairmentand the strong reliance on the reinforcement theyreceive from others. The Peabody-VanderbiltGroup view the motivations of people with cognitiveimpairment as dichotomous, which suggests thatindividual differences or learned personality traitscan make people either intrinsically or extrinsicallymotivated. Their research also indicates that themotivation of students with cognitive impairment ismore extrinsic than intrinsic, which means they willbe optimally reinforced by external rewards(Haywood & Switzky 1992; Switzky, 2001).

In contrast, the Yale Group has argued that peoplewith cognitive impairment are not simply products oftheir intelligence quotient but also have distinctivepersonality and motivational styles that influencetheir performance. They have argued that motivationmay prove to be the most important determiningfactor of performance for people with low levels ofintellectual abilities. Furthermore, as people withcognitive impairment often experience failure, dis-couragement and expectation of failure in new taskscan reduce the willingness to develop new skills andlead to lower aspirations and diminished engagement(Robinson, Zigler, & Gallagher, 2000; Zigler, 2001).Although Zigler’s view differs markedly from theSDT view with regard to motivation, the two sharesimilar opinions about the centrality of the environ-ment and personal experience on the type of motiv-ation adopted. However, the SDT suggests thatmotivational orientation (although learned) developsprimarily due to the level at which the environmentsupports one’s needs. The SDT also suggests that,regardless of the person’s current orientation, theuse of external control will diminish autonomy andbe associated with poor wellbeing (Deci, 2004). Allof these suggestions have been extensively assessedwith mainstream students but rarely among studentswith special needs, particularly those with cognitiveimpairment.

Projective assessment in people with cognitiveimpairment

In a projective assessment, participants respond toambiguous stimuli that theoretically reveal hiddenemotions and internal conflicts. The theory is thatwhen people are exposed to concrete stimuli, theyrespond with their conscious minds, whereas ambig-uous stimuli can provoke responses from the subcon-scious. This can give the test administrator a betteridea of what is going on in the participants’ minds(Meyer & Kurtz, 2006).Projective assessment has been used since the

1930s to assess various personality and emotionalvariables in people with cognitive impairment(Panek, 1997). This technique is believed to bemost accurate for assessing people with cognitiveimpairment, as well as young children (Reiss,2004), because these groups are more comfortable“telling stories” than speaking directly about theirpersonality or behaviours (Hurley & Sovner,1985). Moreover, the projective technique, inwhich participants do not describe their emotionsand thoughts directly, could help allay the submis-siveness or acquiescence that is common in peoplewith cognitive impairment (Finlay & Lyons, 2002).Finally, it is easier to evoke a projective responsethan to respond to a set of questions that may betoo complex, either grammatically or in terms ofthe type of judgements they request (Finlay &Lyons, 2002). The most frequently used personalityassessments for people with cognitive impairmentare the projective Thematic Apperception Tech-nique (TAT; Morgan & Murray, 1935) and theApperceptive Personality Test (APT; Karp, Holm-strom, & Silber, 1989). However, neither of thesetests assesses autonomous motivation according tothe SDT.Katz et al. (2008) developed and validated a new

projective method for assessing autonomous motiv-ation in elementary school students according tothe SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Given that projectivemethods are less susceptible than questionnaires tothe effects of insufficient self-knowledge, and mightovercome the specific problem of measuring motiv-ation in students with cognitive impairment, it isimportant to assess the validity of this instrument inthis context.

The current study

The purpose of this study was to validate the use ofKatz et al.’s (2008) projective instrument for asses-sing motivation in students with cognitive impair-ment. Previously, a comprehensive validation

Assessing motivation of students with cognitive impairment 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

program was conducted to validate this instrumentfor use with mainstream students. In the second(structural) stage of content validation (Benson,1998), we investigated the internal relations amongthe observed elements of the instrument; specifically,the subscale intercorrelations. We hypothesisedthat the projective subscale of controlled motivationand the projective subscale of autonomous motiv-ation would show a negative correlation and demon-strate the opposite pattern of correlations with theother variables. This would suggest that (as Katzet al., 2008, found) these two components areindeed located on opposite sides of the same dimen-sion when assessing the motivation of students withcognitive impairment.In the third (external) stage of content validation,

we examined the correlations of the projective indi-cator of autonomous motivation with two well-known self-report scales of affectivity and value.One was an affectivity scale called the PositiveAffect Negative Affect Scale – Children (PANAS-C; Laurent, Potter, & Catanazaro, 1994; Laurentet al., 1999) and the other was a measure of taskvalue (Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld,1993). Several studies have found a pattern of posi-tive high correlations between autonomous motiva-tional orientations and positive affect (Deci, 2004;Katz et al., 2008; Katz, Kaplan, & Buzukashvily,2011; Katz, Kaplan, & Gueta, 2010). Accordingly,we hypothesised that the type of motivation studentsadopt toward learning in school, as measured by theprojective instrument, would correlate with scalesthat assess affect. Specifically, we hypothesised thatautonomous motivation would correlate positivelywith positive affect and negatively with negativeaffect.We also suggested that there are possible relations

between autonomous motivations, as measured bythe projective instrument, and task value, asmeasured by the “task value measure” (Eccleset al., 1993). Eccles (Parsons) et al. (1983) outlinedfour components of task value: attainment value,intrinsic value, utility value, and cost.We hypothesised that autonomous motivation, as

assessed by the projective instrument, would corre-late positively with the measure of task value, as thetwo elements share similar constructs (identifiedand intrinsic motivation as similar to intrinsic valueand utility value). This measure also captures thenotion of perceived ability, which, according toSDT, promotes autonomous types of motivation.Following Benson’s (1998) third (external) stage,

we also assessed the instrument’s predictive validity.Specifically, we assessed whether the projectiveinstrument can predict the well-established and

well-researched relations between teachers’ suppor-tive behaviours and students’ types of motivation.Recent educational motivational research has

focused on the role that the educational environmentplays in the patterns of students’ motivation (Eccleset al., 1993; Katz, Buzukashvili, & Feingold, 2012;Katz et al., 2010, 2011; Reeve & Jang, 2006;Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Vallerand, 1997). In pro-viding support for children’s psychological needs,parents and teachers contribute to the internalisationof their children’s motivation for activities (Assor,Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Furrer& Skinner, 2003; Reeve, 2009; Reeve & Jang, 2006;Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). The validity ofthe projective instrument for students with cognitiveimpairment will be supported if this relationship,which is visible and well established in SDT researchwith mainstream students, is also visible among stu-dents with cognitive impairment. We hypothesisedthat the degree to which students perceive their tea-chers’ behaviour as supportive of their (the students’)psychological needs will predict the type of motiv-ation the students adopt toward learning as measuredby the projective instrument.

Method

Participants

This study involved 88 Israeli students in grades 7–9(53 males, 35 females) from six special educationclasses in two mainstream schools (61 students) andfour classes in a special education school (27 stu-dents). The average age of the students was 13.52years (SD= .72, range: 13.2–15.6). The average intel-ligence quotient of students was 74.4 (SD = 2.75).The students were diagnosed by authorised edu-cational psychologists using theWechsler IntelligenceScale for Children – Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler,1974). This test is mandatory in Israel before astudent is placed in special education classes orschools. Students within the special educationsystems are obligated to take this test every 7 years.

Procedure

The study was conducted during school hours.Ethics approval was authorised by the Israeli Ministryof Education. Permission was received from theschools and the students’ parents. The followingsteps were taken to overcome the various limitationsof using self-report questionnaires with students withcognitive impairment. First, the questionnaires wereadministered individually to each student in a quietroom by a trained research assistant. Second, to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

reduce misunderstanding caused by reading difficul-ties, the research assistant read all the items aloud tothe students. Third, all participants’ responses wereverbal; the participants did not have to write ormark anything. Fourth, the Likert scale includedimages; evidence suggests that pairing visual imagesin questionnaires facilitates responses in young chil-dren, which is also believed to extend to the popu-lation at hand (Harter & Pike, 1984; Verschueren,Marcoen, & Schoefs, 1996). Questionnaires with pic-tures instead of text are often used in situations inwhich reading ability could create barriers (Reynolds& Johnson, 2011; Zhang, Smith, Lam, Brimer, &Rodriquez, 2002).

An experimenter met with each student individu-ally for one or two sessions (depending on the stu-dents’ ability and willingness to participate). Tocontrol for possible order effects, the projectiveinstrument was placed either at the beginning, inthe middle, or at the end of the questionnaire.

Measures

The projective instrument of relative autonomous motiv-ation was developed by Katz et al. (2008). Partici-pants were presented with three TAT-like pictures.The first picture depicted a child lying in bed (thegender of the child in the image corresponded tothe gender of the participant), accompanied by thefollowing sentence: “The child in the picture will goto school soon.” The second picture portrayed achild and a woman standing near a door, with textthat read: “The child in the picture is on his/herway to school.” The third picture showed the childwalking outside, with a caption reading: “The childis on her/his way back home from school.” All pic-tures were accompanied by the following questions:“What does she/he feel? What is she/he thinking?”

As guided by Katz et al. (2008), students’ answerswere separated into 10 indicators representing auton-omous and controlled motivation. Five of the indi-cators represented autonomous motivation, asfollows: (1) a wish to do more of the same activity(e.g., “He feels he wants to go back to school,”“She is thinking of what she will do at school tomor-row”); (2) feelings or actions involving choice (e.g.,“He knows he could choose what to study today”);(3) participation motivated by desire (e.g., “Shewants to go to school”); (4) interest (e.g., “He wasvery interested in school today”); and (5) enjoyment(e.g., “She thinks about how much she enjoyed theclass”). The other five indicators represented con-trolled motivation: (1) introjection (e.g., “She feelsshe has to go or else she will feel bad”); (2) coercion(e.g., “He has to go; they force him to do it”); (3)

unwillingness to engage in the activity (e.g., “Hefeels he doesn’t want to go to school”); (4) boredom(e.g., “He is thinking about how boring school wastoday”); and (5) frustration (e.g., “He is frustrated”).Motivation scores were derived from students’

responses using a four-step process. First, for eachof the 10 indicators, we counted the number oftimes the indicator appeared in each story. Becausean indicator could appear more than once in a givensentence, the total indicator score for a story was theliteral count of the appearances of the indicator inthe story. Second, the count scores of each indicatorin the three stories were summed, which resulted infive indicator scores (across stories) of autonomousmotivation and five indicator scores (across stories)of controlled motivation. The count scores of thefive indicators of autonomous motivation were thenadded together to provide a score representing auton-omous motivation, and a similar procedure wasapplied to the five indicators of controlledmotivation.This procedure yielded two overall motivation scores:autonomous and controlled. The correlation betweenthe autonomous and controlled components wasnegative (r = −.42, p < .01). Finally, we created aglobal indicator of relative autonomous motivationby subtracting the score representing controlledmotivation from the score representing autonomousmotivation, as suggested in previous research (Black& Deci, 2000; Katz et al., 2011; Sheldon et al.,2004; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005).The children’s affects while studying in school were

measured by the version of the PANAS-C developedby Laurent et al. (1994, 1999). This measure is com-posed of two scales: positive affect (PA) and negativeaffect (NA). Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, par-ticipants were asked to indicate how often theyexperienced 10 specified PA adjectives and 10 NAadjectives; we then computed summary scores forthe PA and NA scales. Laurent et al. (1999) reportedevidence for the reliability and validity of thePANAS-C with elementary-school-age children.Further studies supported the notion that the two-factor model of affect appears to be similar acrossage groups (Bushman & Crowley, 2010). The posi-tive and negative affect subscales in the presentstudy showed a nonsignificant correlation of .13.Cronbach’s alphas for the 10 positive affect and 10negative affect items were .81 and .77, respectively.Students’ task value of studying in school was

measured with nine items that had been translatedinto Hebrew by Katz et al. (2010) from question-naires developed by Eccles et al. (1993) and Ecclesand Wigfield (1995). Three of these items assessedstudents’ self-concept of ability and expectations forsuccess in studying in school (e.g., “How good are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

you at studying in school?”), another three assessedintrinsic value (interest/fun) in studying in school(e.g., “How much do you like studying inschool?”), and the final three assessed the importancestudents ascribe to studying in school (e.g., “Howuseful is what you learn in school for you?”). Wecreated an indicator of the value that studentsascribe to the task of learning in school by averagingthe scores on the nine items pertaining to the taskvalue. Eccles, O’Neill, and Wigfield (2005) reportedevidence for the reliability and validity of the globaltask value measure with elementary-school-age chil-dren. The students’ task value was found to bereliable (nine items; α = .80).Students’ perception of their teachers’ behaviours as sup-

porting their psychological needs was assessed usingitems adopted from Katz et al. (2010). The itemsassessing perceived teacher support of autonomyincluded items that tapped teachers’ behaviours,such as showing an understanding of students’perspectives, providing a relevant rationale for atask, offering choice, and allowing criticism (e.g.,“The teacher provides me with a choice oftasks,” “The teacher explains what learning is goodfor”). The items that assessed the perceived teachersupport of competence tapped teachers’ behaviours,such as setting optimally challenging tasks, helpingstudents to plan their work, and providing informativeand noncomparative feedback (e.g., “The teachergives me tasks that are not too difficult for me,”“The teacher makes sure that I understand thetask”). The items assessing perceived teachersupport for relatedness tapped teachers’ behaviours,such as encouraging peer acceptance and empathyin the classroom and minimising social comparisonsand competition among students (e.g., “The teacherrespects me even if I do not succeed,” “The teachertakes a personal interest in me”). Previous studies(e.g., Katz et al., 2010) have shown that all ofthe above items are loaded on a single factorbecause students do not distinguish between teachers’behaviour that supports different needs and insteadtreat support for psychological needs globally. Thelevel at which students perceive their teachers asneed-supportive was calculated by averaging thestudents’ answers. Higher scores indicated thatstudents had a higher perception of teachers asbeing need-supportive. The students’ perception oftheir teachers’ behaviours measure was found to bemoderately reliable (12 items; α = .61).

Results

We used PASW Statistics Version 18.0.3 to analysethe data. We analysed the zero order correlation of

the instrument with other scales to assess content val-idity and conducted a regression analysis to assess thepredictive validity of the projective instrument.To avoid order of administration effect, the partici-

pants were assigned randomly to three differentorders of instruments administration. The order ofinstrument administration had no effect on the sizeof the correlations between the projective instrumentand the other measures, which suggests that thesequential order of measurement scales did notalter the pattern of responses. Table 1 presents themeans, standard deviations, and the correlationbetween the components of the projective and thevarious other measures.The correlation between the autonomous and con-

trolled components of the projective instrument wasnegative. Moreover, the projective component ofcontrolled motivation and the projective componentof autonomous motivation showed an oppositepattern with the other variables.As expected, the projective measure of relative

autonomous motivation showed significant positivecorrelations with both positive affect and task value.The projective relative autonomous motivationmeasure showed significant positive correlationswith teachers’ need-supportive behaviour, whichwas also expected.In order to assess the predictive validity of the

projective instrument, we conducted a regressionanalysis to examine perceived teachers’ autonomy-supportive behaviour in predicting participants’autonomous motivation. The predictor was per-ceived teacher need-supportive behaviour and thedependent variable was participants’ autonomousmotivation as assessed by the projective instrument.A regression analysis that predicted participants’autonomous motivation from perceived teachers’autonomy-supportive behaviour was statistically sig-nificant, F(1, 85) = 14.44, p < .001, and contribu-ted 16% to the variance in contributions. Asexpected, students’ perceptions of teachers asbeing supportive significantly predicted the stu-dents’ autonomous motivation (B = 2.64, β = .40,t = 3.60, p < .001).

Discussion

The results of this study provide evidence regardingthe validity of Katz et al.’s (2008) projective instru-ment in assessing the autonomous motivation of stu-dents with cognitive impairment. This measurecorrelates with other measures that assess similarconstructs, shows internal consistency, and measuresstudents’ autonomous motivation in their predicted


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

relations between teachers’ behaviours and students’types of motivation.

As expected, the projective measure of relativeautonomous motivation showed significant positivecorrelations with the self-report scales of positiveaffect, teachers’ need-supportive behaviour, andtask value.

These correlations not only strengthen the externalaspect of validation of the projective instrument(Benson, 1998; Messick, 1995) but also provideinformation regarding the motivational mechanismof students with cognitive impairment. Specifically,the correlation between the projective measure ofautonomous motivation and the various othermeasures suggest that autonomous motivation forthese students, as with mainstream students, isrelated to positive emotions and improved wellbeing.Therefore, students with cognitive impairment whostudy due to a more autonomous type of motivationhave a better emotional experience in school andhigher task value.

An unexpected finding was that the projectivemeasure of relative autonomous motivation did notshow significant negative correlations with the self-report scale of negative affect. Assessing the variouscorrelations of the negative affect measures with therest of the variables assessed in this study showsthat this measure had no significant relations withmost of the other variables. This pattern mightsuggest that students with cognitive impairmenthave difficulty identifying with negative emotionspresented to them as their own (applying thePANAS-C, the researcher presents the student witha list of positive and negative emotions and askshim/her to indicate the extent to which he/she ident-ifies with each emotion). When students had toexpress negative emotions that were not directed tothem and instead reflected another, pictorial,child, they expressed negative emotions, and theprojective measure of their controlled types of

motivation show significant negative relations withall the other variables. This result increases theneed to use a projective method when trying tounderstand certain emotional aspects of peoplewith cognitive impairment, and strengthens the sub-stantive aspect of validity, as suggested by Messick(1995). The finding that the projective componentof controlled motivation and the projective com-ponent of autonomous motivation showed an oppo-site pattern with the other variables suggests thatthese two components are indeed located on oppo-site sides of the same dimension of motivation ofstudents with cognitive impairment. This findingalso strengthens the evidence of the internal struc-ture of validity (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999;Messick, 1995). Examining the correlations of pro-jective relative autonomous motivation with otherindicators versus the correlations of the componentsof this composite score with other indicators showsthat the composite measure has somewhat highercorrelations. This pattern, together with the factthat the components of the projective relative auton-omous score appeared to lie on the same dimen-sion, suggests that it may be better to use themore global projective relative autonomous motiv-ation score than its components.Although the goal of this study was to validate the

projective instrument of autonomous motivation foruse among students with cognitive impairment, theresults highlight a few questions concerning themotivation of students with cognitive impairmentthat require future research.The mechanism by which the motivational orien-

tations and behaviours of people with cognitiveimpairment develops has been the subject of muchresearch. For example, there is an ongoing discus-sion about whether positive and negative reinforce-ments are beneficial as motivators in general, andfor the motivation of students with special needs inparticular (Deci, 2004; Maag, 2001). With regard

Table 1.Means, standard deviations, and zero order correlation between the components of the projective and the self-reportedmeasures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Projective RAM – .88∗∗ −.80∗∗ .31∗∗ −.18 .36∗∗ .36∗∗

2. Projective AM – – −.42∗∗ .28∗∗ -.29∗∗ .25∗ .28∗∗

3. Projective CM – – – −.23∗ −.02 −38∗∗ −34∗∗4. Positive affect – – – – −.03 .47∗∗ .72∗∗

5. Negative affect – – – – – .04 −.166. Teachers’ support – – – – – – .54∗∗

M 2.20 5.40 3.20 4.10 2.10 3.90 4.00SD 6.0 3.90 3.15 .66 .80 .83 .90

Note. N = 88. RAM = relative autonomous motivation; AM = autonomous motivation; CM = controlled motivation.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01, two-tailed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

to mainstream students, there is some agreementthat negative reinforcements or punishment couldcreate negative effects on students’ behaviour. Yetthe educational and emotional benefits of positivereinforcement are controversial (Kohn, 1993).Some research suggests that positively reinforcingstudents is the best way to encourage them torepeat desirable behaviour (Maag, 1996, 2001).Other theories, such as SDT, posit that positivereinforcements are actually external and thereforecontrolling, which diminishes students’ autonomyand motivation (Deci, 2004). A similar argumentexists regarding the best way to enhance motivationin students with cognitive impairment. Some studieshave suggested that people with cognitive impair-ment tend to have lower internal motives, whichmeans that the external incentive is believed toimprove their behaviours and learning (Schultz &Switzky, 1993). These theories, which depict motiv-ation as a consequence of “individual differences” or“personality traits,” view the environment as a “sec-ondary player” in determining an individual’s motiv-ation by adjusting the type of incentive to his/hercharacteristics. Other theories, such as SDT, arguethat the best way to help people to develop, learn,and behave well is to help them develop intrinsicmotives. This help is provided by modifying thelearning environment so that it will be more suppor-tive of students’ needs. Although this issue requiresfurther investigation, our results support this notionby showing that students with cognitive impairmentreact to differences in teachers’ behaviours, whichsuggests that they (like any other students) benefitmotivationally and emotionally from a learningenvironment that supports their needs for auton-omy, relatedness, and competence. These resultsare especially important, as many of the studentswith cognitive impairment study in mainstreamschools and share the same teachers’ practices asother students.However, future studies should further examine

the validity of this instrument in similar students inother cultures to strengthen the “generalisability”aspect of validation (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999;Messick, 1995). Moreover, the validity of this instru-ment should be measured in populations with evenlower cognitive abilities. It is also important to under-stand the relations between students’motivation, tea-chers’ support, and cognitively-related variables, andto identify whether motivation can predict variablessuch as academic achievement. Future studiescould assess the differences and similarities in thepatterns of response to the projective instrument ofstudents with and without cognitive impairment.Such studies should investigate whether there are

differences or similarities in the general level ofemotional/motivational expressions; whether thesetwo groups differ in the level at which they expresspositive or negative emotional expressions; or evenwhether the content or the way they construct theirexpression is similar or different. Studies should reas-sess the high standard deviation of the relative auton-omous motivation index and the relatively lowinternal consistency reliability of the perception ofthe teachers’ behaviours measure. Although thosefindings were also obtained in previous studies withtypically developing students (Katz et al., 2008),they should be further investigated as they fall intoa range that could question the utility of theinstruments.This research has some methodological difficulties

that should be addressed in future studies. As theresearch assistants were not blind to the conditionsand goals of the study, their subtle differencescould have unintentionally affected participantresponses. The validity of the instrument used inthe present study should be assessed against otherinstruments such as observations and interviews toavoid the questionable validity problems of self-report questionnaires.Although Katz et al.’s (2008) projective instru-

ment was developed for use by researchers, its easyand “friendly” administration and analysis canmake it a useful tool for teachers and other edu-cational practitioners. Further research is neededon this instruments’ use in the classroom. It isimportant to investigate whether teachers can usethis instrument to encourage students to talk abouttheir emotions and motivation. It should also beassessed whether teachers can use it to initiate con-versations between students and teachers and tohelp create a comfortable environment in which tea-chers support students’ needs for autonomy(enabling them to express their feelings), relatedness(showing empathy and expressing warmth), andcompetence (by providing them with a means toexpress their feelings in a way that suits their intel-lectual abilities).In conclusion, researchers and practitioners can

use this projective instrument to deepen the under-standing of the motivation and wellbeing of studentswith cognitive impairment.

Funding

This research was funded by the Israeli ScienceFoundation number 540/12. The funding body didnot impose any restrictions on free access to or pub-lication of the research data. The authors have nofinancial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

References

American Educational Research Association, AmericanPsychological Association, & National Council onMeasurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME).(1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.Washington, DC: AERA.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: AmericanPsychiatric Publishing.

Andrews, A., & Rose, J. L. (2010). A preliminary investigation offactors affecting employment motivation in people with intellec-tual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in IntellectualDisabilities, 7, 239–244. doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2010.00272.x

Assor, A., & Connell, J. P. (1992). Validity of students’ self-reportsas measures of performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H.Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom(pp. 25–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but rel-evance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressingteacher behaviours in predicting student’s engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.doi:10.1348/000709902158883

Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct vali-dation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: IssuesandPractice,17, 10–17. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00616.x

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation onlearning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory per-spective. Science Education, 84, 740–756.

Bushman, B. B., & Crowley, S. L. (2010). Is the structure of affectsimilar for younger and older children? Cross-sectional differ-ences in negative and positive affectivity. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 28, 31–39. doi:10.1177/0734282909337584

Deci, E. L. (2004). Promoting intrinsic motivation and self-deter-mination in people with mental retardation. InternationalReview of Research in Mental Retardation, 28, 1–29. doi:10.1016/S0074-7750(04)28001-6

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goalpursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Eccles (Parsons), J. 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 motives:Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146).San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

Eccles, J. S., O’Neill, S. A., &Wigfield, A. (2005). Ability self-per-ceptions and subjective task values in adolescents and children.In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.),What do children needto flourish?: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positivedevelopment (pp. 237–249). New York City, NY: SpringerScience. doi:10.1007/0-387-23823-9_15

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: Thestructure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expect-ancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 215–225. doi:10.1177/0146167295213003

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993).Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task percep-tions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. doi:10.2307/1131221

Finlay, W. M. L., & Lyons, E. (2002). Acquiescence in interviewswith people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation,40, 14–29. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0014:AIIWPW>2.0.CO;2

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor inchildren’s academic engagement and performance. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 95, 148–162. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148

Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984). The Pictorial Scale of PerceivedCompetence and Social Acceptance for Young Children.Child Development, 55, 1969–1982. doi:10.2307/1129772

Haywood, H. C., & Switzky, H. N. (1986). Intrinsic motivationand behavior effectiveness in retarded persons. In N. R. Ellis& N. W. Bray (Eds.), International review of research in mentalretardation (Vol. 14, pp. 1–46). New York, NY: AcademicPress.

Haywood, H. C., & Switzky, H. N. (1992). Ability and modifiabil-ity: What? How? And how much?. In J. S. Carlson (Ed.),Advances in cognition and educational practice: Vol. 1a.Theoretical issues: Intelligence, cognition and assessment (pp. 25–85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hurley, A. D., & Sovner, R. (1985). Behavior modification III:The token economy. Psychiatric Aspects of Mental RetardationReviews, 4(1), 1–4.

Hutzler, Y., & Korsensky, O. (2010). Motivational correlates ofphysical activity in persons with an intellectual disability: A sys-tematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual DisabilityResearch, 54, 767–786. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01313.x

Karp, S. A., Holmstrom, R. W., & Silber, D. E. (1989). TheApperceptive Personality Test manual. Worthington, OH:International Diagnostic Systems.

Katz, I., Assor, A., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2008). A projectiveassessment of autonomous motivation in children:Correlational and experimental evidence. Motivation andEmotion, 32, 109–119. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9086-0

Katz, I., Buzukashvili, T., & Feingold, L. (2012). Homeworkstress: Construct validation of a measure. The Journal ofExperimental Education, 80, 405–421. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.610389

Katz, I., Kaplan, A., & Buzukashvily, T. (2011). The role ofparents’ motivation in students’ autonomous motivation fordoing homework: The importance of parents’ motivation andbehavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 376–386.doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.001

Katz, I., Kaplan, A., & Gueta, G. (2010). Students’ needs, tea-chers’ support, and motivation for doing homework: A cross-sectional study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78,246–267. doi:10.1080/00220970903292868

King, L. A. (1995). Wishes, motives, goals, and personal mem-ories: Relations of measures of human motivation. Journal ofPersonality, 63, 985–1007. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00323.x

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars,incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.

Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Jr., Rudolph, K. D.,Potter, K. I., Lambert, S.,…Gathright, T. (1999). Ameasure of positive and negative affect for children: Scaledevelopment and preliminary validation. PsychologicalAssessment, 11, 326–338. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.11.3.326

Laurent, J., Potter, K., & Catanazaro, S. J. (1994). Assessingpositive and negative affect in children: The development ofthe PANAS-C. Poster session presented at the annual meetingof the National Association of School Psychologists, Seattle,WA.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4

Maag, J. W. (1996). Parenting without punishment: Making problembehavior work for you. Philadelphia, PA: The Charles Press.

Maag, J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on thedisuse of positive reinforcement in schools. ExceptionalChildren, 67, 173–186.

Malik, S. (2009). Effect of intervention training on mental abilitiesof slow learners. International Journal of Educational Science, 1,61–64.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment:Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and perform-ances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. AmericanPsychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assess-ment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective”as personality test descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment,87, 223–225. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01

Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investi-gating fantasies: The Thematic Apperception Test. ArchivesNeurology & Psychiatry, 34, 289–306. doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1935.02250200049005

Panek, P. E. (1997). The use of projective techniques with persons withmental retardation: A guide for assessment instrument selection.Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education:Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH:Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating styletoward students and how they can become more autonomysupportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–175. doi:10.1080/00461520903028990

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to supportstudents’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 98, 209–218. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: Thetheory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8,179–193. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.3.179

Reynolds, L., & Johnson, R. (2011). Is a picture worth a thousandwords? Creating effective questionnaires with pictures. PracticalAssessment, Research & Evaluation, 16, 1–7. Retrieved fromhttp://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=16&n=8

Robinson, N. M., Zigler, E., & Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Two tails ofthe normal curve: Similarities and differences in the study ofmental retardation and giftedness. American Psychologist, 55,1413–1424. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.12.1413

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causalityand internalization: Examining reasons for acting in twodomains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,749–761. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.5.749

Schultz, G. F., & Switzky, H. N. (1993). The academic achieve-ment of elementary and junior high school students with behav-ior disorders and their nonhandicapped peers as a function of

motivational orientation. Learning & Individual Differences, 5,31–42. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(93)90024-M

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004).The independent effects of goal contents and motives onwell-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475–486.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the class-room: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and studentengagement across the school year. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 85, 571–581. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.85.4.571

Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TATmeasures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses.Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140–154. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.140

Switzky, H. N. (2001). Personality and motivational self-systemprocesses in persons with mental retardation: Old memoriesand new perspectives. In H. N. Switzky (Ed.), Personality andmotivational differences in persons with mental retardation (pp.57–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributedachievement motives: Concordance and predictive validity.Journal of Personality, 70, 729–755.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsicand extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360).New York, NY: Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determi-nation and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motiva-tional model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 72, 1161–1176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1161

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., &Matos, L.(2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versusextrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus con-trolling communication style on early adolescents’ academicachievement. Child Development, 76, 483–501. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x

Verschueren, K., Marcoen, A., & Schoefs, V. (1996). The internalworking model of the self, attachment, and competence in five-year-olds. Child Development, 67, 2493–2511. doi:10.2307/1131636

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren – Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

Zhang, J. J., Smith, D.W., Lam, E. T. C., Brimer, J., & Rodriquez,A. (2002). Development of an evaluation scale to measure par-ticipant perceptions of after-school enrichment programs.Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6, 167–186. doi:10.1207/S15327841MPEE0603_2

Zigler, E. (2001). Looking back 40 years and still seeing the personwith mental retardation as a whole person. In H. N. Switzky(Ed.), Personality and motivational differences in persons withmental retardation (pp. 3–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

en G

urio

n U

nive

rsity

of t

he N

egev

], [Id

it K

atz]

at 0

7:42

14

July

201

4