Self-determination Theory differentiates various types of motivation, each of which have different consequences for well-being and behavior. Despite broad agreement concerning the nature of different types of motivation, numerous scoring methods, each of which rely on different assumptions, are commonly practiced. These practices range from a relative autonomy index that collapses all types of motivation into a single index, higher-order models grouping subscales into a two-factor solution, to multi-factorial approaches examining all motivation types as separate constructs. Existing evidence has not empirically compared these methods or clearly favored the use of one over another. We review each method and further investigate the advantages and disadvantages of each approach by directly comparing a range of commonly utilized scoring methods, as well as recently developed methods across six independent samples from various life domains to determine their effectiveness. Results generally favor multidimensional methods (e.g., exploratory structural equation modeling, B-ESEM, and CFA) as more comprehensive scoring practices as they maximize construct relevant information. However, selection of an ideal method will rely on theoretical congruence between methodology and research questions.

中文翻译：

---

动机评分方法的回顾与实证比较：对自决理论的应用

自决理论区分各种动机，每种动机对幸福感和行为都有不同的影响。尽管人们对不同动机类型的本质达成了广泛共识，但仍普遍采用多种评分方法，每种评分方法都基于不同的假设。这些做法包括将所有类型的动机分解为一个索引的相对自治指数，将子量表分组为两因素解决方案的高阶模型，以及将所有动机类型作为单独的结构进行检查的多因素方法。现有证据还没有从经验上比较这些方法，也没有明确地赞成使用一种方法。我们将对每种方法进行回顾，并通过直接比较一系列常用的评分方法来进一步研究每种方法的优缺点，以及最近开发的方法，这些方法来自不同生命领域的六个独立样本中，以确定其有效性。结果通常倾向于使用多维方法（例如，探索性结构方程建模，B-ESEM和CFA），因为它们可以最大限度地提高构造相关信息，因此是更全面的评分方法。但是，理想方法的选择将取决于方法论和研究问题之间的理论一致性。