Learning and Individual Differences 67 (2018) 259–265

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Development and validation of the brief regulation of motivation scale T

⁎
Yeo-eun Kim , Anna C. Brady, Christopher A. Wolters
Walter E. Dennis Learning Center, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study was to develop and establish evidence supporting the validity of a brief scale designed
Regulation of motivation to assess college students' regulation of motivation. This scale, titled the Brief Regulation of Motivation Scale, is
Measurement more manageable to administer and intuitive to interpret compared to previous lengthy multidimensional scales.
Validity With a sample of 396 college students, multiple sources of validity evidence were examined. Exploratory and
Self-regulated learning
confirmatory analyses supported two separate factors subsequently titled regulation of motivation and will-
power. The patterns of correlations between the two factors and critical aspects of self-regulated learning (e.g.,
motivation, learning strategies) were consistent with theoretical expectations. Only the regulation of motivation
factor successfully predicted students' reported use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their pro-
crastination. Overall, we found stronger support for the validity of regulation of motivation scale, by itself, as an
indicator of students' general tendency to self-regulate their motivation.

1. Introduction 1.1. Understanding regulation of motivation

Students are often faced with motivational challenges while com-
pleting academic activities. Students may perceive required tasks as
irrelevant, boring, and/or difficult. A large and still growing body of
evidence suggests that students' ability to respond productively and
persist in the face of these challenges can have an important impact on
their learning and achievement (Boekaerts, 1997; Cooper & Corpus,
2009; Corno, 2001; Duckworth, 2016; Wolters, 2003). Regulation of
motivation, or students' active efforts to sustain or enhance their own
motivation (Wolters, 2003), represents one key self-regulatory process
that has proven useful for understanding these effects. Students might
regulate their motivation using a variety of strategies. For example,
students may provide rewards for themselves or change their sur-
roundings to increase or sustain their motivation on a particular task
(Wolters, 2003).
The growing recognition of regulation of motivation as an important
self-regulatory process highlights the need for rigorous assessments. At
this point, however, few instruments are available for assessing the
regulation of motivation (e.g., Schwinger, von der Laden, & Spinath,
2007; Wolters & Benzon, 2013) and the characteristics of these in-
struments constrain their usefulness with regard to some research
purposes. Our goal was to offer a new tool for the assessment of reg-
ulation of motivation by developing and evaluating a shorter self-report
instrument that provides a global and contextually sensitive indication
of students' regulation of motivation.
Self-regulated learning is a purposeful, autonomous, and strategic
process that learners can engage in while completing academic activ-
ities (Pintrich & Zusho, 2007; Wolters, 2003; Zimmerman, 2000). Ac-
cording to Pintrich's (2004) framework, students can plan, monitor,
control, and regulate four inter-related aspects of their learning in-
cluding motivation, cognition, behavior, and context. The regulation of
motivation, or motivational regulation, represents one essential aspect
of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2004; Winne & Hadwin, 2012;
Wolters, 2003). Despite its presumed importance, previous research has
tended to focus on the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of self-
regulated learning, leaving much room for investigations focused on
how students may monitor and control their own motivation.
Still, regulation of motivation has received increasing attention
since Wolters (1998) identified several strategies that college students
use to regulate their motivation. In an effort to enhance or maintain
their motivation, students can deliberately manage their motivation
when faced with motivational challenges (Cooper & Corpus, 2009;
Wolters, 2003). Wolters and Benzon (2013) suggested that students
may use various strategies to sustain or enhance their motivation for
completing academic tasks.
Considering the numerous motivational challenges students en-
counter, monitoring and regulating motivation can have a critical in-
fluence on their learning and achievement. Although the empirical re-
search in this area is still young, researchers have found increased use

⁎
Corresponding author at: Walter E. Dennis Learning Center, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, 250G Younkin, 1640 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201-
2333, USA.
E-mail addresses: kim.6105@osu.edu (Y.-e. Kim), brady.1493@osu.edu (A.C. Brady), wolters.21@osu.edu (C.A. Wolters).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.010
Received 20 June 2017; Received in revised form 14 December 2017; Accepted 22 December 2017
1041-6080/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Y.-e. Kim et al.
of regulation of motivation strategies to be associated positively with
the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Schwinger et al.,
2007; Wolters, 1999b; Wolters & Benzon, 2013). In addition, students'
reported use of regulation of motivation strategies has been associated
positively with indicators of choice, effort, and persistence (Cooper &
Corpus, 2009; Pintrich, 2004; Schwinger, Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2012;
Wolters, 2003; Wolters & Benzon, 2013; Zimmerman, 2000).
1.2. Assessing regulation of motivation
Considering its significance to self-regulated learning and its con-
nection to their academic engagement and success, researchers have
worked to develop valid assessments of students' regulation of moti-
vation. These assessments have primarily consisted of self-report in-
struments designed to tap into an array of distinct regulation of moti-
vation strategies (e.g., Schwinger et al., 2007; Wolters & Benzon, 2013).
For instance, Wolters (1998, 1999a, 1999b) first developed a self-report
instrument assessing college students' reported use of five regulation of
motivation strategies. More recently (Wolters & Benzon, 2013), this
instrument was revised to be a 30-item scale that differentiated six
regulation of motivation strategies including regulation of value, reg-
ulation of performance goals, self-consequating, environmental struc-
turing, and regulation of situational interest. Additionally, the items
from Wolters (1999b) have served as the basis for at least two similar
instruments. Schwinger et al. (2007) developed a 30-item German in-
strument that distinguished between eight regulation of motivation
strategies, adding proximal goal setting and performance-avoidance
self-talk to the strategies originally identified by Wolters (1999a,
1999b). Similarly, Gonzalez, Dowson, Brickman, and McInerney (2006)
created a 35-item scale that assessed seven regulation of motivation
strategies, which were similar to the dimensions suggested by Wolters
(2003).
1.3. Limitations of the existing instruments
Given their common source, the existing instruments share three
features that limit their usefulness for some purposes. First, the in-
struments are lengthy, each containing 30 to 35 items (e.g., Schwinger
et al., 2007; Wolters & Benzon, 2013). This is in contrast to scales de-
veloped to assess other self-regulation strategies used by students. For
example, the most common instrument used to assess cognitive and
metacognitive strategies among college students includes just 19 and 12
items respectively (Pintrich, Smith, García, & McKeachie, 1993).
Lengthy instruments can be unnecessarily burdensome, time-con-
suming, and expensive to administer when assessing regulation of
motivation as part of an array of variables needed to test complex
structural models.
Second, each of the existing instruments was designed to produce
multiple indicators of students' reported use of specific types of stra-
tegies for the regulation of motivation. For instance, the instruments
generate six to eight dimensions, each representing a different type of
strategy for regulating motivation (e.g., Schwinger et al., 2007; Wolters
& Benzon, 2013). Multidimensional instruments that assess an array of
different motivational strategies are necessary for some purposes. For
instance, these assessments allow researchers to study whether parti-
cular strategies are related to other aspects of self-regulated learning or
achievement (Schwinger, Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2009; Wolters &
Benzon, 2013). However, research that seeks to understand potential
influences on students' overall level of regulation of motivation, may be
disadvantaged by instruments that produce up to eight separate in-
dicators of regulation of motivation. A more parsimonious scale that
demands less time to administer and produces a single general indicator
of regulation of motivation would expand the tools that researchers
have available, providing possibilities for the study of additional the-
oretical questions.
A third characteristic that limits the usefulness of existing
260
Learning and Individual Differences 67 (2018) 259–265
instruments is rooted in the way that these instruments contextualize
students' responses. Students' achievement motivation is contingent, at
least in part, on contextual influences (Pintrich & Zusho, 2007). Simi-
larly, students' engagement in regulation of motivation is a function of
the particular problems, obstacles, or setbacks they experience within a
given context (Engelschalk, Steuer, & Dresel, 2016; Hadwin & Oshige,
2011; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Wolters, 2003). Further, the responses
students provide to any self-report instrument are dependent on their
accurate recall and thoughtful consideration of experiences relevant to
the item prompt (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). Both recall and con-
sideration are subject to various biases that can distort students' re-
sponses (Veenman, 2011). The overall validity of any assessment of
students' regulation of motivation, therefore, is contingent on its ability
to invoke appropriate episodes for students to consider when for-
mulating their responses in ways that might help to minimize these
biases. The most common existing instruments address this need to
contextualize students' responses by activating situational cues in the
instructions of the instruments. For instance, instructions ask students
to think about or recall experiences in which they did not feel moti-
vated (Schwinger et al., 2007; Wolters, 1998; Wolters & Benzon, 2013).
This approach can be criticized because it provides too much variance
in the type of situation that students recall. As well, it may be in-
sufficient for capturing the breadth of situations or problems that re-
quire students to engage in regulation of motivation. An instrument that
assesses students' general tendency to deliberately manage their own
motivation in response to a larger set of motivational obstacles would
allow students an opportunity to contextualize their regulation of mo-
tivation, thus answering items more accurately.
1.4. Present study
The goal of the present study was to construct and evaluate a new
instrument for assessing regulation of motivation that avoided the
structural limitations of existing instruments. More specifically, we set
out to develop a brief instrument that would produce a unidimensional
indicator of students' general tendency to regulate their motivation. In
service of this goal, we wanted an assessment that would contextualize
students' responses to a wider variety of motivational obstacles that
they face when completing academic work. In this study, we evaluated
the Brief Regulation of Motivation Scale (BRoMS) with regard to three
core aspects of validity (American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association, and National Council on
Measurement in Education, 2014). First, we used exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses to examine the evidence of internal
structure. We hypothesized that the new scale would be unidimen-
sional. Second, we evaluated the evidence based on relations with
conceptually related variables by conducting correlational analyses. We
hypothesized that the BRoMS would be positively related to students'
grit and their achievement goals, value, and self-efficacy for self-regu-
lated learning. Third, we assessed the evidence based on relations with
criteria by examining whether scores from the new instrument would
predict other strategies and procrastination. We hypothesized that
higher scores on BRoMS would predict reportedly higher use of cog-
nitive and metacognitive strategies and lower procrastination tenden-
cies.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were students (N = 396) from a large Midwestern
university in the US enrolled in a 3-credit hour, letter-graded semester-
long, learning-to-learn course (223 males, 56%). The average age of the
participants was 20.4 years (SD = 2.7) and included 74 freshmen, 121
sophomores, 91 juniors, and 84 seniors. Based on academic records,
most participants were categorized as White (62.9%), African American
Y.-e. Kim et al. Learning and Individual Differences 67 (2018) 259–265

(10.1%), Asian (7.3%), or Hispanic (3.5%). The study obtained ap-
proval from the institutional review board and the research was con-
ducted in accordance with the human subjects guidelines.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Regulation of motivation
Students' regulation of motivation was assessed with a new instru-
ment titled the Brief Regulation of Motivation Scale (BRoMS). Led by
the third author, the 12 items of this instrument were developed by a
group of researchers with expertise in regulation of motivation. The
BRoMS differed from existing measures of regulation of motivation
(e.g., Schwinger et al., 2007; Wolters & Benzon, 2013) in three key
ways. First, the BRoMS included substantially fewer items than pre-
vious measures of regulation of motivation (e.g., Schwinger et al.,
2007). Second, items on the BRoMS assessed students' general beliefs
about their engagement in regulation of motivation when studying,
reading, or completing assignments for school, rather than their re-
ported use of particular regulation of motivation strategies. That is, the
items did not require students to report on their use of a specific reg-
ulation of motivation strategy (e.g., I promise myself I can do something
I want later if I finish the assigned work now), but rather their overall
tendency to respond to the cued motivational challenges in a way
meant to sustain or improve their motivation (e.g., If I feel like stopping
before I'm really done, I have strategies to keep myself studying.).
Third, a specific motivational challenge was incorporated into the text
of each item (e.g., “If studying gets too boring, …”). As a result, the
BRoMS sampled a broader set of motivational challenges, and did more
to ensure that the nature of these challenges were salient when students
responded to each item (see Table 1 for complete list of items). Overall,
the BRoMS was designed to provide a short assessment of college stu-
dents' perceived general tendency to engage in regulation of motivation
in response to a variety of common motivational challenges.
2.2.2. Grit
Students' overall trait-level persistence and passion towards long-
term goals was assessed with a total grit score (8 items; α = 0.72 for the
present sample) from the Short Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).
In line with our underlying model (Pintrich & Zusho, 2007), grit was
viewed as a potential antecedent to students' use of self-regulation
strategies. Grit has been positively related to students' use of regulation
of motivation strategies and achievement (Muenks, Wigfield, Yang, &
O'Neal, 2017; Wolters & Hussain, 2015).
2.2.3. Motivation
Achievement goals were assessed using items derived from Elliot and
Murayama (2008), which included mastery approach (3 items,
α = 0.75), mastery avoidance (3 items, α = 0.67), performance ap-
proach (3 items, α = 0.85), and performance avoidance (3 items,
α = 0.85) goals. This instrument has been used extensively in previous
research (Howell & Watson, 2007; Phan, 2013). Value was measured
using four items (Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008)
that reflected students' perceived usefulness and importance of their
current course materials (α = 0.83). This scale has been validated for
use with college students (Hulleman et al., 2008). Self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning was assessed using eleven items (Zimmerman,
Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) that reflected students' perceived
beliefs in their self-regulatory capabilities (α = 0.83). Past work has
indicated that this scale is correlated positively with students' academic
self-efficacy, comprehension, and performance (Bong, 2001; Usher &
Pajares, 2008; Zimmerman et al., 1992).
2.2.4. Learning strategies
Students' reported use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
were assessed using items primarily derived from the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1993).
Cognitive strategies (17 items, α = 0.75) measured students' use of
learning strategies for processing information including rehearsal, ela-
boration, and organization strategies. Metacognitive strategies (19 items,
α = 0.88) measured students' use of strategies for planning, mon-
itoring, and regulating their cognitive engagement. Similar measures of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies have been linked to engagement
and performance repeatedly in prior research with college students
(Duncan & McKeachie, 2005).
2.2.5. Procrastination
Students' reported tendency to postpone academic tasks was as-
sessed using items derived from Tuckman's (1991) scale (16 items,
α = 0.92). Procrastination has been shown to be negatively correlated
with motivation and academic achievement (Klassen, Krawchuk, &
Rajani, 2008).
2.3. Procedures
Students completed online self-report surveys outside of class time
as part of their regular course assignments at two time points during the
spring 2015 semester. Grit and motivation were measured during the
second week of the semester; while regulation of motivation, learning
strategies, and procrastination were measured during the seventh week

Table 1
Summary of item-level descriptive statistics and factor loading for the brief regulation of motivation scale.

Items M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis Factor 1 Factor 2

Factor 1. Regulation of motivation

I use different tricks to keep myself working, even if I don't feel like studying. 3.20 0.92 1 5 − 0.31 −0.60 0.87
If I lose interest in an assignment, I have ways to boost my effort to get it done. 3.20 0.95 1 5 − 0.43 −0.64 0.80
If I feel like stopping before I'm really done, I have strategies to keep myself studying. 3.12 0.96 1 5 − 0.25 −0.92 0.66
Even when studying is hard, I can figure out a way to keep myself going. 3.43 0.91 1 5 − 0.60 −0.10 0.60
It's easy for me to make myself study, even if I would rather be doing something else. 2.67 1.06 1 5 0.20 −0.86 0.56
If what I am studying seems unimportant, I can still convince myself to stick with it. 3.13 0.99 1 5 − 0.33 −0.69 0.50
If I need to, I have ways of convincing myself to keep working on a tough assignment. 3.55 0.91 1 5 − 0.62 −0.13 0.49
If studying gets too boring, I find a way to make it fun. 2.60 0.96 1 5 0.28 −0.48 0.48
Factor 2. Willpower
Even if a reading seems pretty pointless, I still push myself to keep going till it is done. 3.11 1.03 1 5 − 0.35 −0.73 0.87
If a reading is difficult, I still find a way to stick with it and finish the job. 3.28 0.94 1 5 − 0.53 −0.49 0.79
I push myself to keep working even when a reading is really dull. 3.19 1.01 1 5 − 0.40 −0.66 0.73
I can force myself to keep reading, even if I feel like giving up. 3.15 1.00 1 5 − 0.39 −0.71 0.55
Eigenvalue 5.63 1.22
Percentage of variance explained 46.88 10.20

Note. N = 396 for descriptive statistics, N = 198 for the exploratory factor analysis. Factor loadings below 0.30 are not shown in table.

261
Y.-e. Kim et al. Learning and Individual Differences 67 (2018) 259–265

Table 2
Correlations for the brief regulation of motivation scale and other variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Regulation of motivation −
2. Willpower 0.65⁎⁎ −
3. Grit 0.42⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ −
4. Mastery approach 0.18⁎⁎ 0.15⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ −
5. Mastery avoidance 0.02 −0.01 0.27⁎⁎ 0.06 −
6. Performance approach − 0.05 −0.10 0.34⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎ 0.01 −
7. Performance avoidance − 0.15⁎ −0.19⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎ 0.74⁎⁎ −0.09 −
8. Value 0.09 0.02 0.49⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.14 −
9. Self-efficacy for SRL 0.48⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎ 0.06 0.09 −0.06 0.26⁎⁎ 0.57⁎⁎ −
10. Cognitive strategies 0.49⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.27⁎⁎ 0.46⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ −
11. Metacognitive strategies 0.56⁎⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 0.07 − 0.02 −0.08 0.15⁎⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 0.68⁎⁎ −
12. Procrastination − 0.38⁎⁎ −0.27⁎⁎ − 0.29⁎⁎ − 0.08 0.04 0.13⁎ − 0.19⁎⁎ −0.48⁎⁎ − 0.44⁎⁎ − 0.26⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎ −

Note. N = 396.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.

of the semester. Survey directions asked students to consider the
courses they were currently taking and all items were measured on a 5-
point response scale with higher scores indicating greater agreement
(e.g., value) or increased frequency (e.g., procrastination) with regard
to the relevant construct. Although some of the items used to assess
motivation, learning strategies and procrastination originated from in-
struments (e.g., MSLQ) that did not rely on a 5-point response scale, we
elected to use a consistent response scale that would reduce confusion.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 1 provides the item-level descriptive statistics for the BRoMS.
Scores on all 12 items reflected the full range of the response scale (i.e.,
from 1 to 5) and each had a standard deviation of approximately 1.0.
Mean values for all items were within one-half standard deviation of the
center of the response scale (i.e., 3). No ceiling effects or floor effects
were identified for any of the items. Skewness and kurtosis were within
the range of −1 to +1, suggesting that scores for all items reasonably
reflected a normal distribution (Trochim & Donnelly, 2006). Overall,
these findings suggest that the distributional properties of responses
were appropriate for all items.
strategic actions. For instance, “…, I still push myself to keep going till it
is done.” or “I can force myself to keep reading, …”. The correlation
between the first and second latent factors was 0.67 after being ob-
liquely rotated.
A confirmatory factor analysis (Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996) testing
the two-factor structure of the BRoMS produced an acceptable model fit
(×2(53) = 90.24, p = 0.001, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.04,
RMSEA = 0.07). Given that the original intent of the BRoMS was to
serve as a brief scale measuring general tendency to regulate one's
motivation with a single factor, a one-factor model was also tested but
rejected because of poor fit (×2(54) = 151.12, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.87,
TLI = 0.84, SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.11).
Based on the mean of the associated items for each factor, we cre-
ated two separate scales titled regulation of motivation and willpower,
respectively. The internal consistency of both scales were equivalent
(α's = 0.85). The average inter-item correlation (r = 0.41) for regula-
tion of motivation indicated that the items associated with this scale
were adequately homogenous. However, the elevated average inter-
item correlation (r = 0.59) for willpower suggested that these items
were redundant or measured the relevant construct in a too narrow
manner (Briggs & Cheek, 1986).
3.3. Evidence based on relations with conceptually related variables

3.2. Evidence based on internal structure
In order to obtain evidence regarding internal validity, exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. The full sample was
randomly divided into two equal subsamples, one for an exploratory
factor analysis (n = 198) and another for a confirmatory factor analysis
(n = 198). The twelve items of the initial version of the BRoMS first
were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis to investigate the in-
ternal structure of the instrument. In line with De Winter and Dodou
(2012), principal axis factor analysis was conducted using oblique ro-
tation which allowed the factors to be correlated. As shown in Table 1,
eight items loaded on factor 1, explaining 46.88% of the variance. All
the items for factor 1 had high individual loadings (ranging from 0.48
to 0.87) without any cross-loading items. The items on this factor as-
sessed students' general tendencies to deliberately manage motivation
in the face of motivational challenges.
The four remaining items that loaded on factor 2 explained 10.20%
of the total variance. All the items for factor 2 also had high individual
loadings (ranging from 0.55 to 0.87) without any cross-loading items.
These items were noticeably similar to one another in two ways. First,
the motivational challenge for each referred to reading instead of
completing assignments or studying. Second, these items included
language that stressed willpower or personal compulsion rather than
It is important to note that the correlation between the regulation of
motivation and willpower scales was moderately high (r = 0.65). Both
scales showed a pattern of correlations with other core aspects of self-
regulated learning that were consistent with expectations (see Table 2).
In particular, both scales were positively correlated with grit, mastery
approach goals, and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning but nega-
tively correlated to performance avoidance goals. Moreover, both scales
were correlated positively with cognitive and metacognitive strategies
but negatively to procrastination.
To better evaluate the patterns of association between the BRoMS
and other variables, multiple linear regression analyses were con-
ducted. Consistent with a theoretical model of self-regulated learning
(Pintrich & Zusho, 2007), we examined whether grit, the four
achievement goals, value, and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning
could be used to predict regulation of motivation and willpower, re-
spectively. As shown in Table 3, the results indicated that the predictors
together explained 28% of the variability in regulation of motivation
(F = 16.01, df = 7, 296, p < 0.001). Grit (β = 0.19, p = 0.002) and
self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (β = 0.36, p < 0.001) each had
a positive relation with regulation of motivation; whereas performance
avoidance goals (β = − 0.16, p = 0.05) had a weaker negative relation
with regulation of motivation. Similarly, the results indicated that the
predictors together explained 20% of the variability in willpower

262
Y.-e. Kim et al. Learning and Individual Differences 67 (2018) 259–265

Table 3 willpower could predict an important self-handicapping behavior,

Summary of regression analyses predicting regulation of motivation and willpower. procrastination, after accounting for motivation. The motivational
variables entered in the first step explained 25.1% of the variance
Regulation of motivation Willpower
(F = 13.91, df = 6, 249, p < 0.001). When added to the model, reg-
Predictors B SE B β B SE B β ulation of motivation and willpower together explained an additional
Mastery approach 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.09 2.2% of variance in procrastination (F = 3.76, df = 2, 247; p = 0.025).
Mastery avoidance 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.02
Along with mastery approach goals (β = − 0.15, p = 0.04) and self-
Perform approach 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06
Perform avoidance − 0.10 0.05 −0.16 − 0.17 0.07 − 0.21⁎ efficacy for self-regulated learning (β = − 0.30, p < 0.001), regula-
Value − 0.04 0.06 −0.04 − 0.12 0.08 − 0.10 tion of motivation (β = − 0.17, p = 0.022) was a statistically sig-
Self-efficacy for SRL 0.38 0.07 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.34 0.09 0.25⁎⁎⁎ nificant predictor for procrastination, while willpower (β = −0.01,
Grit 0.23 0.07 0.19⁎⁎ 0.24 0.09 0.17⁎ p = 0.90) was not. Students who expressed a greater tendency to in-
R2 0.28 0.20
crease their motivation when faced with motivational obstacles were
F 16.01⁎⁎⁎ 10.22⁎⁎⁎
reportedly less likely to procrastinate.
Note. N = 396.
⁎
p < 0.05. 4. Discussion
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.
Being able to regulate one's own motivation is a crucial aspect of
being a successful self-regulated learner (Pintrich, 2004; Winne &
(F = 10.22, df = 7, 296, p < 0.001). Grit (β = 0.17, p = 0.01), and Hadwin, 2012; Wolters, 1998, 2003). Despite the increase in attention
self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (β = 0.25, p < 0.001) each had to this construct, research on regulation of motivation is still in its early
a positive relation with willpower; whereas performance avoidance stages and has received far less rigorous analysis compared to other
goals (β = −0.21, p = 0.02) was a negative predictor. In sum, students aspects of self-regulated learning. One reason for the limited research in
who reported higher grit or self-efficacy for self-regulated learning were this area is the length and nature of the instruments available to assess
more likely to respond with an effort to strategically regulate their regulation of motivation. To address this issue, the present study fo-
motivation or force themselves to continue when faced with motiva- cused on developing and evaluating the BRoMS, a shorter instrument
tional obstacles. In contrast, students who reportedly strived to avoid that provides a more global and contextually sensitive indication of
performing poorly in relation to others were less likely to regulate their college students' tendencies to self-regulate their motivation when en-
motivation or rely on willpower to overcome motivational problems.1 gaged in academic work. Findings from this evaluation support the
overall validity of using this new instrument for assessing college stu-
3.4. Evidence based on relations with criteria dents' regulation of motivation by providing evidence regarding its
internal structure, its relations with conceptually related constructs,
We examined whether regulation of motivation and willpower and its relations with important criteria.
could predict the use of other learning strategies after accounting for
motivation (see Table 4). To predict cognitive strategies, the four 4.1. Evidence of validity regarding the BRoMS
achievement goals, value, and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning
were entered in the first step, explaining 26.8% of the variance Our findings regarding the internal structure of the BRoMS provide
(F = 18.16, df = 6, 297, p < 0.001). Regulation of motivation and key evidence supporting its validity for use as an assessment of reg-
willpower were then added as a block to examine whether they could ulation of motivation. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
explain the variance above and beyond motivational aspects of self- indicated the presence of two factors in the 12 items of the initial
regulated learning. The results indicated that an additional 8.3% of BRoMS. The first factor, regulation of motivation, addressed one's
variance in cognitive strategies was explained (F = 18.96, df = 2, 295; tendency to deliberately and strategically sustain and enhance moti-
p < 0.001). Along with mastery approach goals (β = 0.16, p = 0.008) vation in the face of various motivational challenges. The eight items in
and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (β = 0.22, p < 0.001), this factor closely reflect the conceptual understanding of regulation of
regulation of motivation (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) was a statistically motivation (Wolters, 2003). In contrast, the four items in the second
significant predictor for cognitive strategies. Students who reported a factor had two critical aspects in common: all items were (a) referring
higher general tendency to self-regulate their motivation were more to a reading task and (b) including language that emphasized will-
likely to report higher use of cognitive strategies. The predictive power power. These findings raise two interesting issues.
of willpower was not statistically detectable (β = 0.02, p = 0.76). The first issue involves the task-specific nature of regulation of
The same motivational variables explained 20.0% of the variance in motivation. Our original intent was to develop a scale focusing on
metacognitive strategies (F = 12.40, df = 6, 297, p < 0.001) when students' general beliefs about their engagement in regulation of moti-
entered in the first step. When regulation of motivation and willpower vation. We expected reading to be perceived as one of the common
were added to the model, results indicated that an additional 15.2% of tasks in which students engage. However, it is possible that students
variance in metacognitive strategies was explained (F = 34.74, df = 2, engage in regulation of motivation differently when working on a
295; p < 0.001). Along with self-efficacy for self-regulated learning reading task. The second issue involves the possibility of a concept that
(β = 0.15, p = 0.008), regulation of motivation (β = 0.38, is similar but theoretically different from regulation of motivation. The
p < 0.001), but not willpower (β = 0.10, p = 0.10), was a statistically items in the second factor focused on personal compulsion of actions
significant predictor for metacognitive strategies. Students who re- without using specific strategies. Previous research has suggested that
ported higher tendency to regulate their motivation also were more willpower is likely to be reported by students who are not reflective
likely to report increased use of metacognitive strategies. about their regulation of motivation strategies (Purdie, Hattie, &
In addition, we examined whether regulation of motivation and Douglas, 1996; Wolters, 1999b). Together, the second factor appears to
represent a construct that is conceptually different and less central to
regulation of motivation.
1
Based on the high correlations between some of the relevant variables we also
Findings from the correlational analyses provide additional im-
evaluated these relations using canonical correlation analyses. These alternative analyses,
however, produced a pattern of results that were substantially similar to those presented
portant evidence that supports the validity of the BRoMS for use as an
here. Based on the need for parsimony and given our desire to interpret findings for each assessment of the regulation of motivation. The regulation of motiva-
factor separately, we report results only from the multiple regressions. tion and willpower scales showed positive correlations with grit,

263
Y.-e. Kim et al. Learning and Individual Differences 67 (2018) 259–265

Table 4
Summary of regression analyses predicting cognitive and metacognitive strategies and procrastination.

Cognitive Metacognitive strategies Procrastination

strategies

Predictors B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Step 1
Mastery approach 0.12 0.04 0.18⁎⁎ 0.09 0.05 0.12 −0.17 0.08 − 0.16⁎
Mastery avoidance 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.07 −0.05 0.05 − 0.06
Perform approach 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.05 − 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.08
Perform avoidance − 0.04 0.04 − 0.08 − 0.05 0.04 − 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.11
Value 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.02 −0.03 0.07 − 0.03
Self-efficacy for SRL 0.27 0.04 0.37⁎⁎⁎ 0.30 0.05 0.36⁎⁎⁎ −0.44 0.07 − 0.38⁎⁎⁎
Step 2
Mastery approach 0.11 0.04 0.16⁎⁎ 0.07 0.05 0.09 −0.16 0.08 − 0.15⁎
Mastery avoidance − 0.01 0.03 − 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 −0.04 0.05 − 0.05
Perform approach 0.03 0.04 0.06 − 0.02 0.04 − 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.09
Perform avoidance − 0.01 0.03 − 0.02 − 0.01 0.04 − 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.08
Value 0.07 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.05 −0.04 0.07 − 0.04
Self-efficacy for SRL 0.16 0.04 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.13 0.05 0.15⁎⁎ −0.35 0.08 − 0.30⁎⁎⁎
Regulation of motivation 0.22 0.04 0.32⁎⁎⁎ 0.30 0.05 0.38⁎⁎⁎ −0.18 0.08 − 0.17⁎
Willpower 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.10 −0.01 0.06 − 0.01

Note. Cognitive strategies: R2 = 0.27, p < 0.001 for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.08, p < 0.001 for Step 2.
Metacognitive strategies: R2 = 0.20, p < 0.001 for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.15, p < 0.001 for Step 2.
Procrastination: R2 = 0.25, p < 0.001 for Step 1; Δ R2 = 0.02, p = 0.03 for Step 2.
N = 396.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

mastery approach goals, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, and
learning strategies, but negative correlations with performance avoid-
ance goals and procrastination. Furthermore, grit and self-efficacy for
self-regulated successfully predicted regulation of motivation and
willpower. These patterns of associations with critical aspects of self-
regulated learning were consistent with theoretical expectations
(Schwinger et al., 2007; Wolters & Benzon, 2013; Wolters & Rosenthal,
2000).
Finally, the validity of the BRoMS for use as an assessment of reg-
ulation of motivation was further supported by the findings regarding
its relations with important criteria. We evaluated whether the scores
from the BRoMS could predict two other adaptive learning strategies
and procrastination. After accounting for motivation, regulation of
motivation, but not willpower, predicted the use of cognitive and me-
tacognitive strategies. Results suggested that students' active efforts to
sustain or enhance their own motivation might be part of a more gen-
eral tendency to use of adaptive learning strategies. In addition, find-
ings indicate that regulation of motivation, but not willpower, may lead
to lower procrastination. Thus, the BRoMS, especially regulation of
motivation, predicted crucial indicators of self-regulated learning.
4.2. Conclusions, limitations, and future directions
In light of the empirical evidence suggested above, the first factor
(i.e., regulation of motivation) seems to be a better indicator of stu-
dents' general tendency to use strategies to regulate their motivation.
First, the regulation of motivation factor exhibited adequate internal
reliability and consistency, suggesting that the items were adequately
homogeneous. In contrast, willpower displayed an inadequate internal
consistency, suggesting that the items were measured in a narrow
manner. Second, although not subjected to an inferential test, regula-
tion of motivation appeared to have slightly higher correlations with
mastery approach goals, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning,
learning strategies, and procrastination, indicating stronger support for
regulation of motivation than willpower. Third, regulation of motiva-
tion better explained other learning strategies and procrastination.
Consistent with the conclusion that it does not reflect strategic beha-
vior, willpower did not predict the use of several common learning
strategies or procrastination.
In sum, we concluded that the regulation of motivation factor, by
itself, is reasonable as a brief measure of college students' general
tendency to sustain or enhance their motivation within academic con-
texts. Developing a measure that is shorter and general provides ad-
vantages for both researchers and educators. This eight-item scale is
more manageable to administer, intuitive to interpret, and contextually
sensitive compared to the previous long multidimensional scales (see
Table 1 for complete list of items). This scale can serve as a global
indicator of one's tendency to sustain or enhance motivation in response
to motivational challenges. With this new instrument, researchers will
be able to explore the relationship between regulation of motivation
and various constructs that have not yet been examined and test com-
plex structural models. This new instrument may also prove valuable as
a tool for educators who want to assess students' regulation of moti-
vation for instructional purposes. However, research evaluating its va-
lidity for this type of use is necessary before making any claims about
its ability to address this need.
Several limitations exist with the current study. First and most ob-
viously, we were unable to administer one of the existing measures of
regulation of motivation. Hence, we were not able to evaluate the
conceptual overlap with specific regulation of motivation strategies.
Future research should compare the BRoMS to lengthy, multi-
dimensional scales measuring regulation of motivation in order to
provide further evidence in support of concurrent validity. Second, we
evaluated the BRoMS using one, specific population, college students
enrolled in a learning to learn course. Research examining other po-
pulations is needed for stronger support of the instrument. Third, the
viability of the willpower as a similar, but theoretically distinct, process
requires further investigation.
Despite the limitations, the overall findings of the study provide
initial evidence supporting the validity of using the BRoMS as a tool for
assessing college students' regulation of motivation. The 8-item reg-
ulation of motivation scale should facilitate and encourage empirical
research in this rather understudied area. The BRoMS has three po-
tentially important characteristics. First, it is substantially shorter with
fewer than one-third the items of previous instruments (e.g., Schwinger
et al., 2007; Wolters & Benzon, 2013). Hence, it should reduce the time

264
Y.-e. Kim et al.
and fatigue associated with completing existing surveys. Second, it
provides a single indicator of students' overall level of regulation of
motivation, allowing it to be incorporated into complex structural
models more easily. Finally, the scale is contextually sensitive in that it
aims to capture the breadth of motivational challenges. With a better
understanding of individual differences in regulation of motivation,
researchers and educators will be equipped with ways to improve stu-
dents' active efforts to sustain or enhance their own motivation when
they experience motivational challenges.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &
National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and
psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers,
policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.
Bong, M. (2001). Between-and within-domain relations of academic motivation among
middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the evaluation of
personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.
Cooper, C. A., & Corpus, J. H. (2009). Learners' developing knowledge of strategies for
regulating motivation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 525–536.
Corno, L. (2001). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B. Zimmerman, & D.
Schunk (Vol. Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research,
and practice. vol. 2. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research,
and practice (pp. 111–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Winter, J. C., & Dodou, D. (2012). Factor recovery by principal axis factoring and
maximum likelihood factor analysis as a function of factor pattern and sample size.
Journal of Applied Statistics, 39, 695–710.
Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Duckworth, A., & Yeager, D. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities
other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44,
237–251.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit
scale (GRIT-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166–174.
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique,
illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628.
Engelschalk, T., Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2016). Effectiveness of motivational regulation:
Dependence on specific motivational problems. Learning and Individual Differences,
52, 72–78.
Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a
precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 3, 62–72.
Gonzalez, S., Dowson, M., Brickman, S., & McInerney, D. (2006). Self -regulation of aca-
demic motivation: Advances in structure and measurement. Paper presented at the AARE
Annual Conference, Parramatta, Australia.
Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and social shared reg-
ulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers
College Record, 113, 240–264.
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement
goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
167–178.
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task
values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of
265
Learning and Individual Differences 67 (2018) 259–265
Educational Psychology, 100, 398–416.
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of un-
dergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastina-
tion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915–931.
Muenks, K., Wigfield, A., Yang, J. S., & O'Neal, C. R. (2017). How true is grit? Assessing its
relations to high school and college students' personality characteristics, self-reg-
ulation, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109,
599–620.
Phan, H. P. (2013). The predictiveness of achievement goals: A 2 × 2 framework analysis
from a social cognitive perspective. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 9, 697–716.
Pintrich, P., & Zusho, A. (2007). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the
college classroom. In R. Perry, & J. Smart (Eds.). The scholarship of teaching and
learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 731–810). New York:
Springer.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regu-
lated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and pre-
dictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use
of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 87–100.
Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). How do motivational regulation
strategies affect achievement: Mediated by effort management and moderated by
intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 621–627.
Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2012). Not all roads lead to Rome –
Comparing different types of motivational regulation profiles. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22, 269–279.
Schwinger, M., von der Laden, T., & Spinath, B. (2007). Motivational regulation strategies
and their measurement. Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische
Psychologie, 39, 57–69.
Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473–480.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning a validation
study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 443–463.
Veenman, M. V. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instru-
ments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 205–211.
Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.). Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp.
277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2012). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In
D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman (Eds.). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory,
research, and applications (pp. 297–314). New York: Routledge.
Wolters, C. (1999a). College students' motivational regulation during a brief study period.
Journal of Staff, Program, and Organization Development, 16, 103–111.
Wolters, C. (1999b). The relation between high school students' motivational regulation
and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and
Individual Differences, 11, 281–299.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students' regulation of moti-
vation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Motivational regulation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of
self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205.
Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013). Assessing and predicting college students' use of
strategies for the self-motivational regulation. Journal of Experimental Education, 81,
199–221.
Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relation with college
students' self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition Learning,
10, 293–311.
Wolters, C. A., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between students' motivational be-
liefs and attitudes and their use of motivational regulation strategies. International
Journal of Educational Research, 33, 801–820.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self–regulation: Theory,
research, and applications (pp. 13–29). San Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.