Revisiting the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS)

Figures & data

Table 1. Fit indices for the tested models using ESEM (full scale).

Model description	Sample	χ^2 (df)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA [90% CI]	SRMR	BIC	Simple Structure	Problem(s)
M1 (5 factors)	S1/S2/S4/S5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	a
	S3	75.47 (50)	.99	.98	.03 [.01, .04]	.02	32 062	No	d
M2 (4 factors)	S1	197.98 (62)	.96	.92	.07 [.06, .08]	.02	25 206	No	b, c, d
	S2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	.03	29 377	No	b, c, d
	S3	145.04 (62)	.97	.94	.05 [.04, .06]	.02	32 063	No	b, d
	S4	146.80 (60)	.98	.95	.05 [.05, .06]	.03	27 647	No	b, d
	S5	141.18 (60)	.98	.95	.05 [.04, .06]	.03	29 230	No	d
M3 (4 factors)	S1	197.98 (62)	.96	.92	.07 [.06, .08]	.02	25 206	No	d, e
	S2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	.03	29 377	No	d, e
	S3	145.04 (62)	.97	.94	.05 [.04, .06]	.02	32 063	No	d
	S4	146.80 (60)	.98	.95	.05 [.04, .06]	.03	27 647	No	d, e
	S5	141.18 (60)	.98	.95	.05 [.04, .06]	.03	29 230	No	d, e
M4 (3 factors)	S1	297.70 (75)	.93	.89	.08 [.07, .09]	.04	25 258	No	d
	S2	200.40 (75)	.95	.92	.06 [.05, .07]	.03	29 367	No	d
	S3	246.78 (75)	.94	.90	.06 [.05, .07]	.04	32 091	No	d
	S4	366.23 (73)	.92	.87	.09 [.08, .10]	.04	27 812	No	d
	S5	331.55 (73)	.92	.87	.08 [.07, .09]	.04	29 367	No	d
M5 (2 factors)	S1	531.41 (89)	.86	.81	.10 [.09, .11]	.06	25 433	No	d
	S2	411.79 (89)	.87	.83	.08 [.08, .09]	.06	29 559	No	d
	S3	444.74 (89)	.87	.82	.08 [.07, .09]	.06	32 235	No	d
	S4	764.74 (87)	.81	.74	.12 [.11, .13]	.07	28 202	No	d
	S5	692.77 (87)	.82	.75	.11 [.11, .12]	.07	29 739	No	d

df = degrees of freedom. CFI = Comparative Fit Index. TLI = Tuckey-Lewis Index. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. CI = Confidence Interval. SRMR= Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. Problems a = negative residual variance/does not converge. b = significant cross-loadings between intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. c = ID2 does not load on identified regulation. d = INTRO1/INTRO2 do not load on introjected regulation, or load on identified regulation, external-social regulation, intrinsic motivation or autonomous motivation. e = significant cross-loadings between external-material and external-social regulation.

Table 2. Fit indices for the tested models using ESEM (ID2, INTRO1 and INTRO2 removed).

Model description	Sample	χ^2 (df)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA [90% CI]	SRMR	BIC	Simple Structure	Problems
M1a (5 factors)	S1/S2/S3/S4/S5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	a
M2a (4 factors)	S1/S4/S5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	a
	S2	159.80 (32)	.93	.84	.09 [.08, .10]	.02	24 309	No	b
	S3	40.90 (32)	1.00	.99	.02 [.00, .04]	.01	26 666	No	b
M3a (4 factors)	S1/S4/S5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	a
	S2	159.80 (32)	.93	.84	.09 [.08, .10]	.02	24 309	No	d
	S3	40.90 (32)	1.00	.99	.02 [.00, .04]	.01	26 666	Yes
M4a (3 factors)	S1	155.29 (42)	.95	.91	.07 [.06, .09]	.04	20 835	Yes
	S2	122.63 (42)	.96	.92	.06 [.05, .07]	.03	24 302	Yes
	S3	147.53 (42)	.95	.91	.06 [.05, .08]	.04	26 710	Yes
	S4	134.59 (40)	.97	.93	.07 [.06, .08]	.03	22 983	Yes
	S5	113.37 (40)	.97	.95	.06 [.05, .07]	.04	24 100	Yes
M5a (2 factors)	S1	320.10 (53)	.88	.83	.10 [.09, .11]	.06	20 949	Yes
	S2	252.95 (53)	.89	.84	.09 [.08, .10]	.06	24 406	No	c
	S3	313.12 (53)	.88	.83	.09 [.08, .10]	.06	26 828	Yes
	S4	447.22 (51)	.85	.78	.12 [.11, .13]	.07	23 281	Yes
	S5	397.58 (51)	.87	.80	.11 [.10, .12]	.07	24 390	Yes
M4b (Final model [M4a] with amotivation)	S1	127.31 (61)	.97	.94	.05 [.04, .06]	.02	23 247	Yes
	S2	162.18 (62)	.96	.91	.06 [.05, .07]	.03	28 463	Yes
	S3	169.05 (62)	.95	.90	.05 [.04, .06]	.03	29 450	Yes

df = degrees of freedom. CFI = Comparative Fit Index. TLI = Tuckey-Lewis Index. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. CI = Confidence Interval. SRMR= Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. Problems a = negative residual variance/does not converge. b = significant cross-loadings between intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. c = INTRO3 loads on autonomous motivation. d = significant cross-loadings between external-material and external-social regulation.

Table 3. Standardized factor loadings of the final ESEM solution (M4a).

	Autonomous motivation					Introjected regulation					External regulation
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5
IM1	.85*	.92*	.83*	.92*	.93*	−.02	−.10	−.02	−.07*	−.04	.03	−.01	−.01	.01	−.01
IM2	.92*	.87*	.85*	.90*	.91*	−.06*	−.07	−.04	−.08*	−.10*	.04	.04	.05	.04	.03
IM3	.87*	.86*	.84*	.91*	.89*	−.01	−.03	−.03	−.02	−.03	−.07*	−.06*	−.03	>0	−.01
ID1	.77*	.72*	.72*	.57*	.48*	.04	.03	.02	.27*	.34*	−.03	.01	−.05	−.09*	−.05
ID3	.58*	.57*	.49*	.75*	.68*	.16*	.27*	.22*	.12*	.11*	−.01	.01	.03	−.01	.03
INTRO3	.16*	.15*	.06*	.09*	.09*	.53*	.58*	.60*	.77*	.81*	.15	.02	.13*	.03	.06
INTRO4	−.05*	−.05	.01	.02	.04	1.01*	.69*	.85*	.85*	.78*	−.05	.08	−.04	.07*	.07*
EXS1	.06*	.16*	.03	.06	.02	−.03	.08	.01	−.03	−.04	.71*	.58*	.62*	.82*	.85*
EXS2	−.13*	−.08*	−.11*	−.23*	−.23*	.14*	.08	.02	.20*	.13*	.71*	.76*	.73*	.60*	.67*
EXS3	−.01	.04	.02	.23	.16*	.05	.24*	.11*	.02	.12*	.77*	.65*	.69*	.68*	.64*
EXM1	−.01	−.17*	−.12*	−.25*	−.21*	−.05	−.01	.10	.10*	.09	.64*	.53*	.36*	.37*	.34*
EXM2	−.05	−.01	.04	−.04	.07	<0	−.28*	−.16	−.16*	−.13*	.22*	.49*	.34*	.46*	.40*
EXM3	−.08	.05	.18*	.07	.14*	−.11	−.20*	−.17*	−.07	−.18*	.55*	.61*	.39*	.54*	.51*

IM = Intrinsic motivation. ID = Identified regulation. INTRO = Introjected regulation. EXS = External regulation-social. EXM = External regulation-material.

* p < .05.

Table 4. Measurement Invariance of the final ESEM solution (M4a) of the MWMS across samples and languages.

							Comparison of invariance models
	χ^2 (df)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA [90% CI]	SRMR	BIC		∆χ^2 (∆ df)	∆ CFI	∆ TLI	∆ RMSEA
Configural invariance (M6)	667.27 (206)	.96	.95	.07 [.06, .07]	.03	119 437	M7 vs M6	516.24* (120)	.03	.04	.00
Weak invariance (M7)	1 186.31 (326)	.93	.91	.07 [.07, .07]	.08	119 105	M8a vs M7	170.33* (27)	.02	.00	.00
Strong invariance (M8)	2 278.33 (366)	.84	.83	.10 [.10, .10]	.10	120 025
Strong partial invariance (M8a)	1 356.78 (353)	.91	.91	.07 [.07, .08]	.08	119 078	M9a vs M8a	213.1* (24)	.01	.01	.01
Factor variance-covariance invariance (M9)	2 504.31 (390)	.82	.82	.10 [.10, .10]	.17	120 111
Factor partial variance-covariance invariance (M9a)	1 562.21 (377)	.90	.90	.08 [.07, .08]	.16	119 118
Mean invariance (M10)	4 904.12 (402)	.61	.62	.15 [.14, .15]	.35	122 767
Mean partial invariance (M10a)	4204.70 (389)	.67	.67	.14 [.13, .14]	.34	122 070

df = degrees of freedom. CFI = Comparative Fit Index. TLI = Tuckey-Lewis Index. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. CI = Confidence Interval. SRMR= Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.

* p ≤ .01.

Table 5. Standardized factor loadings of the final ESEM solution with amotivation (M4b) for samples 1–3.

	Autonomous motivation			Introjected regulation			External regulation			Amotivation
	S1	S2	S3	S1	S2	S3	S1	S2	S3	S1	S2	S3
IM1	.87*	.89*	.82*	−.01	−.09*	−.02	.02	.01	<0	.07*	−.08*	−.03
IM2	.91*	.87*	.84*	−.05*	−.06	−.03	.05	.04	.05	−.02	−.03	−.03
IM3	.85*	.86*	.83*	−.01	−.03	−.04	−.06*	−.07*	−.02	−.04	−.01	−.04
ID1	.76*	.71*	.73*	.04	.05	.02	−.02	<0	−.05	−.03	−.01	>0
ID3	.56*	.63*	.51*	.16*	.27*	.22*	<0	−.02	.03	−.04	.11*	.03
INTRO3	.14*	.12*	.05	.52*	.60*	.62*	.18*	.06	.13*	−.08	−.12*	−.04
INTRO4	−.02	.02	.03	1.02*	.65*	.82*	−.06	.07	−.03	.05*	.12*	.05
EXS1	.04	.14*	.01	−.04	.09	.02	.72*	.59*	.62*	−.07	−.05	−.07*
EXS2	−.12*	−.12*	−.13*	.13*	.09	.03	.72*	.79*	.73*	.02	−.09*	−.05
EXS3	−.02	.05	.04	.05	.22*	.12*	.79*	.66*	.68*	−.05	.01	.02
EXM1	<0	−.16*	−.01	−.06	<0	.09	.64*	.52*	.36*	.05	.04	.08
EXM2	.03	>0	.07	.04	−.28*	−.18*	.12*	.46*	.36*	.26*	.05	.08
EXM3	.11*	.08	.21*	−.10	−.20*	−.18*	.51*	.57*	.40*	.08	.11*	.06
AMO1	−.13	−.08	−.18*	−.03	.03	−.04	.07	−.01	.11*	.51*	.66*	.41*
AMO2	−.18*	−.11*	−.08	.13*	.09*	.05	.04	.01	−.02	.36*	.72*	.73*
AMO3	.11*	.13*	.11*	−.03	−.09*	−.01	−.02	.04	−.02	.87*	.81*	.90*

IM = Intrinsic motivation. ID = Identified regulation. INTRO = Introjected regulation. EXS = External regulation-social. EXM = External regulation-material. AMO = Amotivation.

* p < .05.

Table 6. Correlations between the types of behavioural regulation (final ESEM solution).

	Autonomous motivation	Introjected regulation	External regulation
Sample 1
1- Autonomous motivation	–
2- Introjected regulation	.10*	–
3- External regulation	−.04	.43**	–
4- Amotivation	−.35**	−.01	.21**
Sample 2
1- Autonomous motivation	–
2- Introjected regulation	.21**	–
3- External regulation	−.15**	.24**	–
4- Amotivation	−.38**	.01	.35**
Sample 3
1- Autonomous motivation	–
2- Introjected regulation	−.01	–
3- External regulation	−.12*	.40**	–
4- Amotivation	−.35**	.06	.13*
Sample 4
1- Autonomous motivation	–
2- Introjected regulation	.10	–
3- External regulation	−.04	.33**	–
4- Amotivation	–	–	–
Sample 5
1- Autonomous motivation	–
2- Introjected regulation	.16**	–
3- External regulation	.08	.37**	–
4- Amotivation	–	–	–

Samples 1-3: M4b and samples 4-5: M4a.

** p < .01; * p < .05.

Table 7. The outcomes of the types of behavioural regulation.

	Turnover intention					Satisfaction		Emotional Exhaustion			Vigor/Vitality				Performance
	β (S.E.)					β (S.E.)		β (S.E.)			β (S.E.)				β (S.E.)
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S1	S2	S1	S2	S3	S1	S2	S3	S4	S1	S2	S3
Autonomous motivation	−.24* (.07)	−.31* (.06)	−.27* (.06)	−.53* (.04)	−.54* (.04)	.50* (.05)	.74* (.04)	−.38* (.05)	−.33* (.06)	−.29* (.05)	.74* (.04)	.48* (.05)	.53* (.05)	.65* (.03)	.26* (.07)	.22* (.07)	.26* (.05)
Introjected regulation	.07 (.07)	.14* (.06)	.12* (.06)	.04 (.05)	.22* (.05)	−.06 (.06)	−.01 (.06)	.22* (.09)	.32* (.07)	.15* (.06)	−.12* (.06)	.14 (.07)	.06 (.05)	−.10* (.05)	−.02 (.07)	.06 (.06)	.19* (.06)
External regulation	.18* (.08)	.03 (.06)	>0 (.06)	−.06 (.06)	−.02 (.05)	−.10 (.06)	−.11* (.05)	.15 (.08)	−.04 (.07)	.13* (.06)	−.04 (.06)	−.27* (.06)	−.16* (.05)	.01 (.05)	.02 (.07)	>0 (.06)	−.23* (.06)
Amotivation	.26 (.14)	.26* (.08)	.13 (.08)	--	--	.01 (.07)	−.06 (.06)	−.04 (.08)	.10 (.08)	.04 (.07)	−.03 (.07)	−.04 (.07)	.01 (.05)	--	−.14 (.09)	−.11 (.07)	−.11 (.08)

β = Standardized coefficient. S.E. = Standard error. Satisfaction: sample 1 = life satisfaction, sample 2 = job satisfaction.

Note: * p ≤ .05.

Table

Intrinsic motivation	IM1	Because the work I do is interesting.
	IM2	Because what I do in my work is exciting.
	IM3	Because I have fun doing my job.
Identified regulation	ID1	Because putting efforts in this job aligns with my personal values.
	ID2*	Because I personally consider it important to put efforts in this job.
	ID3	Because putting efforts in this job has personal significance to me.
Introjected regulation	INTRO1*	Because I have to prove to myself that I can.
	INTRO2*	Because it makes me feel proud of myself.
	INTRO3	Because otherwise I will feel bad about myself.
	INTRO4	Because otherwise I will feel ashamed of myself.
Extrinsic	EXS1	To get others’ approval (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients …).
regulation – social	EXS2	To avoid being criticized by others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients …).
	EXS3	Because others will respect me more (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients …).
Extrinsic	EXM1	Because I risk losing my job if I don’t put enough effort in it.
regulation – material	EXM2	Because others will reward me financially only if I put enough effort in my job (e.g., employer, supervisor …).
	EXM3	Because others offer me greater job security if I put enough effort in my job (e.g., employer, supervisor …).
Amotivation	AMO1	I don’t, because I really feel that I’m wasting my time at work.
	AMO2	I don’t know why I’m doing this job, it’s pointless work.
	AMO3	I do little because I don’t think this work is worth putting efforts into.

*Removed items.