Similar but different: Profiling secondary school students based on their perceived motivational climate and psychological need-based experiences in physical education

performance-approach goal (e.g., ‘It is important for me to do better than other students in this PE class’), and performance-avoidance goal (e.g., ‘I just want to avoid doing poorly in PE class’). A Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (‘not at all true for me’) to 5 (‘very true for me’). Internal consistencies of mastery approach goal, mastery avoidance goal and for performance approach goal were satisfactory (see Table 2). The Cronbach’s Alpha of .56 for performance avoidance goal was less satisfactory. However, Kline [57] notes that when dealing with psycho- logical constructs, values below .70 can, realistically, be expected. Furthermore, the value depends on the number of items on the scale [58], and the number of items within the scale of performance avoidance goal is only three. Given that the α value was in line with the original findings of the validation research of Wang et al. [14] and the fact that deleting items from the analysis had no relevant positive effect on the Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale, it was decided to keep the performance avoidance goal scale for further analysis. Motivational regulation. Students’ motivational regulations towards PE in general, were assessed by using an adapted version of the Behavioural Regulations in Physical Education Questionnaire (BRPEQ) [34]. The original questionnaire (i.e. BRPEQ) includes 20 items reflecting autonomous motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation (4 items); identified regulation (4 items)), controlled motivation (i.e., introjected regulation (4 items); external regulation (4

items)), and amotivation (4 items). Given the usability and feasibility of the total questionnaire applied in this study, the number of items of the BRPEQ was reduced from 20 to 12 items on the basis of the factor analyses by Aelterman et al. [34] and Haerens et al. [42], and after per- sonal communication with the authors of these studies. The introductory stem ‘In general I put effort in PE class. . .’ was followed by 4 items reflecting autonomous motivation (2 x 2 items; e.g., ‘because I enjoy it’; ‘because I find PE personally meaningful’), 4 items reflected controlled motivation (2 x 2 items; e.g., ‘because I have to prove myself’; ‘because I feel the pressure of others to participate’) and 4 items reflected amotivation (e.g., ‘I find PE a waste of time’). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all true for me’) to 5 (‘very true for me’). Subscale scores (i.e., higher order factors) were calculated by averaging the four items. Cronbach’s Alpha scores were calculated for each subscale (see Table 2). Valuation of PE. Students’ general valuation of PE was measured using a single item (‘What grade would you give PE class in general?’). This item was scored on a 10-point scale (1 = very poor; 10 = very good). This satisfaction measurement is familiar to students as it is part of the Dutch education and evaluation system. Leisure Time Sport Participation (LTSP). The Netherlands have a strong system and tra- dition of sports clubs. With 62 sports clubs on average per municipality, sports clubs play a

central role in the Dutch sports system. The self-reported amount of students’ sport participa- tion during leisure time was measured using the single item ‘Do you practice sports/ sports activities outside the school setting? (for example, football, field hockey, tennis, fitness, swimming, Table 2. Overview and descriptive statistics of motivational constructs to describe and compare profiles. Motivational construct Items α n Mean Min Max SD Performance Approach Goals 3 .83 2,562 2.59 2.36 2.91 .95 Performance Avoidance Goals 3 .56 2,562 2.85 1.99 3.51 .82 Mastery Approach Goals 3 .80 2,562 3.52 3.38 3.72 .82 Mastery Avoidance Goals 3 .80 2,562 2.34 2.18 2.56 .89 Autonomous Motivation 4 .88 2,562 3.49 3.25 3.72 .94 Controlled Motivation 4 .68 2,562 2.04 1.72 2.36 .70 Amotivation 4 .91 2,562 2.16 2,13 2.22 1.02 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228859.t002 Similar but different PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228859 February 10, 2020 6 / 17