Validity and Reliability of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire in Physical Education With Spanish Secondary School Students

Abstract

Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, the objective of this study was to adapt the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire (IBQ) to the Spanish physical education (PE) context and to examine its psychometric properties using a sample of Spanish secondary school students. The participants were 478 secondary school students (220 boys and 258 girls; M_age = 14.56, SD_age = 1.06) who received two 60-minute compulsory PE classes per week. A confirmatory factor analysis psychometrically underpinned a 24-item six-factor correlated model (i.e. autonomy, competence and relatedness supportive and autonomy, competence and relatedness thwarting behaviors) that was invariant across gender and age. A reliability examination found appropriate levels of internal consistency and temporal stability for the instrument’s six factors. A partial correlation analysis showed that while the three types of need-supportive behaviors from PE teachers were positively correlated with need satisfaction and autonomous motivation; the three types of need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers were positively correlated with need frustration, controlled motivation and amotivation. Thus, this study showed that the Spanish version of the IBQ is valid and reliable for assessing PE students’ perceptions of the six specific types of interpersonal behavior that may be adopted by PE teachers.

Keywords

need-supportive teaching need-thwarting teaching interpersonal style controlling style motivating style teaching style teaching behavior motivation

Introduction

Physical education (PE) teachers have been referenced as pivotal figures for promoting students’ learning, motivation, wellbeing and active PE participation (Pérez-González et al., 2019; Van den Berghe et al., 2014). Indeed, previous studies have well documented that students’ experiences in PE are mainly predicted by features of their general relationships with their PE teacher, and with particular interpersonal behaviors adopted by the teacher (Curran & Standage, 2017; Van den Berghe et al., 2014; Vasconcellos et al., 2019). Thus, there is currently a substantial body of research that has attempted to examine how PE teachers’ interpersonal behaviors are relevant to variability in students’ affect, behaviors and cognitions within the PE context. Most research on PE teachers’ interpersonal behaviors has been based in contemporary theories of motivation, including Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

SDT is an organismic and dialectic macro-theory focused on social environmental factors that facilitate or undermine autonomous motivation over time (Ryan & Deci, 2017). According to this theoretical framework, six specific types of PE teacher interpersonal behaviors can be clearly distinguished: (a) autonomy-supportive behaviors provide both choice and rationale for tasks, recognize other’s viewpoints, and give opportunities for initiative; (b) competence-supportive behaviors provide both positive feedback and expectancies, from a belief that others are able to accomplish goals, and include encouragement to enhance others’ abilities; (c) relatedness-supportive behaviors display support, understanding and care for others out of an interest in their activities, and show a special connection with others as a person; (d) autonomy-thwarting behaviors utilize an intimidating and coercive language, make demands without rationales, and incorporate conditional rewards; (e) competence-thwarting behaviors emphasize others’ mistakes, discourage others from attempting difficult activities, and are based in doubt about whether others’ skills should be enhanced; and (f) relatedness-thwarting behaviors include distance from others, not listening to them, and excluding them from activities (Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al., 2017). These six specific types of interpersonal behaviors are conceptualized as three need-supportive versus three need-thwarting behaviors (Tóth-Király et al., 2020).

According to the tenets outlined by SDT, need-supportive and need-thwarting interpersonal behaviors are two clearly distinguishable constructs (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). A position proposed in emerging research is that low levels of need-supportive behaviors do not automatically imply the presence of need-thwarting behaviors (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). In other words, low scores of need-supportive behaviors may simply represent the absence of any perception of support (e.g., opportunities for choice, positive feedback or emotional support) rather than the presence of need-thwarting behaviors (e.g., intimidating and coercive language, messages to make others doubt their skills or their exclusion from activities) in a given context (Bartholomew et al., 2010).

In this same vein, need-supportive and need-thwarting interpersonal behaviors may coexist concurrently in a particular context, with each contributing differentially to the prediction of different motivational processes and outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Particularly, need-supportive behaviors would likely be related primarily to the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (BPN) for autonomy (i.e. perceived experiences to be causal agent), competence (i.e. perceived efficacy and mastery to accomplish goals) and relatedness (i.e. strong interpersonal connections with other people), and autonomous motivation (i.e. behavioral regulation based on experiences of psychological freedom, volition and reflective self-endorsement). Thus, need-supportive behaviors would contribute to a deeper explanation of the bright motivational path (i.e. the human tendency towards psychological growth, integration, proactivity and wellbeing) described by SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Conversely, need-thwarting behaviors would likely be associated primarily with the frustration of the BPNs for autonomy (i.e. perception of being controlled by external or self-imposed pressures), competence (i.e. perceptions of failure and inefficacy to achieve goals) and relatedness (i.e. perceptions of being socially rejected), and controlled motivation (i.e. behavioral regulation based on experiences of pressure and coercion to think, feel and behave in a specific manner) and amotivation (i.e. the full lack of behavioral regulation). In this way, need-thwarting behaviors would provide a better understanding of the dark motivational path (i.e. the tendency towards non-optimal functioning, fragmentation, passivity and ill-being) outlined by SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In the specific PE context, previous research has consistently shown a positive relationship between autonomy-supportive behaviors from PE teachers and BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation (Behzadnia et al., 2018; Fin et al., 2019; Haerens et al., 2015, 2018). Instead, need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers have been found to be positively correlated with BPN frustration, controlled motivation and amotivation (Behzadnia et al., 2018; Haerens et al., 2015, 2018). As need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers lead to different consequences, there is a need to analyze them in the PE context as independent constructs.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence that SDT-based instruments have been used to examine simultaneously all six specific dimensions of interpersonal behaviors from PE teachers in the international or specific Spanish context. So far, previous PE research in this realm has combined the use of a series of distinct instruments to assess students’ perceptions of need-supporting and need-thwarting behaviors from their PE teachers. Most of these instruments have mainly measured autonomy-supportive behaviors, both in international (e.g. Haerens et al., 2013; Hagger et al., 2007; Tilga et al., 2017; Williams & Deci, 1996) and Spanish (e.g. Burgueño et al., 2020; Granero-Gallegos et al., 2014; Moreno-Murcia et al., 2008) settings. Only two studies used tools that also measured competence and relatedness supportive behaviors from PE teachers (see Sánchez-Oliva et al., 2013; Van den Berghe et al., 2015), even though these tools have been rarely used. Consequently, little is known about the potential role that PE teachers’ competence and relatedness supportive behaviors might have on PE students’ psychological and motivational experiences. On the other hand, a series of measures of need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers have been developed and researched at the international level, using both multidimensional (e.g. Bartholomew et al., 2010; De Meyer et al., 2016; Van den Berghe et al., 2013) and unidimensional (e.g. Soenens et al., 2012) approaches and sometimes adapted specifically to the Spanish PE context (e.g. Moreno-Murcia et al., 2018; Trigueros et al., 2017, 2020). However, this research and these instruments were not based on the current SDT perspective that emphasizes a clear distinction between autonomy, competence and relatedness thwarting interpersonal behaviors. Additionally, the use of this large variety of different instruments, separately measuring need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviors, may result in overlapping findings that mask conceptual divergence among the tools and then lead to inconsistences in measurement (Rodrigues et al., 2019).

Notwithstanding the specific limitations found in the Spanish PE context, Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al. (2017) have recently developed the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire (IBQ) for international use in order to simultaneously judge perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness supportive and thwarting interpersonal behaviors in the general life domain. In a validation study, Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al. (2017) gathered validity evidence based on the IBQ’s internal structure for a 24-item six-factor correlated model that remained invariant over gender. Additionally, the different correlational analyses showed values ranging from .61 to .78, suggesting support for conceptual divergence among the six factors comprising the instrument’s internal structure. Reliability evidence was provided by the estimation of Cronbach alpha (α ranging from .75–.81) and average variance extracted (AVE over .50) for the six dimensions of the IBQ. Criterion validity evidence was demonstrated by a series of partial correlation analyses. The resultant IBQ 24-item, three-factor, correlated model has obtained a good psychometric performance for its adaptation to the Canadian sports context (Rocchi, Pelletier, & Desmarais, 2017) and the Portuguese exercise setting (Rodrigues et al., 2019).

In this research, we aimed to adapt the IBQ to the Spanish PE setting and to examine the psychometric properties of the adapted instrument with a sample of secondary school PE students. We sought to provide validity evidence based on the adapted tool’s internal structure through a confirmatory factor analysis and two multi-group analyses to test gender and age invariance, respectively. We also sought reliability evidence through an examination of internal consistency and temporal stability. Additionally, we sought the instrument’s criterion validity evidence through a series of partial correlation analyses examining the associations of all autonomy, competence and relatedness supportive and thwarting behaviors on the satisfaction and frustration of each BPN, and on autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and amotivation. According to the assumptions proposed by SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and following previous studies (Behzadnia et al., 2018; Fin et al., 2019; Haerens et al., 2015, 2018), we hypothesized that the three types of need-supportive behaviors from PE teachers would be positively and significantly correlated to the satisfaction of each BPN and autonomous motivation. Similarly, we expected that the three types of need-thwarting behaviors would be positively and significantly associated with the frustration of each BPN, controlled motivation and amotivation.

Method

Participants

The participating sample included 478 secondary school students (220 boys and 258 girls), aged 13-17 years old (M_age = 14.56 years, DT_age = 1.06), who received two 60-minute compulsory PE classes a week. PE classes were taught by eight distinct PE specialist teachers, who held a Bachelor of Science in Physical Activity and Sport Sciences and a Professional Master of Education (post-primary PE), and who had a teaching experience of 5-18 years (M_experience = 11.89 years, SD_experience = 2.43).

All participants were enrolled in three distinct public secondary schools from a city located in the southeast of Spain; 32 (6.69%) students claimed to belong to ethnic minority communities.

To analyze the scale’s temporal stability, we used a second independent sample of 85 secondary school students (49 boys and 36 girls), aged 14-16 years old (M_age = 15.11, SD_age = 0.77). This group completed the Spanish version of the IBQ, adapted to PE, twice with a two-week interval between the first and second test administration.

Before administrating the questionnaires, the researchers contacted each of the three secondary schools participating in order to obtain the schools’ authorization. Then, the research team also contacted PE teachers to solicitate their collaboration and to provide the written informed consent to the parents of potential participants. Thus, only those students who returned parent-signed written informed consent could take part in this research (501 students, out of a total of 589 eligible students). A total of 18 (3.59%) students expressed, even after returning their written informed consent, that they did not wish to take part in the research, and five (1.00%) students did not attend class the day that the questionnaire was administrated, leading to an adjusted total of research sample 478 participants. Prior to completing the questionnaires, the researchers informed the students that participation was voluntary and anonymous. The research team explained to the students that they need only express their opinions and perceptions of their PE lessons. During the administration of the questionnaires, the researchers were available to deal with any question that could arise. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Human Research of the University of Granada.

Instruments

PE Teachers’ Interpersonal Behaviors

To measure students’ perceptions of interpersonal behaviors adopted by PE teachers, we employed the Spanish version adapted to PE of the IBQ (Appendix; Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al., 2017). This 24-item six-factor instrument assessed autonomy-supportive behaviors (four items, e.g. “Encourages me to make my own decisions”), competence-supportive behaviors (four items, e.g. “Provides valuable feedback”), relatedness-supportive behaviors (four items, e.g. “Is interested in what I do”), autonomy-thwarting behavior (four items, e.g. “Pressures me to do things their way”), competence-thwarting behaviors (four items, e.g. “Questions my ability to overcome challenges”) and relatedness-thwarting behaviors (four items, e.g. “Is distant when we spend time together”). The statement “My PE teacher…” preceded the instrument. The responses to every item were collected on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

BPN Satisfaction in PE

To measure the students’ perception of BPN satisfaction in PE class, we utilized the Spanish version (Menéndez-Santurio & Fernández-Río, 2018) of the Basic Physical Needs in Physical Education Scale (Vlachopoulos et al., 2011). This 12-item three-factor instrument judged the degree of satisfaction of the BPN for autonomy (four items, e.g. “I feel that the way PE is taught is the way I would like to”), competence (four items, e.g. “I feel I perform correctly even the tasks considered difficult by most of the students”) and relatedness (four items, e.g. “I feel like I have a close bond with my classmates”). The statement “In my PE classes…” preceded to the scale. The responses to each item were measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

BPN Frustration in PE

To measure the students’ perception of BPN frustration in PE class, we used the Spanish version adapted to PE (Burgueño, Sánchez-Gallardo, et al., 2019) of the Psychological Need Thwarting Scale (Bartholomew et al., 2011). This 11-item three-factor scale judged the degree of frustration of the need for autonomy (four items, e.g. “I feel pushed to behave in certain way”), competence (four items, e.g. “There are situations where I am made to feel inadequate”) and relatedness (three items, e.g. “I feel I am rejected by those around me”). The statement “In my PE classes…” preceded to the scale. The responses to the totality of items were collected on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Motivation in PE

To measure students’ behavioral regulation in PE, we used the Spanish version with the inclusion of the integrated regulation measurement (Ferriz et al., 2015) of the Perceived Locus of Causality Scale (Goudas et al., 1994). This 24-item six-factor instrument assessed the perception of intrinsic motivation (four items, e.g. “I enjoy learning new skills”), integrated regulation (four items, e.g. “I consider PE a fundamental part of who I am”), identified regulation (four items, e.g. “I want to improve in sport”), introjected regulation (four items, e.g. “I want to get a good report in PE”), external regulation (four items, e.g. “I’ll get in trouble if I don’t”) and amotivation (four items, e.g. “I don’t see why we should have PE lessons”). The statement “I take part in PE lessons because…” preceded to this questionnaire. The responses to each item were measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In line with the SDT perspective (for details Vansteenkiste et al., 2010) and following previous studies (Burgueño, González-Cutre, et al., 2019; Sebire et al., 2011; Seghers et al., 2014), we estimated the autonomous motivation mean score by averaging the items of intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation and identified regulation. Furthermore, we calculated the controlled motivation mean score by taking the average of the items of introjected regulation and external regulation.

Procedure

In order to adapt the IBQ to the Spanish PE context, we followed the strategies proposed by Bartram et al. (2018), including, first, the back-translation strategy. Two translators first translated the scale from English into Spanish. Next, two other translators translated the scale from Spanish into English. Second, a judgement of equivalence was performed by the main author of this study to verify the degree of agreement between the original version and the last version translated from Spanish. Third, a panel of three experts with wide expertise in SDT and PE adapted the Spanish version of the instrument from the general life domain to PE. Fourth, four new experts proceeded to qualitatively and individually analyze the content of each item, considering its representativeness to the factor it was intended to measure, its relevance to the definition of the target construct, and the degree of clarity in its writing (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014). For these qualitative analyses, expert judges gave ratings on a 5-point Likert scale (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014). From the responses provided by each expert, we calculated a content validity index (CVI; Lynn, 1986) of agreement between experts, considering values equal to .80 or higher as suitable (Lynn, 1986). Specifically, the CVI for the totality of cases was over .80 in representativeness (ranging from .80 for item number 10 and .90 to item number 13), relevance (ranging from .85 for item 10 to .95 for item 17) and clarity (ranging from .80 for item 23 to 1.00 for item 2). Fifth, we conducted a pilot study with a separate group of secondary school students (n = 14), who had detected no problems understanding the content of each of the 24 items comprising the instrument. Hence, the scale adaptation process showed evidence of test content validity.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were estimated for each target variable and the univariate normality assumption was examined by standardized values for univariate skewness and kurtosis coefficients. Standardized and absolute values as high as 1.96 make one not reject the univariate normality assumption (Field, 2017). Additionally, independent t-tests and Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to analyze differences by gender and age in the study variables.

To provide validity evidence based on the instrument’s internal structure, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis and two multi-group factor analyses. The confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the maximum likelihood method with the 5000-sample bootstrapping technique, due to a violation of the multivariate normality assumption (a Mardia’s coefficient = 148.19, p < .01) (Kline, 2015). To judge the goodness of fit, we used a variety of fit indexes: rate between χ² and degree of freedom (χ²/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with its 90% confidence internal (90% CI). Values lower than 3 for the χ²/df statistic, over .95 for CFI, TLI and IFI along with values below .080 and .060 for SRMR and RMESA are considered to be representative of a good fit. As such off-cut points could be too restrictive to assess the goodness-of-fit, Hair et al. (2018) hold that values higher than .92 for CFI, TLI and IFI in conjunction with values below .070 for RMSEA would be indicative of a reasonable fit. The standardized regression weights are appropriate with values higher than .40 (Hair et al., 2018). The correlations among factors display an adequate level of conceptual divergence when the upper bound of its 95% confidence interval does not exceed 1.00 in absolute terms (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

To test invariance over gender and age, we conducted a multi-group factor analysis in accordance with the methodological approach outlined by Putnick and Bornstein (2016). This proposal successively examines the tenability of four increasingly constrained models to test configural invariance (i.e. no equality constraints), metric invariance (e.g. equal item loadings), strong invariance (e.g. equal item loading and item intercepts, simultaneously) and strict invariance (i.e. item loadings, item intercepts and item error variances, simultaneously). Difference between each two increasingly constrained models was judged on the basis of CFI and RMSEA value. Differences below .010 and .015 in CFI and RMSEA value would support the instrument’ invariance assumption (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). To determine age invariance, we used median as a criterion to create two groups. The first group, younger students, included 247 secondary school students (102 boys and 145 girls; M_age = 13.68, DT_age = 0.47), while the second group, older students, was formed by 231 secondary school students (118 boys and 113 girls; M_age = 15.49, DT_age = 0.61).

To display reliability evidence, Cronbach’s alpha (α), Raykov’s composite reliability (ρ) coefficient and average variance extracted (AVE) were estimated to analyze internal consistency. While Cronbach’s alpha and Raykov’s composite reliability coefficients are acceptable with values over .70 (Viladrich et al., 2017); AVE is suitable with values above .50 (Hair et al., 2018). Moreover, intra-class correlation coefficient was calculated to examine temporal stability. This coefficient is appropriate when the lower bound of its 95% confidence interval is higher than .75 (Koo & Li, 2016). To gather criterion validity evidence, a series of partial correlation analyses were conducted for each dimension of need-supportive and need-thwarting behavior individually, controlling for its respective need-supportive or need-thwarting behavior dimension. The different factor analyses were run with IMB SPSS AMOS v.25, while the internal consistency, temporal stability, partial correlation analyses, descriptive statistics and independent t-tests were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics v. 25.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Gender and Age Differences

Table 1 shows that the three specific types of need-supportive behaviors obtained a mean score higher than the three particular dimensions of need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers. Similarly, satisfaction of each BPN and autonomous motivation scored higher than frustration of each BPN, controlled motivation and amotivation. Standardized values ranged from –0.86 to 1.03 for skewness and from –0.57 to 0.66 for kurtosis, underpinning the univariate normality assumption. Independent t-tests showed that boys obtained higher mean values of autonomy and competence thwarting behaviors, competence need satisfaction, and autonomous and controlled motivation than girls. Instead, girls scored higher than boys in competence-supportive behaviors and competence need frustration. Furthermore, while older students showed higher mean values of autonomy, competence and relatedness supportive behaviors and autonomy need satisfaction than younger students; these younger students scored higher than older students in autonomy-thwarting behaviors.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences by Gender and Age for the Target Variables.

	Total sample				Boys		Girls		t-tests		Younger students		Older students		t-tests
	M	SD	γ ₁	γ ₂	M	SD	M	SD	t	d	M	SD	M	SD	t	d
Autonomy-supportive behavior	4.82	1.25	−0.42	−0.34	4.74	1.30	4.89	1.21	1.13	0.10	4.46	1.29	5.21	1.09	−6.91***	0.63
Competence-supportive behaviors	5.62	1.12	−0.86	0.44	5.49	1.24	5.73	1.00	2.31*	0.21	5.38	1.17	5.87	1.01	−4.85***	0.45
Relatedness-supportive behaviors	4.76	1.36	−0.49	−0.17	4.76	1.40	4.75	1.32	0.09	0.01	4.35	1.36	5.20	1.22	−7.19***	0.66
Autonomy-thwarting behaviors	3.30	1.29	0.15	−0.57	3.48	1.37	3.16	1.19	2.74**	0.25	3.47	1.24	3.13	1.31	2.91**	0.27
Competence-thwarting behaviors	2.28	1.09	0.84	0.46	2.41	1.15	2.17	1.03	2.43*	0.22	2.34	1.05	2.21	1.14	1.24	0.12
Relatedness-thwarting behaviors	2.43	1.28	0.01	0.27	2.48	1.33	2.38	1.23	0.78	0.08	2.69	1.34	2.14	1.14	4.83***	0.44
Autonomy need satisfaction	3.05	0.90	0.01	−0.56	3.05	0.90	3.06	0.90	−0.06	0.01	2.93	0.87	3.19	0.91	−3.20***	0.29
Competence need satisfaction	3.18	0.98	0.71	0.66	3.45	0.82	2.95	1.05	5.72***	0.53	3.15	1.03	3.22	0.93	−0.87	0.07
Relatedness need satisfaction	3.81	0.81	−0.65	0.43	3.79	0.74	3.83	0.87	−0.62	0.06	3.85	0.73	3.78	0.89	1.01	0.09
Autonomy need frustration	2.46	1.30	0.75	−0.23	2.51	1.34	2.42	1.27	0.75	0.07	2.51	1.23	2.41	1.38	0.82	0.08
Competence need frustration	2.66	1.54	0.85	−0.11	2.39	1.42	2.90	1.60	−3.60***	0.34	2.73	1.44	2.59	1.64	0.98	0.09
Relatedness need frustration	2.28	1.33	1.03	0.21	2.24	1.30	2.31	1.35	−0.60	0.05	2.25	1.23	2.31	1.42	−0.52	0.05
Autonomous motivation	5.19	1.29	−0.62	−0.18	5.47	1.15	4.96	1.36	4.45***	0.41	5.19	1.22	5.19	1.37	0.05	0.00
Controlled motivation	3.47	1.22	0.01	−0.51	3.66	1.23	3.31	1.19	3.22***	0.29	3.50	1.20	3.45	1.24	0.47	0.05
Amotivation	2.28	1.40	1.01	0.09	2.21	1.37	2.34	1.42	−1.06	0.09	2.25	1.38	2.31	1.42	−0.48	0.04

***p<.001. **p<.01. *p<.05.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The 24-item six-factor correlated model obtained a good fit: χ² (237, N = 478) = 553.25, p < .001; χ²/df = 2.33; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; IFI = .93; SRMR = .047; RMSEA = .053 (90% CI = .047, .059). The standardized regression weights were between .53 and .82, each of which reaching the level of statistical significance (p < .001). The correlations among factors ranged from –.69 and .93; however, the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the correlation (autonomy-supportive and competence-supportive behaviors) with the highest value did not exceed 1.00 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Spanish Physical Education version of the Interpersonal Behavior Questionnaire. Note: The ellipses represent each of the six latent factors, while the rectangles symbolize the distinct items of the instrument. The numbers in parentheses show the confidence interval at 95% calculated by bootstrapping.

Invariance Analysis

Table 2 shows values lower than .010 and .015 for CFI and RMSEA among each two increasingly constrained models. Hence, the null hypothesis of gender and age invariance could not be rejected.

Table 2.

Multigroup Analyses for Gender and Age Invariance.

Gender Invariance
	χ²	Df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	IFI	SRMR	RMSEA (90%CI)	MC	Δχ²	Δdf	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
1. Configural invariance	828.91	474	1.75	.920	.905	.921	.056	.040 (.035, .044)	–	–	–	–	–
2. Metric invariance	850.33	492	1.73	.919	.908	.920	.059	.039 (.035, .044)	2 versus 1	21.42	18	−.001	−.001
3. Strong invariance	898.95	516	1.74	.913	.906	.913	.059	.039 (.035, .044)	3 versus 2	48.63**	24	−.004	.000
4. Strict invariance	944.37	540	1.75	.907	.905	.907	.061	.039 (.035, .044)	4 versus 3	45.41**	24	−.008	.000
Age Invariance
	χ²	Df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	IFI	SRMR	RMSEA (90%CI)	MC	Δχ²	Δdf	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
1. Configural invariance	900.62	474	1.90	.906	.897	.908	.061	.043 (.039, .048)	–	–	–	–	–
2. Metric invariance	920.86	492	1.87	.905	.900	.907	.065	.043 (.039, .047)	2 versus 1	20.24	18	−.001	.000
3. Strong invariance	1000.23	516	1.94	.900	.891	.901	.069	.044 (.040, .049)	3 versus 2	79.37***	24	−.005	.001
4. Strict invariance	1082.23	540	2.01	.894	.881	.895	.073	.046 (.042, .050)	4 versus 3	82.60***	24	−.006	.002

Note: MC = Model Comparison

***p< .001. ** p<.01. *p< .05.

Reliability Analysis

The internal consistency analysis showed acceptable values for autonomy supportive (α = .79, ρ = .81, AVE = .52), competence supportive (α = .81, ρ = .82, AVE = .54), relatedness supportive (α = .84, ρ = .85, AVE = .58), autonomy thwarting (α = .78, ρ = .80, AVE = .50), competence thwarting (α = .80, ρ = .81, AVE = .51) and relatedness thwarting (α = .82, ρ = .82, AVE = .54) behaviors.

The temporal stability examination yielded ICC values of .89 (95% CI = .82, .94) for autonomy supportive, .84 (95% CI = .75, .91) for competence supportive, .88 (95% CI = .80, .93) for relatedness supportive, .81 (95% CI = .75, .89) for autonomy thwarting, .87 (95% CI = .78, .93) for competence thwarting and .85 (IC95% = .76, .93) for relatedness thwarting behaviors.

Partial Correlation Analysis

Table 3 displays that the students’ perceptions of the three specific types of need-supportive behaviors from PE teachers were positively and significantly correlated to the satisfaction of the three BPN and autonomous motivation in PE students, respectively. A negative and significant correlation was also found between competence-supportive behaviors from PE teachers and amotivation. On the other hand, the students’ perception of each of the three types of need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers were positively and significantly correlated to the frustration of each BPN, controlled motivation and amotivation among PE students.

Table 3.

Partial Correlations Between Teachers’ Interpersonal Behaviors, and Need Perceptions and Behavioral Regulation in Physical Education.

	Basic psychological need satisfaction			Basic psychological need frustration			Behavioral regulation
	Autonomy	Competence	Relatedness	Autonomy	Competence	Relatedness	Autonomous	Controlled	Amotivation
AS (AT)	.48***	.20***	.14**	−.14**	−.09	−.01	.25***	−.09	−.02
CS (CT)	.19***	.44***	.14**	−.06	−.15**	−.01	.30***	−.04	−.12**
RS (RT)	.10*	.18***	.42***	−.01	−.08	−.11*	.18***	−.08	−.04
AT (AS)	−.10*	−.01	.00	.29***	.18***	.17***	−.01	.24***	.18***
CT (CS)	−.03	−.05	−.04	.23***	.34***	.22***	−.04	.19***	.26***
RT (RS)	.00	−.02	−.07	.12**	.16***	.26***	−.10*	.16***	.25***

Note: AS = Autonomy Support; CS = Competence Support; RS = Relatedness Support; AT = Autonomy Thwarting; CT = Competence Thwarting; RT = Relatedness Thwarting. The control variable is in parenthesis.

*** p<.001. **p<.01. *p< .05.

Discussion

The objective of this research was to adapt the IBQ to the Spanish PE context and to examine its psychometric properties using a sample of secondary school PE students. As a whole, the results from this study provide evidence of validity and reliability supporting the IBQ-PE as a psychometrically robust instrument for assessing PE students’ perceptions of need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers within the Spanish context.

The results that emerged from confirmatory factor analysis show that the 24-item six-factor correlated model obtained a good fit to the observed data. These findings were similar to those found for both the original version of the IBQ (Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al., 2017), and its adaptations to other contexts (Rocchi, Pelletier, & Desmarais, 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2019). Moreover, the totality of standardized regression weights was over .40 and reached statistical significance, indicating that each suitably represented the factor theoretically intended. The correlations from the confirmatory factor analysis showed moderate values among most factors, consistent with those found in previous research (Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al., 2017; Rocchi, Pelletier, & Desmarais, 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2019; Tóth-Király et al., 2020). Furthermore, the upper bound of the 95% CI of any correlation was lower than the unit as an absolute value, therefore underpinning the conceptual divergence between the six factors comprising this instrument. However, there were high values for the correlations among the three specific types of need-supportive behaviors from PE teachers. Such values would suggest a certain difficulty of secondary school students to discriminate differences between those particular teaching behaviors associated with providing them with choice, rationale for activities and recognition of their opinions (autonomy support), those teaching behaviors aiming to provide them with positive feedback and encourage them to improve their skills and accomplish their goals (competence support) and those teaching behaviors fostering support, understanding and the display of a special link with them as a teacher (relatedness support). Therefore, additional research is required to ascertain if these results were mainly due to the specific features of the secondary PE school setting.

The results from the two multi-group analyses provide support for the instrument’s invariance across gender and age. These findings not only are in line with the results reported in previous studies regarding gender invariance of the IBQ (Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al., 2017; Rocchi, Pelletier, & Desmarais, 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2019), but also they add evidence of age invariance for this instrument. These results are of practical utility because they underpin the use of the IBQ in analyzing possible differences in the perception of the six specific dimensions of interpersonal behaviors from PE teachers between boys and girls with distinct age in the secondary school PE setting. With respect to the instrument’s reliability, the internal consistency analysis displayed suitable values for each of the six factors comprising the instrument, consistent with findings from previous research (Rocchi, Pelletier, Cheung, et al., 2017; Rocchi, Pelletier, & Desmarais, 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2019; Tóth-Király et al., 2020). Likewise, the temporal stability analysis also showed appropriate values for the six factors of the instrument. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to gather supportive evidence of the instrument’s temporal stability, adding new psychometric support for the IBQ’s reliability.

The results of the different partial correlation analyses provide criterion validity evidence for the Spanish PE version of the IBQ. These findings are congruent with the hypotheses raised in this study and, to some extent, with previous studies in the PE context (Behzadnia et al., 2018; Fin et al., 2019; Haerens et al., 2015, 2018), given that they exclusively considered the measurement of autonomy-supportive behaviors as a general indicator of need-supportive behaviors, and need-thwarting behaviors were mainly assessed by unidimensional measures. In this same vein, these results show how students’ perceptions of interpersonal behaviors from PE teachers were differentially associated with specific psychological and motivational experiences in the PE context, consistent with the asserts described by SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2020; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). In particular, while the three specific types of need-supportive behaviors from PE teachers were positively and significantly related to the satisfaction of each BPN and autonomous motivation, the three particular dimensions of need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers were positively and significantly associated with the frustration of the three BPNs, controlled motivation and amotivation. Thus, autonomy, competence and relatedness thwarting behaviors from PE teachers are more closely linked to the dark motivational path outlined by SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020) by directly fostering experiences of BPN frustration and maladaptive behavioral regulation among students in the PE setting. Instead, the three specific types of need-supportive behaviors from PE teachers are more strongly related to the bright motivational path given that they primarily promoted experiences of BPN satisfaction and optimal behavioral regulation in students in the PE context. More specifically, it should be underscored that competence-supportive behaviors adopted by PE teachers also performed a buffering role against the students’ amotivation in the PE domain. This suggests that when students perceived that their PE teachers provide them with positive feedback, use positive expectancies for them, and believe in their skills to successfully carry out challenging activities in class, they start to be motivated by feeling competent to perform the behaviors necessary to accomplish desired outcomes in class, show a true interest in PE and value it positively.

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

Although the results of this research are encouraging for the use of the IBQ in the Spanish PE setting, some study limitations should be mentioned. First, the use of a purposive sampling technique does not allow us to generalize these findings to a broader population. Thus, new studies are required to analyze the psychometric properties of the Spanish PE version of the IBQ for students of different educational levels (e.g. primary school, vocational education or high education), students from different types of school (e.g. private) and students from different social and cultural contexts. Second, while this is the first study to assess the IBQ’s temporal stability using a two-week time interval, this time period could be considered too short for this type of analysis. Further research should provide additional evidence on the stability of IBQ scores using longer time intervals as this is a requirement for longitudinal and experimental research in the specific PE field. Third, the adoption of a cross-sectional design does not allow us to establish a causal relationship between the target variables. Therefore, future studies are needed to adopt longitudinal or experimental designs to help clarify how the six specific dimensions of interpersonal behaviors from PE teachers impact the student’s perception of BPN satisfaction and frustration, and behavioral regulation within the secondary school PE setting. Fourth, this study did not consider the possible effect a student’s grades may have had on their development of motivational and psychological experiences in PE lessons. Further research should analyze grades obtained by students when examining the influence of the perceived social environment on motivational dynamics and behavioral, cognitive and affective consequences displayed by students in the PE context.

Conclusion

This study provided a substantial body of psychometric evidence in support of the Spanish PE version of the IBQ as a valid and reliable instrument to assess the student’s perceptions of the three specific types of need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviors from PE teachers. Thus, this new multidimensional instrument can now contribute to a more detailed analysis of the role that each of the six specific types of interpersonal behaviors from PE teachers may play in the prediction of psychological and motivational experiences, as well as students’ affects, behaviors and cognitions in the context of secondary school PE. Furthermore, the Spanish PE version of the IBQ can help ascertain if the different interpersonal behaviors adopted by PE teachers influence BPN satisfaction and frustration and behavioral self-regulation in the same manner. Similarly, this instrument can enhance understanding of the specific role that each type of PE teachers’ interpersonal behaviors plays in the development and maintenance of students’ autonomous motivation and internalization of behaviors in PE class. Finally, this measure permits a deeper examination of how the student’s perception of the six particular dimensions of interpersonal behaviors from PE teachers may fluctuate over time.

Appendix

My Physical Education teacher… [Mi profesor de Educación Física…]

Autonomy-supportive behaviors
1. Gives me the freedom to make my own choices [Me da libertad para elegir]
7. Supports my decisions [Apoya mis decisiones]
13. Supports the choices that I make for myself [Apoya las elecciones que hago]
19. Encourages me to make my own decisions [Me anima a tomar mis propias decisiones]
Competence-supportive behaviors
2. Encourages me to improve my skills [Me anima a mejorar mis habilidades]
8. Provides valuable feedback [Proporciona correciones útiles]
14. Acknowledges my ability to achieve my goals [Reconoce mi habilidad para conseguir mis metas]
20. Tells me that I can accomplish things [Me dice que puedo lograr cosas]
Relatedness-supportive behaviors
3. Is interested in what I do [Se interesa por lo que hago]
9. Takes the time to get to know me [Dedica tiempo a conocerme]
15. Honestly enjoy spending time with me [Realmente le gusta pasar tiempo conmigo]
21. Relates to me [Se relaciona conmigo]
Autonomy-thwarting behaviors
4. Pressures me to do things their way [Me presiona para hacer las cosas a su manera]
10. Imposes their opinions on me [Impone sus ideas]
16. Pressures me to adopt certain behaviors [Me presiona para realizar ciertos comportamientos]
22. Limits my choices [Limita mis decisions]
Competence-thwarting behaviors
5. Points out that I will likely fail [Me dice que seguramente me equivoque]
11. Sends me the message that I am incompetent [Me envía mensajes de que soy torpe]
17. Doubts my capacity to improve [Duda de mis capaicades para mejorar]
23. Questions my ability to overcome challenges [Cuestiona mis habilidades cuando me enfrento a retos]
6. Does not comfort me when I am feeling low [No me consuela cuando me siento mal]
12. Is distant when we spend time together [Es distante en clase]
18. Does not connect with me [No conecta conmigo]
24. Does not care about me. [No se preocupa por mí]

Note: Items from the Spanish Physical Education version of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire are displayed in square brackets.

Footnotes

Article Notes

ORCID iDs

Rafael Burgueño

Jesús Medina-Casaubón

References

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Bartholomew

K. J.

Ntoumanis

Ryan

R. M.

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

(2011). Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of athletic experience. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.75

Bartholomew

K. J.

Ntoumanis

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

(2010). The controlling interpersonal style in a coaching context: Development and initial validation of a psychometric scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.2.193

Bartram

Berberoglu

Grégoire

Hambleton

R. K.

Muñiz

van de Vijver

(2018). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (second edition). International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166

Behzadnia

Adachi

P. J.

Deci

E. L.

Mohammadzadeh

(2018). Associations between students’ perceptions of physical education teachers’ interpersonal styles and students’ wellness, knowledge, performance, and intentions to persist at physical activity: A self-determination theory approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.003

Burgueño

González-Cutre

Sevil-Serrano

Herrador-Colmenero

Segura-Díaz

J. M.

Medina-Casaubón

Chillón

(2019). Understanding the motivational processes involved in adolescents’ active commuting behaviour: Development and validation of the behavioural regulation in active commuting to and from school (BR-ACS) questionnaire. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.02.016

Burgueño

Macarro-Moreno

Medina-Casaubón

(2020). Psychometry of the multidimensional perceived autonomy support scale in physical education with Spanish secondary school students. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019901253

Burgueño

Sánchez-Gallardo

Macarro-Moreno

Lirola

M. J.

Medina-Casaubón

(2019). Examining maladaptive functioning in physical education: A psychometric analysis of the psychological need thwarting scale among Spanish secondary students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(6), 1158–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519868368

Curran

Standage

(2017). Psychological needs and the quality of student engagement in physical education: Teachers as key facilitators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(3), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0065

10.

De Meyer

Soenens

Aelterman

De Bourdeaudhuij

Haerens

(2016). The different faces of controlling teaching: Implications of a distinction between externally and internally controlling teaching for students’ motivation in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(6), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1112777

11.

Ferriz

González-Cutre

Sicilia

(2015). Revision of the perceived locus of causality scale (PLOC) to include the measure of integrated regulation in physical education. Revista de Psicologia Del Deporte, 24(2), 329–338.

12.

Field

(2017). Discoring statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

13.

Fin

Moreno-Murcia

J. A.

León

Baretta

Nodari Júnior

R. J.

(2019). Teachers’ interpersonal style in physical education: Exploring patterns of students’ self-determined motivation and enjoyment of physical activity in a longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02721

14.

Goudas

Biddle

Fox

K. R.

(1994). Perceived locus of causality, goal orientations, and perceived competence in school physical education classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(3), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1994.tb01116.x

15.

Granero-Gallegos

Baena-Extremera

Sánchez-Fuentes

J. A.

Martínez-Molina

(2014). Spanish validation of the learning climate questionaire adapted to physical education. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27(4), 625–633. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.201427403

16.

Haerens

Aelterman

Van den Berghe

De Meyer

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

(2013). Observing physical education teachers’ need-supportive interactions in classroom settings. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.1.3

17.

Haerens

Aelterman

Vansteenkiste

Soenens

Van Petegem

(2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16(3), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013

18.

Haerens

Vansteenkiste

De Meester

Delrue

Tallir

I. B.

Vande Broek

Goris

Aelterman

(2018). Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: Identifying the most optimal motivating style. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2017.1346070

19.

Hagger

Chatzisarantis

N. L. D.

Hein

Pihu

Soós

Karsai

(2007). The perceived autonomy support scale for exercise settings (PASSES): Development, validity, and cross-cultural invariance in young people. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(5), 632–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.09.001

20.

Hair

J. F. J.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.

21.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.

22.

Koo

T. K.

M. Y.

(2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

23.

Lynn

M. R.

(1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386.

24.

Menéndez-Santurio

J. I.

Fernández-Río

(2018). Spanish version of the basic psychological needs in physical education scale. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de La Actividad Física y El Deporte, 18(69), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.15366/rimcafd2018.69.008

25.

Moreno-Murcia

J. A.

Huéscar-Hernández

Ruiz

(2018). Perceptions of controlling teaching behaviors and the effects on the motivation and behavior of high school physical education students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 2288. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102288

26.

Moreno-Murcia

J. A.

Parra-Rojas

González-Cutre

(2008). Influence of autonomy support, social goals and relatedness on amotivation in physical education classes. Psicothema, 20(4), 636–641.

27.

Pérez-González

A. M.

Valero-Valenzuela

Moreno-Murcia

J. A.

Sánchez-Alcaraz

B. J.

(2019). Systematic review of autonomy support in physical education. Apunts. Educación Física y Deportes, 138(4), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2019/4).138.04

28.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

29.

Rocchi

Pelletier

Cheung

Baxter

Beaudry

(2017). Assessing need-supportive and need-thwarting interpersonal behaviours: The interpersonal behaviours questionnaire (IBQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.034

30.

Rocchi

Pelletier

Desmarais

(2017). The validity of the interpersonal behaviors questionnaire (IBQ) in sport. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 21(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2016.1242488

31.

Rodrigues

Pelletier

L. G.

Neiva

H. P.

Teixeira

D. S.

Cid

Monteiro

(2019). Initial validation of the Portuguese version of the interpersonal behavior questionnaire (IBQ & IBQ-Self) in the context of exercise: Measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00374-y

32.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. https://doi.org/10.7202/1041847ar

33.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

34.

Sánchez-Oliva

Leo

F. M.

Amado-Alonso

Cuevas

García-Calvo

(2013). Development and validation of the basic psychology need support questionnaire in physical education [Desarrollo y validación del cuestionario de apoyo a las necesidades psicológicas básicas en educación física]. Motricidad. European Journal of Human Movement, 30, 53–71.

35.

Sebire

S. J.

Standage

Vansteenkiste

(2011). Predicting objectively assessed physical activity from the content and regulation of exercise goals: Evidence for a mediational model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.2.175

36.

Seghers

Vissers

Rutten

Decroos

Boen

(2014). Intrinsic goals for leisure-time physical activity predict children’s daily step counts through autonomous motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.01.003

37.

Sireci

Faulkner-Bond

(2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256

38.

Soenens

Sierens

Vansteenkiste

Dochy

Goossens

(2012). Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025742

39.

Tilga

Hein

Koka

(2017). Measuring the perception of the teachers’ autonomy-supportive behavior in physical education: Development and initial validation of a multi-dimensional instrument. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 21(4), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2017.1354296

40.

Tóth-Király

Morin

A. J. S.

Gillet

Bőthe

Nadon

Rigó

Orosz

(2020). Refining the assessment of need supportive and need thwarting interpersonal behaviors using the bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00828-8

41.

Trigueros

Aguilar-Parra

J. M.

González-Santos

Cangas

A. J.

(2020). Validation and adaptation to the physical education context of the psychological control teaching scale, and its effect on the frustration of basic psychological needs. Retos, 37, 167–173.

42.

Trigueros

Fernández-Campoy

J. M.

Alías

Aguilar-Parra

J. M.

Lozano Segura

M. C.

(2017). Adaptación y validación española del controlling coach behaviors scale (CCBS). International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology. Revista INFAD de Psicología, 2(1), 417. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2017.n1.v2.954

43.

Van den Berghe

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

Aelterman

Cardon

Tallir

I. B.

Haerens

(2013). Observed need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior in physical education: Do teachers’ motivational orientations matter? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 650–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.04.006

44.

Van den Berghe

Tallir

I. B.

Cardon

Aelterman

Haerens

(2015). Student (dis)engagement and need-supportive teaching behavior: A multi-informant and multilevel approach. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37(4), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0150

45.

Van den Berghe

Vansteenkiste

Cardon

Kirk

Haerens

(2014). Research on self-determination in physical education: Key findings and proposals for future research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.732563

46.

Vansteenkiste

Niemiec

C. P.

Soenens

(2010). The development of the five mini-theories of Self-Determination Theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In Urdan

T. C.

Karabenick

S. A.

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 105–165). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0749-7423(2010)000016a007

47.

Vansteenkiste

Ryan

R. M.

(2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359

48.

Vansteenkiste

Ryan

R. M.

Soenens

(2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1

49.

Vasconcellos

Parker

P. D.

Hilland

Cinelli

Owen

K. B.

Kapsal

Lee

Antczak

Ntoumanis

Ryan

R. M.

Lonsdale

(2019). Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000420

50.

Viladrich

Angulo-Brunet

Doval

(2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Annals of Psychology, 33(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401

51.

Vlachopoulos

S. P.

Katartzi

E. S.

Kontou

M. G.

(2011). The basic psychological needs in physical education scale. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.30.3.263

52.

Williams

G. C.

Deci

E. L.

(1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767