MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005962568 · doi:10.1037/a0015167

Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology research.

2009· article· en· W2005962568 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maxime A. Tremblay, Céline Blanchard, Sara Taylor, Luc G. Pelletier, Martin Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National DefenceUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntrinsic motivationWork (physics)Work motivationValue (mathematics)Social psychologyScale (ratio)Organizational behaviorIndustrial and organizational psychologyIntrinsic value (animal ethics)Self-determination theoryApplied psychologyStatisticsAutonomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) is an 18-item measure of work motivation theoretically grounded in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The purpose of the present research was twofold. First, the applicability of the WEIMS in different work environments was evaluated. Second, its factorial structure and psychometric properties were assessed. Two samples of workers (military: N 465; civilians: N 192) voluntarily completed questionnaires. Using the WEIMS’s 3 indexes (work self-determination index, work self-determined and nonself-determined motivation, respectively), results of regression analyses were supportive of its ability to predict positive and negative criteria in the workplace. Results also showed the adequacy of both its construct validity and internal consistency. Its factorial structure was also invariant across samples. Finally, its quasi-simplex pattern and relationships with psychological correlates further supported the self-determination continuum. Overall, these findings provide evidence for the applicability as well as the reliability and validity of the WEIMS in organisational settings. Results are discussed in regard to the applicability of self-determination theory to the workplace.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations560
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207