Exercise Feeling Questionnaire (FEEL)

Abstract

The Exercise Feeling Questionnaire (GOEM) is a concise psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s dispositional goal orientations within an exercise setting. Developed based on Achievement Goal Theory, the GOEM measures two primary dimensions of success criteria: Task Orientation (focus on self-referenced improvement and mastery) and Ego Orientation (focus on social comparison and demonstrating superior ability relative to others). This 10-item scale provides researchers and practitioners with a validated tool for understanding motivational frameworks underlying exercise adherence and behavior.

Keywords

Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure, GOEM, Goal orientation, Task orientation, Ego orientation, Exercise motivation, Achievement Goal Theory, Exercise psychology, Psychometrics

Authors

Petherick, C., Markland, D.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the GOEM is to quantify the extent to which individuals define success and competence in an exercise environment using either self-referenced criteria (Task) or normative comparison criteria (Ego). It provides a focused measure specifically tailored for exercise contexts, distinguishing it from broader sport-specific instruments.

The development of the GOEM addressed a need for a reliable and theoretically grounded instrument that could capture the motivational processes central to understanding persistent exercise behavior. By identifying an individual’s dominant goal orientation, the scale helps predict motivational responses, persistence, and affective outcomes related to physical activity.

Construct

The GOEM is rooted firmly in Achievement Goal Theory (AGT), which posits that an individual’s perception of competence is foundational to motivation. AGT typically differentiates between two major approaches to competence:

• Task Orientation (Mastery/Learning): Individuals focused on this orientation define success based on effort, personal improvement, and skill mastery. They are self-referenced, meaning their performance evaluation does not rely on comparing themselves to others. Items 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 measure this dimension.

• Ego Orientation (Performance/Competitive): Individuals adopting this orientation define success by demonstrating superior ability compared to peers. They seek to outperform others and use social comparison as the primary metric for judging competence. Items 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 measure this dimension.

Validity

While the provided source content does not detail extensive validity studies (such as concurrent or predictive validity), the scale’s development paper by Petherick and Markland (2008) provides evidence of construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, ensuring the items load correctly onto the hypothesized two factors (Task and Ego).

The content validity of the GOEM is high, as the items were specifically generated or adapted to reflect the definitions of task and ego involvement within the unique context of non-competitive, health-focused exercise settings, rather than traditional sports performance environments.

Reliability

The GOEM demonstrates strong internal consistency for both subscales, indicating that the items within each factor measure a consistent underlying construct. The reliability statistics, typically measured using Cronbach’s alpha, were reported as follows:

• Internal Consistency for Task Orientation subscale: 0.78

• Internal Consistency for Ego Orientation subscale: 0.88

These values suggest acceptable to strong reliability, particularly for the Ego subscale, supporting the use of the GOEM in research settings for consistent measurement of these motivational constructs.

Factor Analysis

The GOEM is structured as a two-factor model corresponding directly to the tenets of Achievement Goal Theory. The scale consists of 10 items designed to partition into two orthogonal (or near-orthogonal) factors: Task and Ego.

The factor structure was established to ensure that the instrument robustly separates the self-referenced goals from the normative comparison goals, confirming that the measure is assessing two distinct, yet related, motivational dimensions within the exercise population. This clean separation is critical for the theoretical utility of the scale.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire

Format: 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”.

Language Available: English (Original development language)

Population Group: Adults engaged in exercise or physical activity

Age Group: Typically utilized with adult populations (18+)

Population Details: Individuals participating in various forms of exercise, including gym attendance, fitness classes, or recreational physical activity, where personal effort and comparison might be salient.

Test Methodology: Quantitative survey administration, typically administered immediately following or in relation to a specific exercise session or program. The instrument is brief, making it suitable for quick assessment in applied settings.

Keywords

Task goals, Ego goals, Exercise psychology, Motivational climate, Physical activity, Achievement goal theory, Self-determination, Psychometrics

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source content

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure (GOEM) was formally developed and published in 2008 by Petherick and Markland. Researchers seeking to utilize the instrument should consult the original publication for specific usage guidelines and permissions. The instrument is generally considered available for academic research use. The instrument can be found at the following link: http://pages.bangor.ac.uk/~pes004/exercise_motivation/goem/goemdown.htm

Reference’s

The development and theoretical grounding of the GOEM rely on established literature in exercise and sport psychology, including the following key references:

• Duda, J.L. (1989). The relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose of sport among male and female high school athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 148-165.

• Elliot, A.J. & Church, M.A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

• Hart, E. A. Leary, M. R. & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 94-104.

• Harwood, C., Wilson, K., & Hardy, L. (2002). Achievement goals in sport: Working towards an alternative model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 349-350.

• Kilpatrick, M., Bartholomew, J. & Riemer, H. (2003). The measurement of goal orientations in exercise. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 121-136.

• Markland, D. & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 191-196.

• Petherick, C. & Markland. D. (2008). The Development of a Goal Orientation in Exercise Measure (GOEM). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12, 55-71.

Items of the Exercise Feeling Questionnaire (GOEM)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The GOEM utilizes a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”).

Subscale Item Allocation: Task (items: 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9); Ego (items: 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10).

1. I exercise to the best of my ability
2. Other exercisers don’t do as well as me
3. I make progress
4. I achieve the exercise goal I set for myself
5. I can show other exercisers that I’m better than everyone else
6. I feel like I’ve improved
7. I prove to myself that I am the only one who can do a certain exercise task
8. I know that I am more capable than other exercisers
9. I exercise at a level that reflects personal improvement
10. I can prove to others that I’m the best