Development of the Japanese Version of the Original and Short Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Work motivation is important with regard to many organizational outcomes, including employee mental health and productivity. The Japanese workforce suffers from low levels of work motivation, associated with poor mental health and compromised productivity. One established measure of work motivation is the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS), based on the Self‐Determination Theory (SDT). However, the Japanese version of WEIMS (JWEIMS) has yet to be developed. Likewise, the Japanese version of the short form WEIMS (SWEIMS) does not exist, either (JSWEIMS). This study aimed to validate JWEIMS and JSWEIMS. Japanese employees ( n = 165) responded to JWEIMS, and the data were analyzed through a minimum average partial, parallel analysis, and exploratory factor analysis with the internal consistencies identified. Both JWEIMS and JSWEIMS demonstrated a three‐factor structure. Internal consistencies were high. In both versions, more intrinsic types of motivation were categorized as one factor. JWEIMS and JSWEIMS are the only work motivation scales established on SDT in Japanese. The factor structure difference from the original scales highlights the collectivistic and success‐driven nature of Japanese culture, relative to Canadian and UK cultures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".