DRAFT

2/13/2018

The Revised Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18)

George A. Morgan
Colorado State University

Jun Wang
Tufts University

Karen C. Barrett
Colorado State University

Hua-Fang Liao and Pei-Jung Wang

National Taiwan University

Su-Ying Huang
Fu Jen Catholic University
Taiwan

Krisztian Józsa
University of Szeged
Hungary

1
 Contents
Pages
Dear colleague letter
Your use form
The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire
Definition and Importance of Mastery Motivation
The Development of the DMQ
DMQ 18 Scales
Summary of Psychometrics of the DMQ
Comparisons of Mean Scale Scores for the Three Cultures
Age Difference/Declines in Mastery Motivation
Gender Differences in Mastery Motivation
Mean Differences in Paired Comparisons of Parent, Teacher, and Child-Self
Ratings
Comparisons of Children Developing Typically and Atypically
Uses of the DMQ
Acknowledgements
References and DMQ bibliography
Appendix 1: Scoring the DMQ 18
Appendix 2: Preliminary Psychometric Data Tables for DMQ 18
Appendix 3: DMQ 18 Forms

2
 Spring 2018

Dear Colleague:

Thank you for your request for the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire. We are pleased to provide you
with our new and, we believe improved, version of the measure (DMQ 18). As you may know, the DMQ
has been used by the authors of this manual plus a number of other investigators around the world;
many of them provided their raw DMQ data and are acknowledged on page 19. The DMQ was revised in
fall 2014 based on analyses of English, Chinese, and Hungarian DMQ 17 data over the last several years.
The scales and most items of DMQ 18 are very similar to DMQ 17, and we expect them to provide even
better data on mastery motivation for several reasons. First, we have deleted items that did not
demonstrate measurement invariance across English, Chinese, and Hungarian languages and cultures.
We also created new items and refined others to make them align better with mastery motivation
theory and research. Preliminary data on the DMQ 18 scales suggest that reliability and validity are
similar or better than that of previous DMQ versions. We strongly encourage you to use DMQ 18.

Review chapters by Morgan, Wang, Liao, and Xu (2013), Józsa and Molnar (2013) and by Morgan,
Maslin-Cole, Harmon, Busch-Rossnagel, Jennings, Hauser-Cram, and Brockman (1993) provide
information about many samples that had been studied with earlier versions of the DMQ. This
document has a bibliography that includes the above chapters and other papers, especially several that
use the DMQ 18. This manual provides information about the usefulness, psychometric properties, and
scoring of this mastery motivation questionnaire. Copies of the DMQ 18 in English and Chinese (with
traditional characters) are attached. Chinese versions are also available on request in simplified
characters. Hungarian versions and Spanish versions are available on request.

We want the DMQ 18 to be used as broadly as possible, and we want to know as much as possible about
the use of the instrument in order to coordinate feedback among users and gather more data about
DMQ 18. Thus, we would like you to share with us your raw item by item DMQ 18 data in an SPSS or
Excel file so that we can combine and compare samples, check scale reliability, etc. We also would like
you to send us preliminary reports and later publications of the results of your use of the DMQ that we
will add to the reference list. Please complete the form on the next page and send a copy to me. Thank
you for your cooperation. As we continue to gather information on the DMQ, we will be glad to share it
with you.

George A. Morgan
Professor emeritus, education and human development Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1588
george.morgan@chhs.colostate.edu
http://soe.chhs.colostate.edu/faculty-staff/morgan.aspx
(970) 491-0608

3
 Your Use of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18)

Date

Names of investigators (Printed or Typed)

Organization

Address

E-Mail address

Age(s) and approximate numbers of participants/ children

Who do you plan to ask to rate the children/youth? (Circle YES for all you plan to use)

Mother: Yes No

Father: Yes No

Child Self-report: Yes No

Teacher/caregiver Yes No

Other characteristics of the sample(s) (ethnicity, language, risk factors, etc.)

Main research question(s)

4
 The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire
Definition and Importance of Mastery Motivation
The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ) assesses several aspects of adults’ and
children’s perceptions of children’s mastery related behaviors. The DMQ is one of several measurement
techniques, including challenging structured tasks and semi-structured play, developed to assess
mastery motivation (Busch-Rossnagel & Morgan, 2013). The National Academy of Science report From
Neurons to Neighborhoods (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000) identified mastery motivation (the intrinsic drive
to explore and master one’s environment) as a key developmental concept, which should be included as
part of a child’s evaluation.
Morgan, Harmon, and Maslin-Cole (1990) proposed that mastery motivation is a multifaceted,
intrinsic psychological force that stimulates an individual to attempt to master a skill or task that is at
least moderately challenging for him or her. Mastery motivation has two major aspects: instrumental
and expressive (Barrett & Morgan, 1995). The instrumental aspect motivates a person to attempt, in a
focused and persistent manner, to solve a problem or master a skill or task, which is at least moderately
challenging for him or her (Morgan et al., 1990). The expressive aspect of mastery motivation produces
affective reactions while the person is working at such a task or just after completing it. This affect may
or may not be overtly expressed and may assume different forms in different children as they develop.
Individualized structured mastery motivation tasks are available for toddlers and young
preschoolers (Morgan, Busch-Rossnagel, Maslin-Cole, & Harmon, 1992; Wang, Morgan, Hwang, & Liao,
2013; and Wang, Morgan, Lu, & Liao, 2015); for 3-8 year olds (Morgan, Józsa, Barrett, & Dillard, 2015);
and for 7-10 year olds (Morgan & Bartholomew, 1998).
The DMQ assesses mastery motivation by having a parent or teacher rate their perceptions of
the child’s behavior (or school-aged children rate their own behavior) in mastery contexts. This
document is based primarily on data from DMQ ratings of the mastery motivation and competence of
English-speaking, Chinese-speaking and Hungarian children, both typically and atypically developing. The
development of the DMQ scales is briefly described in the next section, followed by the issues of
reliability and validity, and then by cultural comparisons, age, gender, and rater differences. Finally,
comparisons of children developing typically and atypically and uses of the DMQ are discussed.

Development of the DMQ Questionnaire

When our development of this mastery motivation questionnaire began in the early 1980s, there
were no parental report questionnaires designed to assess the motivation of infants and preschool
children. Infant temperament questionnaires did assess perceptions of persistence, but none of them
provided adequate coverage of the motivational aspects of toddlers’ or preschoolers’ attempted
problem solving and mastery play. To our knowledge, the DMQ still is the only parental report measure
of young children’s mastery motivation.
Results of early versions supported the usefulness of the questionnaire, but we felt that the
psychometric properties and age appropriateness of the questionnaire could be improved without losing
the strengths. Revisions and expansions of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire included the
domains of persistence at social and gross motor tasks. The social mastery motivation scales were

5
revised and split into two scales: social persistence with peers and social persistence with adults. In
addition to mastery pleasure, negative reactions to failure in mastery situations was added
Early versions were designed to assess toddlers and preschool children; in addition, newer
versions of the DMQ were developed for infants, elementary school children, and teens. The school-age
versions had forms for the child to rate him or herself and a form for an adult (parent or teacher) to
rate the child. All these age versions of the DMQ had 14 common items that were thought to be
appropriate across ages. The remaining 31 items varied somewhat by age version but paralleled the
items in the preschool version.
The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 17)
Most of the data summarized in this Manual are from DMQ 17 (see Morgan, 1997; Morgan,
Busch-Rossnagel, Barrett, and Wang, 2009). DMQ 17 had 45 Likert-type items each rated 1-5 (from not
at all typical to very typical) and seven scales as follows:
Four scales for the instrumental (persistence) aspects of mastery motivations were:
1. Object-oriented persistence scale (called persistence at cognitive tasks for school-age
children and teens; 9 items)
2. Gross motor persistence scale (8 items)
3. Social persistence/mastery motivation with adults scale (6 items)
4. Social persistence/mastery motivation with children scale (6 items)
Two scales for the expressive aspects of mastery motivation were:
5. Mastery pleasure scale, positive affect after finishing a task and/or while working on a
task (6 items)
6. Negative reactions to failure in mastery situations scale (5 items)
One scale to assess competence or the ability to master in contrast to the motivation to master
tasks was:
7. General competence compared to peers scale (5 items)
Each of the first five scales included one negatively worded items that was reverse coded when
computing the scale scores. The negative reaction to failure items were all worded in the same direction,
and negative reactions (upset, avoid etc.) were scored as 5. The competence scale had 2 out of 5 items
worded negatively and reverse coded.
More than 15,000 children from 6-month to 19-year of age were rated with the DMQ 17. These
include more than 1000 atypically developing children with a variety of delays and more than 500
children at risk due to low SES. Geographically and linguistically, the children were very diverse.
Participants included English speakers from the United States, Canada, the UK, and Australia. Chinese
speakers were from mainland China and Taiwan. In Hungary, more than 10,000 mostly typically
developing school-age children rated themselves and/or were rated by their parents and teachers. In
addition, a Spanish version of the DMQ 17 was used by Spanish speakers in the US, and translations into
native languages also have been used to assess children from at least the Netherlands, Israel, and Korea.
6
Many of these DMQ 17 data were provided to us by researchers around the world. In some samples,
parents, teachers, and/or children themselves did the ratings, but many children were rated by only one
rater.
A number of journal articles, dissertations, and presentations have included the DMQ 17; most
are noted in the reference list. Józsa (2003, 2007) published a dissertation and a book in Hungarian on
his large sample studies of mastery motivation, cognitive skills, IQ, and school achievement. Overviews
of DMQ 17 research on the Hungarian, English, and Chinese samples were published by Józsa and
Molnar (2013), Morgan, Wang, Liao, and Xu (2013), and Józsa, Wang, Barrett, and Morgan (2014). These
papers summarized evidence for reliability and validity, relationships to other variables, and also
compared the three cultures at similar ages and across ages. Józsa, Morgan, and Liao (2017) edited a
special issue of the Hungarian Educational Research Journal that included five articles which used DMQ
17.
The Revised Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18)
Although the DMQ 17 data provided good evidence for reliability and validity of the scores and
useful results in a number of studies, we decided for several reasons to make a revision. First, the first
author received feedback from the other authors and other users that indicated that the overall
instructions, scale anchors and certain items were not clearly understood. So we made some
recommended changes to increase clarity.
Second, a major issue was that the reverse coded items clearly caused problems for 10 - 20% of
the raters, who did not seem to rate them accurately. This accuracy problem was inferred based on the
assumption that rater’s scores on the negatively worded item in each scale should (after it was recoded)
be similar to the average of the positively worded items. If the discrepancy was large, the rater must not
have been reading carefully (perhaps reading too fast), or have developed a response bias to use one end
of the scale, or have been confused because of low reading ability. Józsa and Morgan (2017) reanalyzed
a large sample of Hungarian DMQs to examine the effect on the Cronbach alphas of the DMQ 17 scales
of filtering out respondents who seemed to misread the negatively worded items. As expected, the
alphas increased. Thus, we decided to omit the negatively worded items from future analyses and
publications; i.e., Wang, Józsa, & Morgan (2014); Józsa, Wang, Barrett, & Morgan (2014).
The social mastery motivation scales, both persistence with adults and also with peers, produced
acceptable to good reliabilities, but some items did not seem age appropriate, especially for school-age
children. In addition, even the preschool items seemed to focus more on persistence related to play
than seemed desirable for a broad measure of social mastery motivation. Therefore, we developed
several new items that were pilot tested in Taiwan and the US, which included trying to get others to
understand them, finding out what others like and dislike, and trying to understand the feelings of
others.
The negative reaction to failure scale frequently produced relatively low alphas and results that
were difficult to interpret. Part of the problem seemed to be that the some of the items were related to
frustration or anger while others were more related to sadness or shame and avoidance. In addition to
developing and pilot testing several new items, we decide to split these negative reaction items into two
subscales for the preschool and school-age versions. We don’t include sadness or shame items for
infants in DMQ 18. This scale is now called negative reactions to challenge and the two subscales are
labeled frustration/anger and sadness/shame.

7
 Jun Wang et al. (2014) examined the measurement invariance of the self-rated DMQs of children
and teens (age 8 to 19 years) from the US, China, and Hungary to see which items did and didn’t work
well in all three cultures. The thirty positively worded DMQ 17 items from the four
instrumental/persistence aspects of mastery motivation and mastery pleasure were used in these
analyses. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted on each sample, and 6 items with factor loadings
below .40 and/or inappropriate cross-loadings we dropped from further analyses. (The 24 retained
items, with minor modifications, are included in DMQ 18.) Next, single-group confirmatory factor
analyses were conducted. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was above .90 and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) was below .05, indicating a good fit for a five factor model in each sample.
Finally, multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the measurement
invariance of the children’s 24 self-reported DMQ 17 items among the American, Chinese, and
Hungarian samples combined. Measurement invariance was confirmed.
Hwang et al. (2016, 2017) completed similar multi-group invariance analyses on preschool parent
data from Taiwan, Hungary, and the US. Again, cross-cultural invariance was found for the items that
are included in DMQ 18. Thus, there is evidence that the items in DMQ 18 should work well across these
cultures.
Finally, we wanted to be as certain as possible that there was not only linguistic equivalence of
the revised items across cultures but that the items were age and culturally appropriate. As mentioned
earlier several of the new items had successfully been tried out in Taiwan and the US. All the new items
were translated in Chinese and Hungarian, examined by the authors and checked with some parents and
professionals to ensure that the phases were clear and appropriate. Questions and concerns led to
several changes not only in the Chinese and Hungarian but also in the English versions. Thus, the process
was similar to back translation plus decentering. The Spanish DMQ was professionally translated from
the English DMQ 18 to be appropriate for Spanish speakers from Latin America and the US. It was then
independently back translated into English by several bilingual Americans, and minor discrepancies were
resolved.

DMQ 18 Scales
This DMQ 18 has the same seven scales as DMQ 17 and Likert-type items rated 1-5 (from not at
all like this child to exactly like this child). DMQ 18 has four current language versions: English, Chinese,
Spanish and Hungarian as well as unofficial translations in a number of other languages such as Hebrew
and Turkish. Chinese versions attached in this manual are in traditional characters; the simplified
characters are available upon request, as are Hungarian and Spanish versions.
In each of the four official languages, there are four parallel age-related versions of the DMQ
(infant, preschool, school-age rated by adults, and school-age self-report). The Infant version (38 items)
is rated by an adult for children of developmental ages approximately 6-23 months. The preschool
version (39 items) is for preschool children of developmental ages approximately 2-6 years rated by an
adult. The school-age by adult version (41 items) is for students from 1st grade through high school
rated by an adult (parent and/or teacher). The school-age self-rating version has the same 41 items for
students from 3rd grade through high school to rate themselves. Because studies with DMQ 17 and
related concepts indicate that it is difficult to get reliable and valid self-reports from children under 8
years old, we don’t recommend self-rated DMQs by first and second grade students. However, some
researchers have read the items to first and second graders and used visual aids such as “faces” to help
younger children.
8
 The DMQ 18 age-related versions have some new or revised items but the same general
competence scale and six motivation scales: 1) cognitive/object persistence, 2) gross motor persistence,
3) social mastery motivation with adults, 4) social mastery motivation with children/peers, 5) mastery
pleasure, and 6) negative reactions to challenge in mastery situations. The negative reaction scale now
has frustration/anger and sadness/shame subscales, but the sadness/shame subscale is not appropriate
for infants so it is not included in the DMQ 18 infant version. The cognitive/object persistence scale was
called object-oriented persistence in DMQ 17, in part to contrast it to the social mastery scales and gross
motor persistence and because several of the items referred to objects or toys, which is still true for the
preschool scale and especially for the infant scale. Because cognitive aspects of persistence are
important for all three age versions, we now name the scale cognitive/object persistence.

The scales and a common item which is essentially the same across the several age versions are
presented as follows:
Four scales for the instrumental (persistence) aspects of mastery motivations are:
1. Cognitive/object persistence scale (6 items for infants, 5 items for preschoolers, and 6
items for school-age children)
Common item “Works for a long time trying to do something challenging.”
2. Gross motor persistence scale (5 items for each age version)
Common item “Tries to do well in physical activities even when they are challenging (or
difficult).”
3. Social persistence/mastery motivation with adults scale (6 items for infants, 5 for
preschoolers, and 6 for school-age children)
Common item “Tries (hard) to get adults to understand him or her.”
4. Social persistence/mastery motivation with children/peers scale (6 items for each age
version)
Common item “Tries to say and do things that keep other kids interested.”
Two scales for the expressive aspects of mastery motivation are:
5. Mastery pleasure scale, Positive affect after finishing and/or while working on a task (5
items for each age version)
Common item “Gets excited when he or she figures something out.”
6. Negative reactions to challenge in mastery situations scales (5 items for infants, 8 items
with 2 subscales for preschool and school age children)
Common item for frustration/anger subscale “Gets frustrated when not able to complete a
challenging task.”
Common item for sadness/shame subscale for preschool and school age versions “Looks
away when tries but cannot do something”
One scale to assess competence or the ability to master in contrast to the motivation to master
9
 tasks is:
7. General competence compared to peers scale (5 items for each age version)
Common item “Does things that are difficult for children his or her age.”
Current DMQ 18 Data
There are a number of researchers in Taiwan, Hungary, the US, and other countries collecting data
with DMQ 18. Most of these studies are ongoing, but DMQ 18 articles have been published by Józsa and
Morgan (2015) and Morgan, Liao et al. (2017) on Hungarian, Taiwanese, and American preschoolers.
Wang, Liao, Morgan, and colleagues (2016a and 2016b, 2017, 2018) reported DMQ 18 results for
Taiwanese 2-4 year- old children with global developmental delay; Huang et al. (2015, 2016) reported
DMQ data from parents of preschool children with and without delays and also from teacher ratings of
typical 5th to 8th grade children in Taiwan. Some tables showing preliminary psychometric data from some
of these studies are provided in an Appendix 2 in this manual. The next section summarizes the
psychometric data about the DMQ and includes subsections about the reliability and validity of DMQ 18
from the above studies. J. Wang et al. (2014) and Hwang et al. (2017) presented data to support the
reliability and validity of the transition from DMQ 17 to DMQ 18.
We also have some American DMQ 18 data from Blasco, Guy, and Acar (2017) and Blasco and
Guy (2016) from low birth weight and preterm infants and toddlers, from Ramakrishnan (2015) from
parents of 3-5 year-old children in a homeless shelter, and from Wang and Lewis (2018) from parents of
preschool children.

Summary of Psychometrics of the DMQ

Although only preliminary information about the reliability and validity of DMQ 18 data are
available, extensive data about these issues are available from DMQ 17, whose items and scales are very
similar to those in DMQ 18. The current data from DMQ 18 show similar or better reliabilities and
evidence for validity. We expect that other data being collected now and in the future will support the
following summaries, which are based heavily on DMQ 17 data and in some cases from studies using
DMQ 18 or earlier versions of the DMQ.
Reliability of the DMQ Ratings
Internal Consistency for DMQ 17. Morgan et al. (2013) presented evidence that each of the four
DMQ 17 instrumental scales and the mastery pleasure scale had acceptable to good internal consistency
(alphas > .74) for both English and Chinese parent versions and the English version by teachers. Alphas
for the child self-ratings were somewhat lower (.67 - .85) on these five scales. The alphas for negative
reactions to failure and competence, the two shortest scales, ranged from .60 - .86 with a median of .70.
Some of the English-speaking children were 5-7 years old, probably too young to fully understand these
self-ratings of their motivation, even when the items were read to them and the tester used visual aids.
Gilmore and Boulton-Lewis (2009) in Australia also found lower alphas from self-ratings; perhaps
because 17 of 20 of their 8-year-olds had a variety of learning disabilities which may have led to
difficulties in making such self-ratings. Huang and Lay (2011) in Taiwan found generally good parental
rating alphas for the four instrumental scales and mastery pleasure in five waves of typically developing
Taiwanese children from 10 to 53 months.
Józsa, with large Hungarian samples (2007; Józsa & Molnar, 2013), also found good Cronbach
10
alphas for the four instrumental scales and mastery pleasure scale for teachers and parents. Reliabilities
of Hungarian teacher ratings were somewhat higher than those of parents. No significant age
differences in alphas were found for either the teacher or the parent samples. However, reliability for
student self-ratings was somewhat higher for older-age groups than younger-age groups. Development
of reading comprehension undoubtedly influences the computed reliability of the questionnaire, and it
could be the reason for the increase in reliability indices with age.
Józsa et al. 2014 compared self-reports of large samples of Hungarian, Chinese, and American
school-age children from 8-19 years of age, Cronbach alphas were reported for positively worded items
on the four instrumental scales and mastery pleasure. For the American sample, these five mastery
motivation scales had Cronbach alphas from .67 - .86, (median .80). Total persistence, the average of the
four persistence scales, had an alpha of .90. The five mastery motivation scales from the Chinese sample
had Cronbach alphas ranging from .75 -.87 (median .83). Total persistence, had an alpha of .92. For the
Hungarian sample, Cronbach alphas ranged from .67, to .84 (median .74) with alpha of .88 for total
persistence.
Hauser-Cram, Kraus, Warfield, & Steele (1997) likewise found good alphas for teacher and
parent DMQs of young American children with disabilities. Miller, Marnane, Ziviani, and Boyd (2014a)
examined the psychometrics properties of the DMQ rated by 42 5-14 year-old children with cerebral
palsy and their parents. The Cronbach alphas for the four persistence scales and mastery pleasure for
parent ratings were acceptable (.69 - .86, median .76), but child self-reports were marginal (.58 - .89,
median .75). The alphas for negative reaction and competence were acceptable for parent ratings but
low for self-reports. Although the tester used visual aids, part of the reason for lower child self-ratings
(mean age was 7 ½) may well have been lack of understanding, as mentioned earlier, by the youngest
children.
Thus, in general, the seven scales of DMQ 17 had minimally adequate to excellent internal
consistency. Alphas for teacher ratings were the highest and child self-ratings the lowest, especially for
children under 8. Alphas for the four instrumental/persistence scales combined were almost always >.80
even for child self-ratings of young children with disabilities.
Internal Consistency for DMQ 18. For two currently published DMQ 18 studies with Cronbach
alphas available (Józsa & Morgan, 2015; Morgan, Liao et al., 2017), the alphas for the four persistence
scales and general competence were all good (.72-.96). (See Tables 1 and 4.) These alphas include
teacher ratings of Hungarian preschoolers and parent ratings of infants and preschool children from
Hungary, Taiwan, and the US. For Taiwanese school-age child-self and teacher ratings, the alphas for
persistence, mastery pleasure, and competence were good (see Table 6). However, negative reactions to
challenge, especially sadness/shame, alphas were not acceptable in any of these samples, so we are
currently pilot testing some revisions.
Test-retest reliability for DMQ 17. Józsa and Molnar (2013) reported test-retest reliabilities
ranging from .61 to .94 for 98 Hungarian teachers, parents, and students on the four instrumental and
two expressive scales. The median correlations for these scales were .83, .80, and .74 for teacher,
parents, and students, respectively. These test-retest correlations were highest for cognitive/object and
gross motor persistence, somewhat lower for the social mastery scales and mastery pleasure, and
lowest for negative reactions to failure.

11
 Igoe et al. (2011) also assessed test-retest reliability for a small sample of parents of Canadian
preschool children and found acceptable ICC coefficients (.65 - .85, median .77) for the DMQ 17 scales,
except for mastery pleasure, which was very low, apparently due to a lack of variability in the very high
parent ratings on this scale. Miller et al. (2014a) found good test-retest reliabilities in their Australian
sample for parent ratings of children with cerebral palsy; ICCs were .70 - .91 for the seven DMQ 17
scales.
Test-retest reliability for DMQ 18. Table 2 shows that reliabilities of Hungarian teachers’ ratings
two weeks apart were acceptable for all scales (Józsa & Morgan, 2015). Huang & Peng (2015) found
acceptable but somewhat lower test-retest reliabilities from child self-ratings one month apart, except
for the negative reaction scales, where correlations were < .60 (See Table 7). Ramakrishnan (2015)
found test-retest reliability of r=.73 for parent ratings of cognitive persistence.
Inter-rater reliability for DMQ 17. An analysis of the Hungarian DMQ 17 data was carried out by
examining the correlations between the ratings of pairs of teachers who rated the same children but in
somewhat different contexts (Józsa & Molnar, 2013). One of the teacher raters was the home-room
teacher and the other was a teacher who taught the children in several courses. Correlations between
the ratings of total mastery motivation by these teachers for children in grades 4 and 8 were moderate,
indicating a relatively close correspondence between teacher ratings. However, in grade 10, much lower
correlations were found. This may be because in grade 10, the teachers teach the children in only one
subject (e.g. math or history) so they know the children in different contexts and less well than the
teachers in 4th and 8th grades.
Inter-rater reliability for DMQ 18. Interrater reliabilities for the Hungarian preschool teachers
were generally adequate using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) based on ratings of 133 children
by each child’s two preschool teachers. Reliabilities ranged from inadequate for the two negative
reactions subscales to .87 for general competence (see Table 2). Apparently preschool teachers see
negative reactions differently but have little trouble evaluating and agreeing on a child’s ability or
competence relative to other children; there was adequate reliability on the persistence scales and
mastery pleasure.
Longer term stability for DMQ 17. Morgan et al. (1993) reported two studies that found
moderately high stability over six months or more. In a longitudinal study by Maslin-Cole, Bretherton, &
Morgan (1993), the DMQ was rated by parents when children were 18, 24, and 39 months; stability
correlations ranged from .32 to .80, with median coefficients for object-oriented persistence,
social/symbolic play, gross motor persistence, mastery pleasure, and competence of .63, .50, .37, .62,
.68, respectively. There was no indication that stability was lower when the interval was longer. Huang
and Lay (2017) found significant stability for all the DMQ 17 scales over three 16-month periods from 10-
53 months in parent ratings of Taiwanese children, except for mastery pleasure. Moreover, Huang and
Lay found somewhat lower, but still relatively high (.32-.61), stability over 42 months, accept for
negative reaction to failure. Moderately high stability was, likewise, found in the Massachusetts
Developmental Disabilities Study (P. Hauser-Cram, personal communication, March 20, 1989) for
parent ratings more than a year apart; stability correlations ranged from .45 to .67, with a median of
.60. Several recent studies of the DMQ 17 have also found stability in parent ratings across a time span
of 6 months or more (e.g., Wang, Hwang, Liao, Chen, & Hsieh, 2011; Wang, Morgan, & Biringen, 2013).
In terms of longitudinal studies with longer time periods between measures, Gilmore and
Cuskelly (2009) found a significant correlation (r = .45) when children with Down syndrome were rated
12
by a parent on object/cognitive persistence when the children were approximately 5 and 13 years of
age. However, when 43 typically developing children (20 girls, 23 boys) were rated on object/cognitive
persistence at 2 years and 8 years by a parent, the correlations between age 2 and age 8 (assessed
separately for boys and girls) were not significant, but were .28 and .21, respectively (Gilmore, Cuskelly,
& Purdie, 2003). Given the small samples of each gender and the important development changes
between age 2 and age 8, it is not surprising that correlations were in the low to moderate range. Józsa
and Morgan (2014) studied Hungarian children and found a correlation of .37 for object/cognitive
persistence self-ratings across the four years from 4th to 8th grade.
In summary, both short (test-retest) and longer term stability of parent, teacher, and child-self
ratings were acceptable for almost all scales in several studies.
Validity of the DMQ Ratings
Evidence for convergent validity for DMQ 17. Evidence for convergent validity in children
developing typically includes Morgan and Bartholomew (1998) who found that elementary school-aged
children’s DMQ self-ratings were significantly related to the child’s self-ratings of Harter’s (1981) intrinsic
motivation scales, and to the child’s ratings of Harter’s (1982) preference for challenge. The
DMQ scores have also been correlated with other theoretically related variables. For example, Józsa and
Morgan (2014) found significant positive correlations between object/cognitive persistence and the
child’s grade point average. Gilmore, Cuskelly, and Purdie (2003) found that DMQ ratings at 2 years
predicted cognitive reading and spelling of typically developing girls at age 8. Thus, there are a number
of studies that provide evidence for the convergent validity of the DMQ in children developing typically.
Majnemer, Shevell, Law, Poulin, and Rosenbaum (2010) in a sample of children with cerebral
palsy found that higher parent ratings of DMQ motivation were correlated with fewer activity
limitations, behavior problems, and reduced family burden. In a related study Majnemer, Shikako-
Thomas, Chrokron, Law, Shevell, Chilingaryan, Poulin, and Rosenbaum (2010) found that gross motor
persistence, even in combination with age, sex, and severity of motor limitations and other variables,
predicted preferences for recreational activities (e.g., crafts, drawing, watching TV) and skill-based
activities (e.g., swimming or dancing); negative reaction to failure was the only significant (negative)
predictor of social activities (e.g., talking on the phone or hanging out) in the children with cerebral
palsy. Similarly, Majnemer et al. (2008) found that mastery motivation and involvement in rehabilitation
services predicted enhanced involvement in leisure activities, and mastery pleasure was a strong
predictor of diversity of involvement in social activities. Majnemer et al. (2013) also found interesting
patterns of significant correlations that support convergent validity: parent DMQ ratings of
object/cognitive persistence were positively related to IQ (.42) and negatively related to
hyperactivity/inattention (-.53); gross motor persistence was related (.52) to a gross motor function
measure, and the Vineland socialization measure was related to both social persistence with adults (.46)
and social persistence with peers (.56).

Hauser-Cram et al. (1997) found that mother’s ratings of DMQ-E object-oriented persistence
predicted behavioral mastery task persistence two years later, even controlling for cognitive
performance. Miller et al. (2014c) provided evidence that inconsistent and excessively lax parental
discipline is related to low mastery motivation in school-age children with cerebral palsy. Wang, Morgan,
Hwang, Chen, & Liao (2014) found that mother’s cognitive growth fostering teaching interaction with

13
her toddler who had motor delays was significantly correlated to both DMQ total persistence (.45) and
mastery pleasure (.44). Thus, there are also a number of studies that provide evidence for convergent
validity in children with various disabilities.
Another method used to assess the validity of the questionnaire is to examine the effects of an
intervention program on maternal perceptions of mastery motivation, as well as on the child’s behavior.
Butterfield and Miller’s (1984) intervention seemed to raise the children’s mastery motivation on the
behavioral tasks and raised the mothers’ perceptions of their children’s mastery motivation (Harmon et
al., 1984). Unfortunately there don’t seem any recent, published reports of the use of the DMQ as an
outcome measure in an intervention study. However, Miller, Ziviani, Ware, & Boyd. (2014d) used the
DMQ object/cognitive persistence parent ratings at baseline in an intervention study of school-age
children with cerebral palsy. They found that the DMQ best predicted higher performance and
satisfaction on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM).
Evidence for convergent validity for DMQ 18. Wang et al (2015) found significant correlations
between the cognitive/object scale of DMQ 18 and developmental age scores on the Comprehensive
Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers (CDIIT). And, Huang and Peng (2015) found significant
correlations between the DMQ total persistence and mastery pleasure scales with reports of academic
achievement in 5th to 8th grade students, but the correlations were modest, indicating that children do
see their academic achievement overlapping somewhat with their mastery motivation but not highly
overlapping (See Table 8). Both of these findings support the convergent finding of the DMQ 18.
Evidence from different types of raters with DMQ 17. Gliner, Morgan, and Leech (2009) argue
that when either the raters or the context are quite different, correlations between raters provide
evidence for validity that should be evaluated based on Cohen’s (1988) rough guidelines about the
magnitude of the correlation; e.g., r= .3 provides a medium level of support. Thus, another type of
convergent evidence would be significant correlations among different types of raters in different
settings, perhaps especially correlations of parents or children with relatively objective raters such as
teachers. Because raters such as parents, teachers, and children themselves see the child in quite
different settings, one would not expect the correlations to be as high as interrater reliability
coefficients, where raters are observing and rating the same behaviors in the same context.
Huang and Lay’s (2011) Taiwanese two- and three-year-olds were rated by both fathers and
mothers, who were in general agreement about all aspects of motivation and competence, except
negative reaction to failure. Mother-father correlations were low moderate to strong (.21 - .61, median
.45), which are similar to English and Hungarian parent-teacher correlations.

For ratings of children with delays, Gilmore and Boulton-Lewis (2009) found a high (r = .53)
mother-teacher correlations on object/cognitive persistence, but Hauser-Cram et al. (1997) did not find
a significant teacher-parent correlation on object/cognitive persistence for ratings of preschool children
with disabilities. Miller et al. (2014a) found very low parent-child concordance for DMQ ratings of 5-14
(mean age 7 ½) year-old children with cerebral palsy. ICC coefficients varied from -.04 to .42 but none
were significantly different from zero. These quite low parent-child DMQ relationships, except for the
Hungarian data lead one to question the validity of the child self-reports or the parent proxy ratings or
both. Self-reports of young children 5 to 7 or 8 are especially suspect. Other evidence described earlier
about the validity of the parent reports support the conclusion that it is primarily self-reports for
children aged 5 to 7 or 8 that do not provide good evidence for reliability or validity.
14
 Child-parent, child-teacher, and parent-teacher ratings of English-speaking raters of school-age
children had an overall median correlation of .30, which provides a medium level of support for validity.
However, parent-teacher correlations (median =.37) were higher than those that included a child self-
rating (medians= .24 and .12 for parent-child and teacher-child, respectively)(Morgan et al., 2013).
Because the correlations with a child-self rating are relatively low, they again suggest that context and
especially the self-ratings of young school-age children may be problematic.

Józsa’s research with mostly older school-age children found generally higher parent, child, and
teacher interrater correlations in Hungary, especially for object/cognitive and gross motor motivation
where correlations were approximately .4 to .5 (Józsa & Molnar, 2013). In contrast to the English-
speaking sample, parent and teacher correlations in Hungary (.36 - .50) were not higher than
correlations of parent or teacher with a child-self rating (.35 - .54). The Hungarian children were in 2nd to
10th grade so most were older than the English speaking samples mentioned earlier.

Józsa and Molnar (2013) and Turner and Johnson (2003) argue that combining parent and
teacher ratings of mastery motivation produce a broader measure because each provides information
about some aspects of mastery motivation. Turner and Johnson (2003), using three items similar to
those on the DMQ, found that their mastery motivation measure of at-risk 4 year-old preschool children
predicted the children’s performance on achievement tests controlling for pretest differences. Józsa and
Molnar (2013) combined parent, teacher, and child-self ratings of the DMQ cognitive persistence scale.
They found that this combined measure was the best predictor of Grade Point Averages (GPAs) in both
grades 3 and 6 using multiple regressions with basic skills, IQ, and DMQ cognitive persistence as
predictors.
Evidence from different types of raters with DMQ 18. Huang & Peng (2015) found modest
significant correlations between teacher and child-self ratings on the DMQ 18 cognitive/object, gross
motor, total persistence, and mastery pleasure scales (See Table 9). However, there was not significant
agreement for the social or negative reaction scales. Interestingly the best teacher-child agreement was
on general competence (r=.44).
Evidence for criterion-related validity from DMQ 17. Several studies have found significant
relationships between maternal perceptions of child motivation and tester ratings or scores of the
child’s mastery motivation on standardized testing sessions, which could be considered a criterion
measure. For example, = general persistence ratings by parents was significantly correlated (r = .37) with
infants’ actual persistence at tasks (Morgan et al., 1983). In another study, preschool teachers rated the
usual behavior of children who had also been tested with the mastery tasks (Morgan et al., 1983); there
was a significant correlation (r =.41) between teacher ratings of the child’s persistence and
independently obtained tester ratings of the child’s behavioral task orientation (i.e., persistence at the
mastery tasks). Similarly, Morgan and Bartholomew (1998) found that children’s DMQ total mastery
motivation score was significantly correlated with observed mastery motivation during tasks (r = .28).
Gilmore and Cuskelly (2009) found that parents’ DMQ object/cognitive persistence scores were related
with persistence at behavioral tasks for children with Down syndrome at age 5 (r = .42), and such parent
DMQ scores at age 13 were related with task persistence (r = .49).
Evidence for criterion-related validity from DMQ 18. Wang, Morgan, et al. (2016) found
significant correlations between the DMQ 18 cognitive/object persistence scale and behavioral
persistence at puzzle tasks (r=.42) and for persistence at all tasks (r=.28), but not for cause and effects
15
tasks separately.
Factorial evidence for validity from DMQ 17. Factor analyses of the ratings of the four
instrumental and the positive expressive mastery motivation items for English-speaking preschool
children conformed quite well to the intended dimensions. The Chinese preschool ratings and those for
English and Chinese infants factored less well but generally in the planned way. It is likely that the
differences from intended factors in the Chinese samples reflected both cultural differences and subtle
problems with translation of some DMQ items, which we have tried to correct in the DMQ 18.

To assess factorial validity, Józsa, et al. (2014) computed principal axis factor analyses with
orthogonal rotation on Hungarian, Chinese, and American school-age children’s data for 30 positively
worded mastery motivation items (from the four instrumental scales and mastery pleasure of the DMQ
17) from the large combined sample and each of the three countries separately. For the combined
sample there was strong factorial evidence for the validity of these five mastery motivation scales
because these items had their highest factor loading from the intended factor and there were no factors
with cross loadings above .30. However, one intended cognitive persistence item did not load on any
scale. Thus, the four persistence scales and mastery pleasure all have good factorial validity for school-
aged children across samples from these three cultures.
The Józsa et al. (2014) factor analysis for the smaller sample of American school-age children was
similar to that for the combined sample, except that persistence at social tasks with peers also included
one gross motor and one cognitive persistence item and one social with peers item loading had its
highest (.33) on the social with adults factor. All other items had their highest loading on the intended
factor.
The Józsa et al. (2014) factor analysis of the large sample of Chinese children’s data was again
quite similar to the analysis of the combined samples, except two cognitive persistence items factored
with the items in the persistence at social tasks with peers items. All other items had their highest
loading on the intended factor.
The Józsa et al. (2014) factor analysis for the very large sample of Hungarian children’s data also
provided strong support for the validity of the intended scales. All items, except one that did not load
above .40 on any scale, had their highest loading on the intended scale.
Factorial evidence for the validity of DMQ 18. Józsa and Morgan (2015) used a five-factor
principal axis factor analysis (PAF) with promax (oblique) rotation to see whether the empirical grouping
of items fit the theory that there are four distinct but intercorrelated persistence dimensions and a
distinct mastery pleasure dimension. The results of this 5-factor PAF analysis of preschool teachers
indicates an excellent fit of the theory and the empirical data because each of the items in the five
scales had high factor loadings (.5 or above) on the appropriate factor, and there were no items that
cross-loaded above .4 on another scale. Item 6 did not load above .4 on any scale, which may mean
that it should be deleted or rewritten.
Morgan, Liao, et al. (2017) factor analyzed the data from 362 parents of preschool children
from Taiwan and Hungary. The results shown in Table 5 suggest the factoral validity of parent ratings of
preschool children in these countries.
Although the Józsa and the Morgan studies provided strong evidence for factorial validity, Huang
16
& Peng (2015) found only partial support from their factor analyses; the social persistence with peers
and cognitive/object items did not factor very well for these Taiwanese school children so we are pilot
testing some revised items. There were good, clean factors for social persistence with adults, gross
motor persistence, and mastery pleasure.
Validity issues with questionnaires. Using ratings from questionnaires and inventories, including
the DMQ, several validity issues were identified. There is always the question of the extent to which the
rater’s perceptions of behavior are in agreement with actual behavior, especially when one person (e.g.,
a parent) is rating another person’s (e.g., their child’s) behavior. There are also validity concerns
whenever an instrument developed in one language and culture is translated and used in another
culture.
With the Chinese and Hungarian translations of DMQ 17, decentering (adjusting both the English
and Chinese questionnaires) was not used, as it had been when the original Spanish translation was
developed (Knauf-Jensen, Busch-Rossnagel, & Morgan, 1997). The goal of decentering is to develop
items with linguistic equivalence so that they also are culturally appropriate in both cultures. However,
both Chinese and Hungarian DMQs were back translated by bilingual persons who were not familiar
with the original English DMQ. Further adjustments to the Chinese and Hungarian versions of DMQ 17,
were made after pilot testing revealed some interpretation issues. As noted earlier, we have used a
procedure similar to decentering in the development of DMQ 18.
Two other validity issues, social desirability and inaccurate/careless reading by the rater, were
considered. The reading accuracy problem was discussed above and led to the elimination in DMQ 18 of
the items that had to be reverse coded. In regard to social desirability, we assumed that any individual
child would not be highly motivated on all aspects of mastery motivation. Thus, if a child was rated very
high on all of the scales we assumed that the rater had a general halo or social desirability bias.
Inspection of the data indicated that Chinese parents were much less likely to have such a halo than the
English-speaking parents or either culture’s child-self raters.

Comparisons of Mean Scales Scores for the Three Cultures

Parent Ratings for Typically Developing English Speaking and Chinese Speaking Samples
Morgan et al. (2013) reported that, in general, English-speaking parents rated their children
higher than the Chinese-speaking parents on the DMQ scale scores except negative reaction to failure.
The English and Chinese samples also were compared for each age group (infant, preschool, and school-
aged children) separately. Although the three MANOVAs were each significant, the effect sizes were
larger for the univariate scale score comparisons of parent ratings of English versus Chinese school-age
children than for ratings of infants and preschoolers, at these younger ages, some of the univariate
differences were not significant. It appears that the English versus Chinese differences in parent ratings
become more pronounced in school-age children.
Comparisons of English and Chinese infants. For the parent ratings of infants, English speaking
infants were rated higher on three DMQ scales: object/cognitive persistence, mastery pleasure, and
competence. However, there were only small to very small effect sizes and non-significant differences
on the other scales. For even the three significant differences, the effect sizes were small to medium.
Comparisons of English and Chinese preschoolers. Parent ratings of preschool children provided
more mixed results than either the infant or school age data. Chinese preschool children were rated
17
higher by parents than their English peers on social mastery motivation with adults but the effect size
was small. Chinese preschoolers were rated somewhat but not significantly higher on object/cognitive
mastery motivation. On the other hand, the English speaking parents of typically developing
preschoolers rated their children higher on social persistence with children, and somewhat but not
significantly (at p <. 01) higher on gross motor persistence and competence.
Comparisons of preschool children in Taiwan and mainland China. The typically developing
preschool children from Taipei were compared to those from Hangzhou. The main difference was that
the mainland parents rated their preschoolers lower than the Taiwan parents on mastery pleasure and
especially competence. Perhaps, China’s one-child policy has led to higher parental expectation for their
preschool child’s competence.
Comparisons of English and Chinese parent ratings of elementary school children. The results
for elementary school children indicate that English-speaking parents rated their children higher on all
four instrumental mastery motivation scales plus mastery pleasure and competence. The Chinese
parents rated their children higher on negative reaction to failure. However, the effect sizes varied from
small for negative reaction and gross motor too large for competence. It is hard to know whether these
are true motivational and behavioral differences or whether the Chinese parents of school-age children
have higher expectations and were less influenced by social desirability than the English-speaking
parents. Remember that the Chinese parents of preschoolers rated their children higher on some scales.
However, as just noted, the parents of Chinese school-age children rated them lower than the English-
speaking parents on all scales except negative reaction to failure.
English-Chinese parent comparisons on individual DMQ 17 items. Most of the 45 individual
items on the infant and preschool forms were not rated significantly differently by the English and
Chinese parents. Furthermore, none of the item-level differences produced large effect sizes. However,
for the parent ratings of elementary school children, 35 out of 45 items were rated differently by the
Chinese and English-speaking parents. Even here, the effect size of the difference was large only on one
competence item (“Does things that are hard for children his or her age”). It is hard to know the extent
to which these differences were due to cultural differences versus cultural/language differences in the
meaning of at least some items. However, the fact that there were many significant differences at
school-age and few at preschool, along with prior research suggesting that Chinese parents rate their
children lower than American parents suggests that it is reasonable to assume that, when the scale
scores were significantly different, there was at least some cultural difference in how parents perceived
the motivation of their child.
Comparisons of Parent Ratings of Preschoolers in Hungary, Taiwan, and the US

The main country or cultural difference found in Morgan, Liao, et al. (2017) was that Hungarian
parents’ ratings of their preschool children were higher than those of Taiwanese parents on gross motor
persistence and competence. On the other hand, parents in Taiwan rated their children higher on
sadness/shame during challenges than parents in Hungary.

This finding that Hungarian children were rated by their parents as higher on competence and
some aspects of persistence than were similar age peers in Taiwan seems puzzling, and not fully in
agreement with Józsa et al. (2014) who compared DMQ self-ratings of 11-year-old children from Hungary
and China. In that study, the Chinese children rated themselves higher, in contrast to current study, on
competence, but lower on gross motor persistence, as in the current study. It seems questionable that
18
preschool children in Hungary actually would be more competent or more persistent at behavioral tasks
than similar aged children developing typically in Taiwan, although we don’t know any direct behavioral
evidence to suggest or refute such possibilities.
Comparisons of Child Self-Ratings across Cultures
English-Speaking versus Chinese-Speaking elementary school children. Morgan et al. (2013)
reported self-ratings of elementary school children developing typically; the overall MANOVA (p= .015)
comparing English-speaking versus Chinese children was not considered statistically significant and the
effect size (partial eta2) was small. The English speaking children rated themselves significantly higher
than the Chinese-speaking children only on object/cognitive persistence and gross motor persistence;
and the effect sizes of even these differences were small.
Thus, while most of the English versus Chinese comparisons of elementary school children were
in the same direction for the parent and for child-self ratings, the effect sizes of most differences were
much smaller for the child-self ratings. However, in the case of gross motor persistence, the English-
speaking children were rated higher than the Chinese by both their parents and themselves. Thus,
parents and children agree that American elementary school children are more motivated to master
physical and athletic skills than their Chinese peers.
Both Chinese and English speaking children rated gross motor persistence, mastery pleasure, and
social mastery with peers/children higher than they rated social mastery with adults, competence, and
negative reaction to failure. This order of importance of motives is similar to what Józsa (2007) found in
his large Hungarian sample.
Comparisons of Hungarian, Chinese, and American school-age and teens. Józsa et al. (2014)
expected to find similar levels mastery motivation measured by five DMQ 17 scales across cultures in
upper elementary school at age 11 but greater cultural differences in high school at age 16. To examine
this prediction, they compared the three cultures separately at ages 11 and 16, where all three cultures had data.
On total persistence at age 11, the overall difference among American, Chinese, and Hungarian children was not
significant at p < .01. In contrast, at age 16 the overall difference was significant. This increase in cultural
differences at age 16 for overall persistence was consistent with the prediction. The American and Hungarian
teens rated themselves higher than the Chinese teens rated themselves on total persistence. Thus, the
aggregated persistence scores were more similar in the three cultures at age 11 than at 16. However, although
the general trend for persistence was consistent with prediction, there were some differences across the three
cultures that were inconsistent with this general trend. For example, with regard to mastery pleasure there were
no significant cultural differences at either age.

Moderately high correlations among the DMQ scales indicate that school-age children perceive a
substantial overlap among the aspects of mastery motivation and between their competence/ability
and, especially, their cognitive persistence/motivation. The mastery motivation scales and competence
were less highly correlated for Hungarian and American students than for Chinese students. This finding
is consistent with evidence that Chinese students have a stronger belief that effort/persistence is
important and that it is the way to achieve competence (Józsa et al. 2014).

Age Differences/Declines in Mastery Motivation

The DMQ has very similar items across the age group versions; thus, it seemed reasonable to
make comparisons of children in different age groups.

19
 Age Differences in Self-ratings by School-age Children and Teens. There are well documented
declines in intrinsic motivation by self-rated American children from elementary to middle to high school
(Harter, 1981). Józsa (2007, Józsa and Molnar, 2013, Józsa and Morgan, 2014) found similar age-related
declines in several aspects of mastery motivation in Hungarian school-age children and teens. These
declines were found in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and in the ratings of parents and
teachers as well as the children’s self-ratings.
Thus, Józsa et al. (2014) hypothesized that there would be a general decline in Chinese, American,
and Hungarian cultures on both the instrumental/persistence and the affective dimensions of
mastery motivation. This hypothesis was largely confirmed for persistence but there were mixed results
for mastery pleasure. For total persistence, the age trends were quite similar in all three cultures,
especially the downward trend from age 11 or 13 to later adolescence. The declines were also seen in all
three cultures separately on three of the four instrumental motivational measures: cognitive persistence,
gross motor persistence, and social persistence with peers. The Chinese and Hungarian children also
showed a decline on social persistence with adults. Although the American children’s mean scores,
similarly, were somewhat lower for the adolescent age group, the decline in social persistence with
adults was not statistically significant at p<.01 for Americans, perhaps in part due to the smaller
American sample relative to the other two samples. The trends for mastery pleasure were less clear and
varied across cultures. The Chinese and American samples had no significant age differences, while in the
very large Hungarian sample there was a significant decrease in these self-ratings of mastery pleasure
from 9 to 13. In all samples, though, the effect size for age effects on mastery pleasure, was small.
Józsa et al. (2014) found different amounts of decline on the several dimensions of mastery
motivation, with cognitive and gross motor persistence decreasing more than the social mastery
motivation scales and mastery pleasure. In all three cultures the effect sizes for cognitive and gross
motor persistence were larger than these for the two social mastery scales, and in all three cultures
changes in mastery pleasure had the smallest effect size.
Józsa et al. (2014) also found that the three cultures differed considerably in degree of decline on
perceived competence. There was not a significant decline in the American competence ratings.
Although there was a significant decline in the Hungarian ratings from second grade until fourth grade,
afterwards they were essentially flat. There was, however, a significant linear decline in ratings for the
Chinese sample, with a small effect size. Thus, there were significant cultural differences in self-
perceived competence at age 16. The Chinese teens rated their competence as lower than both the
Hungarian and American teens, and the Americans rated themselves as more competent than the
Hungarians. This at first might seem surprising given how well Chinese teens perform on academic tests,
but it is consistent with other evidence about cultural influences on the self-perceptions of Chinese
youth.
Age differences during infancy. Backman, Morgan, Hunter, Ross, & Harmon (2006) presented
longitudinal data of a large community sample of infants at 6, 12, 18, and 40 months whose parents
rated them on the DMQ. This study found a significant increase in the ratings of the motivation of these
infants from 6 to 12 months on object/cognitive and gross motor persistence and mastery pleasure.
Sparks, Hunter, Backman, Morgan, and Ross (2012) found 6 to 18 month increases in all the scales
except the two social mastery scales. Social persistence with adults and mastery pleasure were rated
higher at 40 months than 18 months, but the effect sizes are small to medium.

20
 Gender Differences in Mastery Motivation
Józsa et al. (2014) examined gender difference in self-reports of school-age children and teens in
three cultures. Males rated themselves higher than females on gross motor persistence and competence
in China and Hungary but not the US. Hungarian girls also rated themselves higher on mastery pleasure
and the two persistence scales. However, all these self-reported gender difference had small effect sizes.
Morgan et al (2013) reported few statistically significant gender differences on the DMQ scales
with other samples. None of the parent ratings of mastery motivation for children developing atypically,
either Chinese or English-speaking, were significantly different for boys versus girls. Likewise, there were
no gender differences for teacher ratings. Wang et al. (2011) reported that Taiwanese mothers rated 3-
year-old boys’ persistence scores significantly lower than girls’ scores. Thus, as found in most mastery
motivation research, gender differences were small and inconsistent across samples (Józsa & Molnar,
2013; Morgan & Yang, 1995; Józsa & Morgan, 2015; Morgan, Liao, et al., 2017).

Mean Differences in Paired Comparisons of Parent, Teacher, and Child-Self Ratings

Parent-teacher comparisons. Paired ts comparing pairs of raters of the same typically developing
child were computed. English-speaking parents rated their child higher on mastery motivation than did
their teacher on all scales except negative reaction to failure, where the difference was not significant
(Morgan et al., 2013). This finding is consistent with Józsa’s (2007) Hungarian results. Hauser-Cram et al.
(1997) also found that parents rated their child higher on object/cognitive persistence than did the
child’s teacher.
Child-teacher comparisons. English-speaking school-age children rated themselves higher than
did their teacher on object/cognitive persistence, gross motor persistence, and social persistence with
peers; there was not a significant difference on the other four scales (Morgan et al. 2013). This finding is
also somewhat consistent with Józsa (2007), except that he found no difference between teachers and
children on social persistence with peers. Also, Józsa’s data indicated that students rated themselves
higher than their teacher on mastery pleasure.
Parent-Child comparisons. Morgan et al. (2013) reported that both English and Chinese children
rated themselves higher than their parents rated them on object/cognitive persistence and gross motor
persistence. However, parents rated their child higher than the children rated themselves on social
persistence with adults and mastery pleasure in both the English and Chinese samples. These results are
quite consistent with Józsa (2007); Hungarian students rated themselves higher than their parents rated
them on object/cognitive and gross motor persistence but lower than their parents on social mastery
motivation and mastery pleasure. It is interesting that general competence was rated higher by English-
speaking parents but lower by Chinese parents than were the child-self ratings. The American parents
evaluated their children’s competence more positively than the Chinese parents, but both groups had
similar child-self ratings.

Comparisons of Children Developing Typically and Atypically

English-speaking children developing typically rated by a parent were compared to children
developing atypically rated by their parent. The children were rated differently on all six mastery
motivation scales and on competence (Morgan et al., 2013). On the four instrumental mastery
motivation scales, mastery pleasure and competence, the typically developing children were rated
higher than the children atypically developing who, although older, were similar in estimated average
21
mental age. However, the effect sizes varied from extremely large (partial eta2 > .20) for competence
and object/cognitive persistence too small for negative reaction to failure, which was rated higher for
the children developing atypically.
Morgan, et al. (2013) divided the atypically developing English-speaking children into four
groups: Down syndrome, autism spectrum, cerebral palsy, and other genetic and developmental
disabilities. The typically developing children were rated higher than all four groups of children
developing atypically on object/cognitive persistence, gross motor persistence, social persistence with
children, and competence. However, on social persistence with adults and mastery pleasure, the typical
children were only rated higher than children with autism and cerebral palsy. On negative reaction to
failure, typically developing children were only rated lower than the children with autism spectrum
disorder. Thus, as might be expected, the children with Down syndrome were not different from children
developing typically on social mastery with adults, mastery pleasure, and negative reaction to failure.
There were also some significant differences among the groups of children developing atypically. For
example, the children with Down syndrome and those with “other disabilities” were rated higher than
the group with autism on gross motor persistence, both social persistence scales, and mastery pleasure.
On the other hand, the children with autism and cerebral palsy were rated higher than the group with
Down syndrome on competence.
Parental ratings of Chinese-speaking infants and toddlers with motor delay were compared to
typically developing children of roughly the same mental age (Morgan, et al. 2013; Wang, Morgan,
Hwang, and Liao, 2013, Wang, Morgan, Hwang, Chen, and Liao, 2014). The Chinese infants were rated
significantly lower on all scales, except negative reactions to failure, where they were rated much
higher. The effect sizes for the four instrumental aspects of mastery motivation and for competence
were very large (partial eta2 > .20). Likewise, Morgan, Liao, et al. (2017) found large significant
differences between preschool children with and without delays on persistence, mastery pleasure, and
competence.
These lower ratings for English-speaking and Chinese-speaking children developing atypically
indicate that parents perceive that their atypically developing children have lower mastery motivation
than typically developing children. However, Gilmore, Cuskelly, and Hayes (2003), Gilmore and Cuskelly
(2011), Glenn, Dayus, Cunningham, and Horgan (2001), and P. Wang et al. (2013) all found that,
although there were perceived differences on most DMQ scales, there were few behavioral differences
on moderately challenging mastery motivation tasks between typically developing children and mental
age-matched children with delays.
These DMQ comparisons and most studies comparing children developing typically and atypically
at least roughly match children on development age. However, it is likely that when mothers rate their
delayed child, they compare him or her to typically developing children of a similar chronological age.
The individualized mastery tasks adjust the difficulty of the task so that motivation is assessed on
moderately difficult tasks for that individual child. Unfortunately, the DMQ 17 didn’t attempt to do that;
some efforts were made to have the DMQ 18 persistence/instrumental scales focus more on tasks that
are challenging for that child.

Uses of the DMQ

A questionnaire completed by parents, teachers, or the child/teen themselves can augment the
usually short observational/behavioral task measures of mastery motivation because such raters have
22
the opportunity to observe the child in other contexts for longer periods and over time. Thus, we
recommend that practitioners and investigators interested in mastery motivation use the DMQ,
preferably in conjunction with individualized structured mastery tasks (e.g., Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2011;
Morgan et al., 2015; P. Wang et al., 2013; P. Wang et al., 2015). The DMQ provides a quicker and easier
tool to measure the mastery aspects of the children’s functioning than gained from the behavioral
assessments. The evidence to support the validity of the DMQ measures presented in this manual
reinforces this advantage. Combining the DMQ ratings with behavioral assessments of mastery
motivation may well provide an even more accurate measure.
The DMQ can be used in a variety of applied settings and with clinical populations. DMQ 17 data
on children developing typically has been compared with data collected from children at risk for
development delays and with children developing atypically due to genetic factors (Morgan et al., 2013).
There have been a number of studies using the DMQ with children at risk or developing atypically (e.g.,
Blasco & Saxton, 2009; Blasco, Guy, & Acar, 2015; Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2011; Majnemer et al., 2013;
Miller et al., 2014a; Niccols, Atkinson, & Pepler, 2003; Pipp-Siegel, Sedey, VanLeeuwan, and Yoshinaga-
Itano, 2003; P. Wang et al., 2013, 2015). Miller, Ziviani, & Boyd (2014b) conducted a systematic review
of the properties of instruments designed to assess motivation in school-age children with a physical
disability or motor delay. They concluded that the DMQ provides evidence of adequate validity,
preliminary evidence of test-rest reliability, and good clinical utility.

In conclusion, Mastery motivation is a fundamental developmental construct that should be used

as part of a comprehensive evaluation of children. The DMQ provides reliable and valid information
about a child’s mastery motivation, but self-ratings of children 5 to 8 are problematic. The ratings of
teachers, parents, and child self-reports combined provide a more comprehensive measure that seems
to provide additional value for research and clinical use.

Acknowledgments
Several colleagues who are not co-authors of this manual played key roles in the development
and revision of the DMQ: Lois Brockman, Patti Blasco Nancy Busch-Rossnagel, Robert Harmon, Penny
Hauser-Cram, Kay Jennings, Diana Knauf, Christine Maslin-Cole, Sage Saxton, Aimee Walker, and Amy
Williams. We want to thank Julia Lyons and Laura Puchino for word processing.
In addition to the authors, many researchers shared data from early versions of the DMQ. We
also thank Rachel Atfield, Toni Backman, Edna Neal Collins, Monica Cuskelly, Toby Delong-Hamilton,
Tammy Dichter-Blancher, Debbie Fidler, Linda Gilmore, Sharon Hunter, Susan Hepburn, Ai-Wen Hwang,
Hyun Yee Kim, Annette Majnemer, Amy Philofsky, Randy Ross, Joan Spaulding, and April Trieschock, who
shared their raw data from DMQ-17 for use in this manual. Many of the above and other researchers are
acknowledged in the DMQ reference list.
A large number of research assistants at Colorado State University and other universities around
the world played important roles in the data collection and analysis. Finally, we wish to thank, for using
the DMQ, the more than 15,000 English-, Chinese-, Dutch-, French-, Hungarian-, and Hebrew-speaking
parents, teachers, and children.
We dedicate this manual and the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire to Robert John Harmon,
MD, colleague, friend, and former professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of
Colorado, School of Medicine. Bob was not only one of the developers of the questionnaire, but also
23
served as a source of encouragement and support over the 30 years of the development and use of the
DMQ. He died suddenly of a heart attack in February 2006 at age 59. We miss him.

24
 References and Mastery Motivation Bibliography
Barrett, K. C., Fox, N. A., Morgan, G. A., Fidler, D. J., & Daunhauer, L. A. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of self-regulatory
processes in development: New directions and international perspectives. New York, NY: Psychology Press/Taylor
and Francis. (Section 3 is: Development of Self-Regulation and Mastery Motivation.)

Barrett, K. C., Józsa, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2017). New computer-based of mastery motivation and executive function
tasks for school readiness and school success in 3 to 8 year-old children. Hungarian Educational Research Journal,
7(2), 86-105. doi: 10.14413/ HERJ/7/2/6

Barrett, K. C., MacTurk, R. H., & Morgan, G. A. (1995). Concluding comments. In R. H. MacTurk, & G. A. Morgan (Eds.).
Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations and applications (pp. 339–359). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Barrett, K. B., & Morgan, G. A. (2018). Mastery motivation and its development: Theory, research, and implications
for today’s global society. Invited chapter in A. Elliot (Ed.) Advances in motivation science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Backman, T. L., Morgan, G. A., Hunter, S., Ross, R. G., & Harmon, R. J. (2006). Parental perceptions of changes and
stability in the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire [summary]. Program and Proceedings of the
Developmental Psychobiology Research Group Retreat, 14, 15.

Barrett, K. B., & Morgan, G. A. (2018). Mastery motivation and its development: Theory, research, and implications
for today’s global society. Invited chapter in A. Elliot (Ed.) Advances in motivation science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (1995). Continuities and discontinuities in mastery motivation in infancy and
toddlerhood: A conceptualization and review. In R. H. MacTurk & G. A. Morgan (Eds.), Mastery motivation:
Origins, conceptualizations, and applications (pp. 67–93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Barrett, K. C., Morgan, G. A., & Maslin-Cole, C. A. (1993). Three studies on the development of mastery motivation in
infancy and toddlerhood. In D. Messer (Ed.). Mastery motivation in early childhood: Development, measurement
and social processes (pp. 83–108). London: Routledge.

Blasco, P.M., & Guy, S. (2016, June). Executive function in infants and toddlers born low in birth weight (LBW) and
preterm. Presented at the International Society of Early Intervention in Stockholm, Sweden.

Blasco, P.M., Guy. S., Acar, S., & Saxton, S. (2017, October). Longitudinal study of executive function and low birth
weight. Presentation at the Division for Early Childhood 33rd Annual International Conference. Portland, OR.

Blasco, P. M., & Saxton, S. (2009). Examining developmental/behavioral ability in infants and toddlers born
premature and low-birth-weight (LBW). IRB approved Database including more than 200 DMQ 17s.
Oregon Health Science University, Portland, OR.

Brockman, L. M., Morgan, G. A., & Harmon, R. J. (1988). Mastery motivation and developmental delay. In T. Wachs &
R. Sheehan (Eds.). Assessment of developmentally disabled infants and preschoolers: A transdisciplinary
approach (pp. 267–284). New York: Plenum.

Busch-Rossnagel, N. A. & Morgan, G. A. (2013). Introduction to the mastery motivation and self-regulation section.
In K. C. Barrett, N. A. Fox, G. A. Morgan, D. J. Fidler, & L. A. Daunhauer. (Eds.) Handbook of self- regulatory
processes in development: New directions and international perspectives (pp. 247-264). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.

Butterfield, P. M., & Miller, L. (1984). Read your baby: A follow up intervention program for parents with NICU
infants. Infant Mental Health, 5(2), 107–116.

25
Cuskelly, M., Gilmore, L., & Carroll, A. (2013). Self-regulation and motivation in individuals with developmental
disabilities: Barriers, supports, and strategies. In K.C. Barrett N. A. Fox, G. A. Morgan, D. J. Fidler, & L. A.
Daunhauer. (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulatory processes in development: New directions and international
perspectives (pp. 381-402). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Dichter-Blancher, T.B. (1999). The role of language and parenting behaviors in the development of mastery
motivation in toddlers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, Bronx, NY.

Gaiter, J. L., Morgan, G. A., Jennings. K. D., Harmon, R. J., & Yarrow, L. J. (1982). Variety of cognitively-oriented
caregiver activities: Relationships to cognitive and motivational functioning at 1 and 3 1/2 years of age. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 141, 49–56.

Gilmore, L. & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2009). Just try harder and you will shine: A study 20 lazy children. Australian Journal
of Guidance and Counseling, 19(2), 95-103.

Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2009). A longitudinal study of motivation and competence in children with Down syndrome:
Early childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53, 484-492.

Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2011). Observational assessment and maternal reports of motivation in children and
adolescents with Down syndrome. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116, 153-
164.

Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M., & Hayes, A. (2003). A comparative study of mastery motivation in young children with Down
syndrome: Similar outcomes, different processes? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 181-190.

Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M., & Purdie, N. (2003). Mastery motivation: Stability and predictive validity from ages two to
eight. Early Education and Development, 14, 411-424.

Gilmore, L., Islam, S. Younesian, S., Bús, E., & Józsa, K. (2017). Mastery motivation of university students in Australia,
Hungary, Bangladesh and Iran. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 178–191.

Glenn, S., Dayus, B., Cunningham, C., & Horgan, M. (2001). Mastery motivation in children with Down syndrome. Down
Syndrome Research and Practice, 7(2), 52-59.

Gliner, J. G., Morgan, G. A. & Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design
and analysis. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Green, S. B., & Morgan, G. A. (2017). Patterns of mastery task behavior in early school-age children in the US.
Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 142-157. doi: 10.14413/ HERJ/7/2/9

Harmon, R. J., Morgan, G. A., & Glicken, A. D. (1984). Continuities and discontinuities in affective and cognitive-
motivational development. International Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 157–167.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: motivational and
informational components. Developmental Psychology 17, 300-312.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97.

Hashmi, S. I., Seok, C. B., & Halik, M. H. (2017). Enhancing persistence on mastery tasks among young preschool children
by implementing the "I Can" Mastery Motivation Classroom Program. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2),
127–141.
26
Hauser-Cram, P., Krauss, M. W., Warfield, M. E., & Steele, A. (1997). Congruence and predictive power of mothers’ and
teachers’ ratings of mastery motivation in children with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 35, 355–363.

Huang, S-Y. (2013). Continuity and stability of mastery motivation from infancy to early childhood (In Chinese).
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.

Huang, S-Y., Chien, H.-M., & Chiang, W.-C. (2016, June). Mastery motivation in toddlers with developmental delay.
Poster presented at the International Society of Early Intervention Conference in Stockholm, Sweden.

Huang, S-Y., & Lay, K-L. (2011, October). The psychometric characteristics and long-term stability of the Dimensions
of Mastery Questionnaire in Chinese children in Taiwan from 10 months to 53 months. Program and
Proceedings of the 12th Early Intervention Conference, (p. 55). Taipei, Taiwan.

Huang S.-Y., & Lay, K.-L. (2017). Mastery motivation in infancy and early childhood: The consistency and variation of
its stability and predictability of general competence. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 15–31.

Huang, S.-Y., & Peng, Y-Y. (2015a). Unpublished analyses of DMQ 18 data for 5th to 8th grade Taiwan students and
teachers. Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan

Huang, S.-Y., & Peng, Y-Y. (2015b). Unpublished analyses of subject specific Mastery Motivation data for 5th to 8th
grade Taiwan students and teachers. Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan

Huang, S.-Y., & Yeh, L.-L. (2015). Association of depressive mood and effortful control on mastery motivation, and
academic competence in preadolescence. (In preparation)

Hwang, A.-W., Wang, J, Józsa, K, Liao, H.-F., Wang, P.-J., & Morgan, G.A. (2016, June) Cross-cultural validation of the
factor structure of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire in preschool children: A multi-group invariance
analysis. Presented at a symposium on Valid New Measures of Mastery Motivation for Young Children at the
International Society on Early Intervention. Stockholm, Sweden.

Hwang, A.-W., Wang, J., Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., Józsa, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2017). Cross cultural invariance and
comparisons of Hungarian-, Chinese-, and English-speaking children leading to the revision of the Dimensions of
Mastery Questionnaire. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 33-47. doi: 10.14413/ HERJ/7/2/3

Igoe, D., Peralta, C., Jean, L., Vo, S., Yep, L. N., Zabjek, K. & Wright, V. (2011). A pilot evaluation of the test-retest reliability
of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire in preschool-aged children. Infants and Young Children, 24, 280–291.

Jennings, K. D., Connors, R. E., Stegman, C. E., Sankaranarayan, P., & Mendelsohn, S. (1985). Mastery motivation in
young preschoolers: Effect of a physical handicap and implications for educational programming. Journal of the
Division for Early Childhood, 9(2), 162-169.

Jennings, K. D., Harmon, R. J., Morgan, G. A., Gaiter, J. L., & Yarrow, L. J. (1979). Exploratory play as an index of mastery
motivation: Relationships to persistence, cognitive functioning and environmental measures. Developmental
Psychology, 15, 386–394.

Józsa, K. (2003). The development of mastery motivation and its relationship to basic cognitive skills in children 4 to 16. 16
page summary in English of PhD dissertation. Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary.

Józsa, K. (2007). Az elsajatitasi motivacio (The dimensions of mastery motivation). Budapest, Hungary: Muszaki Kiado.

27
Józsa, K. (2014). Developing new scales for assessing English and German language mastery motivation. In J. Horvath &
Medgyes (Eds.), Studies in honour of Marianne Nikolov (pp. 37-50). Pecs: Lingua Franca Csoport.

Józsa, K., Barrett, K. C., Józsa, G., Kis, N., and Morgan, G. A. (2017). Development and initial evaluation of individualized
moderately challenging computer-tablet mastery motivation measures for 3-8 year-olds. Hungarian Educational
Research Journal, 7(2), 106-126. doi: 10.14413/ HERJ/7/2/7

Józsa, K., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2017). Game-like Tablet Assessment of Approaches to Learning: Assessing
Mastery Motivation and Executive Functions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 15(3),
665‒695.

Józsa, K., Barrett, K. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2016, July). New computer based assessment of mastery motivation for young
children. Presented at the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development. Vilnius, Lithuania.

Józsa, K., Barrett, K. A., Stevenson, C. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2016, June). A new computer-tablet assessment of mastery
motivation for preschool children. Presented at a symposium on Valid New Measures of Mastery Motivation for
Young Children at the International Society of Early Intervention in Stockholm, Sweden.

Józsa, K., Kis, N., & Huang, S.-Y. (2017). Mastery motivation in school subjects in Hungary and Taiwan. Hungarian
Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 158–177.

Józsa, K., & Molnar, E. D. (2013). The relationship between mastery motivation, self-regulated learning and school
success: A Hungarian and European perspective. In K. C. Barrett et al. (Eds.) Handbook on self-regulatory processes
in development: New directions and international perspectives. (pp. 265-304). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Józsa, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2014). Developmental changes in cognitive persistence and academic achievement
between grade 4 and grade 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 521-535. doi:
10.1007/s10212-014-0211-z.

Józsa, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). An improved measure of mastery motivation; Reliability and validity of the
Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) for preschool children: Hungarian Educational Research
Journal, 5(4), 1-22.

Józsa, K. & Morgan, G. A. (2017). Reversed items in Likert scales: Filtering out invalid responders. Journal of
Psychological and Educational Research, 25, 7-25. ISSN: 2247-1537

Józsa, K., Morgan, G. A., & Liao, H.-F. (Eds.) (2017). Mastery motivation: Measures and results across cultures and
ages. Special issue of the Hungarian Educational Research Journal.

Józsa, K., Wang, J., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2014). Age and cultural differences in mastery motivation in
American, Chinese, and Hungarian school-age children. Child Development Research. 2014, 16 pp. doi
10.1155/2014/803061

Knauf, D. E. (1998). The role of the socializing environment in the development of mastery motivation. Examining the
transition period from 17 to 22 months. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.

Knauf-Jensen, D. E., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Morgan, G. A. (1997, April). Designing comparable instruments: Using
decentering to create a Spanish version of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire. Poster presentation at the
Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Washington, DC.

28
Krenn, M. J. (1995). Mastery motivation and it relation to temperament in childhood: A short term longitudinal
study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Liao, H.-F. & Morgan, G. A. (2014). Relationships between maternal interactive behavior and mastery motivation in
children with developmental disabilities. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 56 (3), 203–204, Doi:
10.1111/dmcn.12383.

MacTurk, R. H., & Morgan, G. A. (Eds.). (1995). Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations and applications.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

MacTurk, R. H., Morgan, G. A., & Jennings, K. D. (1995). The assessment of mastery motivation. In R. J. MacTurk, & G. A.
Morgan (Eds.). Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations and applications (pp. 19–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Majnemer, A. (2011) Importance of motivation to children’s participation: A motivation to change. Physical &
Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 31(1), 1-3.

Majnemer, A., Shevell, M., Law, M., Poulin, C., & Rosenbaum, P., (2010). Level of motivation in mastering
challenging tasks in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 52, 1120- 1126.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03732.x

Majnemer, A., Shevell, M., Law, M., Birnbaum, R., Chilingaryan, G., & Rosenbaum, P., et al (2008). Participation and
enjoyment of leisure activities in school-aged children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 50(10), 751-758.

Majnemer, A., Shikako-Thomas, K., Chrokron, N., Law, M., Shevell, M., Chilingaryan, G., Poulin, C., & Rosenbaum, P.
(2010). Leisure activity preferences for 6- to 12-year-old children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine &
Child Neurology, 52, 167-173. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03393.x

Majnemer, A., Shikako-Thomas, K., Lach, L., Shevell, M., Law, M., Schmitz, N., & The QUALA group. (2013). Mastery
motivation in adolescents with cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 3384- 3392. doi:
10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.002

Maslin-Cole, C., Bretherton, I., & Morgan, G. A. (1993). Toddler mastery motivation and competence: Links with
attachment security, maternal scaffolding, and family climate. In D. Messer (Ed.), Mastery motivation in early
childhood: Development, measurement and social pressures (pp. 205–229). London: Routledge.

Messer, D. (Ed.). (1993). Mastery motivation in early childhood: Development, measurement and social pressures.
London: Routledge.

Miller, L., Marnane, K., Ziviani, J., & Boyd, R. N. (2014 a). The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire in school-aged
children with congenital hemiplegia: Test-retest reproducibility and parent-child concordance. Physical &
Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 34 (2), 168–184.

Miller, L., Ziviani, J., & Boyd, R. N. (2014 b). A systematic review of clinimetric properties of measurements of
motivation for children aged 5-16 years with a physical disability or motor delay. Physical & Occupational
Therapy in Pediatrics, 34, 90-114.

Miller, L., Ziviani, J., Ware, R. S., & Boyd, R. N. (2014 c). Mastery motivation in children with congenital hemiplegia:
individual and environmental associations. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 56, 267–274. doi:
10.1111/dmcn.12356

29
Miller, L., Ziviani, J., Ware, R. S., & Boyd, R. N. (2014 d). Mastery motivation as a predictor of occupational
performance following upper limb intervention for school-aged children with congenital hemiplegia.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 56, 976-983. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12471

Morgan, G. A. (1997). Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire DMQ 17 (Database Record). Retrieved from PsycTESTS.
doi:10.1037/t04950-000.

Morgan, G. A., & Bartholomew, S. (1998). Assessing mastery motivation in 7-and 10-year olds. In: Busch- Rossnagel,
N. A. & Morgan, G. A. (chairs): New measures of mastery motivation for infancy through elementary school.
Symposium conducted at the Fourth Head Start National Research Conference, Washington (ERIC Document
No, ED422-110).

Morgan, G. A., Busch, N. A., Culp, R. C., Vance, A. K., & Fritz, J. J. (1982). Infants’ differential response to mother and
experimenter: Relationships to maternal characteristics and quality of infant play. In R. N. Emde and R. J.
Harmon (Ed.), Attachment and affiliative systems: Neurobiological and psychobiological aspects (pp. 245–262).
New York: Plenum.

Morgan, G. A., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Barrett, K. C., & Wang, J. (2009). The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire
(DMQ): A manual about its development, psychometrics and use. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. DMQ
17 Manual retrieve from http://mycahs.colostate.edu/George.Morgan/MasteryMotivation.htm

Morgan, G. A., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Maslin-Cole, C. A., & Harmon, R. J. (1992). Mastery motivation tasks: Manual
for 15- to 36-month-old children. Bronx: Fordham University Psychology Department. (Updated 1993).

Morgan, G. A., Gliner, J. A., & Harmon, R.J. (2017). Understanding research methods and statistics: A primer for
clinicians. Invited chapter in A. Martin & F.R. Volkmar (Eds.) Lewis’s child and adolescent psychiatry: A
comprehensive textbook. (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins.

Morgan, G. A., & Harmon, R. J. (1984). Developmental transformations in mastery motivation: Measurement and
validation. In R. Emde & R. Harmon (Eds.). Continuities and discontinuities in development (pp. 263–291). New
York: Plenum.

Morgan, G. A., Harmon, R. J., & Maslin-Cole, C. A. (1990). Mastery motivation: Definition and measurement. Early
Education and Development, 1, 318–339.

Morgan, G. A., Harmon, R. J., Pipp, S., & Jennings, K. D. (1983). Assessing mothers’ perception of mastery
motivation: The utility of the MOMM questionnaire. Unpublished document. Colorado State University, Fort
Collins. https://sites.google.com/a/rams.colostate.edu/georgemorgan/ mastery-motivation.

Morgan, G. A., Józsa, K., Barrett, K. C., & Dillard, A. (2015, April). Game-Like, Computer-Based Tasks to Assess
Mastery Motivation and Executive Function for School Readiness. Presented at the 2015 Rocky Mountain Early
Childhood Conference, Denver, CO.

Morgan, G. A., Józsa, K., & Liao, H.-F. (2017). Introduction to the HERJ Special Issue on mastery motivation:
Measures and results across cultures and ages. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 5-11. doi:
10.14413/ HERJ/7/2/1

Morgan, G. A., Liao, H.-F., Nyitrai, A., Huang, S.-Y., Wang, P.-J., Blasco, P., Ramakrishnan, J., & Józsa, K. (2017). The
revised Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) for infants and preschool children with and without risks
or delays in Hungary, Taiwan, and the US. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2)48-67. doi: 10.14413/
HERJ/7/2/4

30
Morgan, G. A., MacTurk, R. H., & Hrncir, E. J. (1995). Mastery motivation: Overview, definitions and conceptual issues.
In R. H. MacTurk, & G. A. Morgan (Eds.). Mastery motivation: origins, conceptualizations and applications (pp. 1–
18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Morgan, G. A., Maslin-Cole, C. A., Biringen, Z., & Harmon, R. J. (1991). Play assessment of mastery motivation in
infants and young children. In C. E. Schaefer, K. Gitlin, and A. Sandgrund (Eds.), Play diagnosis and assessment
(pp. 65–86). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Morgan, G. A., Maslin-Cole, C. A., Harmon, R. J., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Jennings, K. D., Hauser-Cram, P., &
Brockman, L. (1993). Parent and teacher perceptions of young children’s mastery motivation: Assessment and
review of research. In D. Messer (Ed.). Mastery motivation in early childhood: Development, measurement and

Morgan, G. A. & Shim, S. (1993). The role of experience, motivation and competence in predicting self-worth and
satisfaction of Taekwondo students [Summary]. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.). Developmental Perspectives on Motivation.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 40. (p. 273). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Also presented as
a poster at the Nebraska Symposium, Lincoln (1992, March).

Morgan, G. A., Wang, J., Barrett, K. C., Liao, H.-F., Wang, P.-J., Huang, S.-Y., & Józsa, K (2018, February). The Revised
Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18). Manual available from George.Morgan@colostate.edu, Fort
Collins, CO.

Morgan, G. A., Wang, J., Liao, H.-F, & Xu, Q. (2013). Using the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire to assess mastery
motivation of English- and Chinese- speaking children: Psychometrics and implications for self- regulation. In K. C.
Barrett, N. A. Fox, G. A. Morgan, D. J. Fidler, & L. A. Daunhauer. (Eds.) Handbook of self- regulatory processes in
development: New directions and international perspectives (pp. 305-335). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Morgan, G. A. & Yang, R. K. (1995). Toward a conceptualization of the organization of mastery motivation. In R. H.
MacTurk and G. A. Morgan (Eds.). Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations and applications (pp. 317–
337). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Niccols, A., Atkinson, L., & Pepler, D. (2003). Mastery motivation in young children with Down’s syndrome: Relations
with cognitive and adaptive competence. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 121-133.

Pen, Y.-I., & Huang, S.-Y. (2015, October). The psychometric characteristics of Subject Specific Mastery Motivation
Questionnaire. Poster at the 2015 Taiwanese Psychological Association Annual Convention and the International
Conventional of Learning, Teaching, and Assessment.

Pipp-Siegel, S., Sedey, A. L., VanLeeuwan, A. M., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). Mastery motivation and expressive
language in young children with hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 8(2), 133-145.

Ramakrishnan, J. (2015). Unpublished DMQ 18 data from mothers of 3-5 year-old children living at a Minneapolis
emergency homeless shelter. Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota.

Redding, R., Harmon, R. J., & Morgan, G. A. (1990). Maternal depression, and child mastery motivation. Infant Behavior and
Development, 13, 391–395.

Redding, R., Morgan, G. A., & Harmon, R. J. (1988). Mastery motivation in infants and toddlers: Is it greater when tasks are
moderately challenging? Infant Behavior and Development, 11 (4), 423–434.

Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development.
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
31
Sparks, T.A., Hunter, S.K., Backman, T.L., Morgan, G.A., & Ross, R.G. (2012). Maternal parenting stress and mothers’
reports of their infant’s mastery motivation. Infant Behavior and Development, 35, 167-173. doi:
10.1016/j.inbeh.2011.07.002

Turner, L., & Johnson, B. (2003). A model of mastery motivation for at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(3), 495-505.

Wang, J., & Barrett, K. C., (2013). Mastery motivation and self-regulation during early childhood. In K. C. Barrett (Ed.)
Handbook on self-regulatory processes in development: New directions and international perspectives. (pp. 337-
380). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Wang, J., Józsa, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2014, May). Measurement invariance across children in US, China, and Hungary:
A revised dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ). [Summary] Program and Proceedings of the 18th
Biennial Developmental Psychology Research Group Conference, Golden, CO.

Wang, J., Morgan, G.A., & Biringen, J. (2013). Mother-infant affect exchange and mastery motivation in toddlerhood.
Infant and Child Development, 23 (2), 139-152. doi: 10.1002/icd.1825.

Wang, P.-J. (2016). Bidirectional Relations among Maternal Interactive Behavior, Mastery Motivation and
Developmental Ability in Children With Global Developmental Delay (Doctoral dissertation). School and
Graduate Institute of Physical Therapy, National Taiwan University.

Wang, P.-J., Chen, L.-C., Liao, H.-F., Morgan, G. A., Tu, Y.-K., Lu, L. (2018). Is mastery motivation a mediator of
relations between maternal behavior and developmental abilities in children with global delay? Resubmitted for
publication.

Wang, P.-J., Hwang, A.-W., Liao, H.-F., Chen, P.-C., & Hsieh, W.-S. (2011). The stability of mastery motivation and its
relationship with home environment in infants and toddlers. Infant Behavior and Development, 34, 434–442.
doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh. 2011.04.005.

Wang, P.-J. & Lewis, A. (2017). DMQ 18 Data from a study of preschool children in Colorado developing typically.

Wang, P.-J., & Liao, H.-F. (2013). Assessment and early intervention of mastery motivation in children. Chinese Journal of
Rehabilitation 28(6) 411-415. [In Chinese]

Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., Kang, L.-J., Chen, L.-C., Hwang, A.-W., Lu, L., & Morgan, G. A. (2018). Do child and family
factors predict participation in daily activities for young children with developmental delay? Submitted for
publication.

Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., & Morgan, G. A. (2016). Assessing mastery motivation in a young child with global
developmental delay. International Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 4(6). doi: 10.472/2329-
9096.1000I103.

Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., & Morgan, G. A. (2017). The revised individualized structured mastery tasks for 15 to 48
month-old children. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 68-85. doi: 10.14413/ HERJ/7/2/5

Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., Morgan, G. A., Hwang, A.-W., Chen, L.-C., Kang, L.-J., Lu, L. (2016a, June) Relations between
mastery motivation, development, and participation in children with developmental delay. Presented at the
International Society of Early Intervention Conference in Stockholm, Sweden.

32
Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., Morgan, G.A., & Lu, L. (2016b, June). Reliability of the revised individualized structured
mastery tasks and its relations with child development and motivation perceived by mothers in children with
developmental delay. Presented at a symposium on Valid New Measures of Mastery Motivation for Young
Children at the International Society of Early Intervention in Stockholm, Sweden.

Wang, P.-J., Morgan, G. A., Hwang, A.-W., Chen, L. C., Liao, H.-F. (2014). Do maternal interactive behaviors correlate
with developmental outcomes and mastery motivation in toddlers with and without motor delay? Physical
Therapy, 94, 1744-1754. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130560

Wang, P.-J., Morgan, G. A., Hwang, A.-W., & Liao, H.-F. (2013). Individualized behavioral assessments and maternal ratings
of mastery motivation in mental-age matched toddlers with and without motor delays. Physical Therapy, 93, 79-87.

Wang, P.-J., Morgan, G. A., Liao, H.-F., Chen, L.-C., Hwang, A.-W., & Lu, L. (2016). Reliability and validity of the revised
individualized structured mastery tasks in children with developmental delay. International Journal of Physical
Medicine & Rehabilitation, 4, 374-380. doi: 10.4172/2329-9096.1000374

Yarrow, L. J., Klein, R. P., Lomonaco, S., & Morgan, G. A. (1975). Cognitive and motivational development in early
childhood. In B.Z. Friedlander, G. M. Sterritt, & G. Kirk (Eds.), The exceptional infant 3: Assessment and
Intervention (pp. 491–502). New York: Bruner/Mazel.

Yarrow, L. J., Morgan, G. A., Jennings, K. D., Harmon, R. J., & Gaiter, J. L. (1982). Infants’ persistence at tasks:
Relationships to cognitive functioning and early experience. Infant Behavior and Development, 5, 131–141.
(Reprinted in Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development, 1983, Vol. 16).

33
 Appendix 1
Scoring the DMQ 18
The DMQ 18 is easy to administer and score. No instructions other than those on the questionnaires
(attached) are necessary. The ratings usually take about 10-15 minutes to complete. To score the DMQ
18, use the formulas shown below,

To compute the scale scores for the infant versions, use:

1. Cognitive/object Persistence = (1+14+17+23+24+29)/6
2. Gross Motor Persistence = (3+12+26+36+38)/5
3. Social Persistence with Adults = (8+15+19+22+33+37)/6
4. Social Persistence with Children = (6+7+25+28+32+35)/6
5. Mastery Pleasure = (2+11+18+21+30)/5
6. Negative Reactions to challenge- frustration/anger = (5+9+13+16+34)/5
7. General Competence = (4+10+20+27+31)/5

To compute the scale scores for the preschool version, use:

1. Cognitive/object Persistence = (1+14+17+23+29)/5
2. Gross Motor Persistence = (3+12+26+36+38)/5
3. Social Persistence with Adults = (8+15+22+33+37)/5
4. Social Persistence with Children = (6+7+25+28+32+35)/6
5. Mastery Pleasure = (2+11+18+21+30)/5
6. Negative Reactions = (5+9+13+16+24+34+39+41)/8
6a. Negative Reactions- frustration/anger = (9+13+16+19)/4
6b. Negative Reactions- sadness/shame = (5+24+34+39)/4
7. General Competence = (4+10+20+27+31)/5

To compute the scale scores for both school-age versions, use:

1. Cognitive/object Persistence = (1+14+17+23+29+40)/6
2. Gross Motor Persistence = (3+12+26+36+38)/5
3. Social Persistence with Adults = (8+15+19+22+33+37)/6
4. Social Persistence with Children = (6+7+25+28+32+35)/6
5. Mastery Pleasure = (2+11+18+21+30)/5
6. Negative Reactions = (5+9+13+16+24+34+39+41)/8
6a. Negative Reactions- frustration/anger = (9+13+16+41)/4
6b. Negative Reactions- sadness/shame = (5+24+34+39)/4
7. General Competence = (4+10+20+27+31)/5

Note. Many researchers also have computed a total persistence score from the average of scales 1-4, and some have
computed a total mastery motivation score from the average of the four persistence scales and mastery pleasure. If the
assessed child has significant developmental delays, it may be best to use an age version that corresponds to the child’s
developmental age.
34
 Appendix 2
Psychometric Data Tables for DMQ 18 Preschool Children

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alphas for Hungarian teacher’s ratings of preschool
children’s Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) scales
Scale Items M SD Alpha
Persistence scales
Cognitive/object 5 3.58 .81 .93
Gross Motor 5 3.81 .95 .96
Social w. Adults 5 3.52 .91 .91
Social w. Children 6 3.74 .70 .90
Total persistence 21 3.66 .70 .95
Expressive scales
Mastery Pleasure 5 4.10 .64 .90
Negative Reactions 8 3.05 .63 .79
Frustration/anger 4 3.03 .85 .85
Sadness/shame 4 3.07 .60 .54
General Competence 5 3.68 .89 .94

Józsa and Morgan (2015)

Table 2. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to assess interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, and two-
month stability and also correlations between the same scales of DMQ 17 and DMQ 18 for Hungarian preschool
children rated by their teachers
r with
Interrater Test-retest Stability
DMQ 18 scale DMQ17
ICC ICC ICC
scales
n 133 58 120 193
Persistence Scale
Cognitive/object .85 .87 .61 .63
Gross Motor .65 .84 .57 .60
Social w. Adults .78 .89 .71 .76
Social w. Children .79 .89 .71 .65
Total persistence .83 .89 .72 .76
Expressive scales
Mastery Pleasure .78 .82 .56 .59
Negative Reactions .61 .78 .35 .38
Frustration/anger .52 .76 .43 NA
Sadness/shame .59 .69 .24 NA
General Competence .87 .88 .73 .72

Józsa and Morgan (2015)

35
Table 3. Principal Axis Factor Analysis of the items from the four persistence scales and mastery pleasure of
DMQ 18 for 205 Hungarian Preschool children rated by their teachers

Scales and Items Gross Social Cognitive Mastery Social Persist.

Motor Persist. Persist Pleasure Adults
Gross motor persistence
26 Repeats jumping/running skills until can do them .94
3 Tries to do well at motor activities .94
12 Tries to do well in physical activities .88
36 Tries hard to get better at physical skills .87
38 Tries hard to improve throwing or kicking .84
Social persistence with peers
28 Tries hard to make friends with other kids .94
35 Tries to keep play with kids going .91
32 Tries to get included when children playing .87
7 Tries to do things to keep children interested .58
25 Tries to understand other children .56
Cognitive persistence
23 Works long to do something challenging .87
17 Tries to complete toys like puzzles .85
14 Tries to complete tasks, even if takes a long time .83
29 Will work a long time to put something together .81
1 Repeats a new skill until he can do it .62
Mastery Pleasure
18 Gets excited when figures out something .91
11 Shows excitement when is successful .88
30 Smiles when makes something happen .80
2 Smiles broadly after finishing something .75
21 Is pleased when solves a challenging problem .72
Social persistence with adults
33 Tries to figure out what adults like .92
37 Tries hard to understand my feelings .87
15 Tries hard to interest adults in playing .87
22 Tries hard to get adults to understand .51
8 Tries to keep adults interested in talking .51
Note: Principal axis factor analysis with promax rotation. These five factors account for 71% of the variance.
Loading less than .40 have been omitted. Item 6, theoretically intended as a social persistence with
peers item, is not shown because it didn’t load above .40 any scale.

Józsa and Morgan (2015)

36
 Table 4. Internal Consistency (Cronbach Alphas) of the DMQ 18 Scales Rated by Parents

Sample
Scale
1 (TW) 2 (TW) 3 (HU) 4 (US) 5 (US)

Persistence scales
Cognitive/object .84 .84 .84 .76 .82
Gross motor .81 .86 .88 .69 -
Social w. adults .86 .86 .78 .82 -
Social w. children .86 .75 .84 .84 -
Total persistence .92 .91 .92 .92 -
Expressive scales
Mastery pleasure .58 .88 .82 .74 -
Negative reactions .80 .65 .82 - -
Frustration/anger .74 .55 .86 .75 -
Sadness/shame .68 .37 .66 - -
General competence .88 .76 .81 .90 -
Note. Sample 1 was 121 preschool children with and without mental delays from Taiwan (TW); sample 2 was
64 preschool children with developmental delays from Taiwan (TW); sample 3 was 197 children from early
childhood centers and kindergartens in Hungary (HU); sample 4 was 85 infants born preterm or full-term
from the US; sample 5 was 36 US preschool-age children who lived in a homeless shelter with their mothers.
For sample 2 six months later, the alphas were similar, but the three negative reaction scales were somewhat
higher; .72, .67, and .44, respectively. For sample 4; the alphas shown are for 6-10 month infants so there
were no sadness/shame or overall negative reaction scales; at 18 -20 months the sample 4 alphas were
similar but a little higher, and the sadness/shame subscale was .67 and overall negative reaction was .80. For
sample 5, alpha at the retest was .90.

Morgan, Liao, et al. (2017)

37
Table 5. Factor Loadings of the Preschool DMQ 18 Items from the Four Persistence Scales and Mastery
Pleasure for 362 Preschool Children from Hungary and Taiwan

Social
Gross Mastery Social
mastery Cognitiv
Scales and items motor pleasur mastery
w. e persist
persist e w. peers
adults
Social mastery with adults
Tries hard to understand my feelings .71 .40
Tries to figure out what adults like .66
Tries to keep adults interested in talking .62
Tries hard to get adults to understand .53
Tries hard to interest adults in playing .53
Tries to understand other children .52# .42
Gross motor persistence
Tries hard to get better at physical skills .70
Repeats jumping/running skills until can do
.66
them
Tries hard to improve throwing or kicking .61
Tries to do well at motor activities .58
Tries to do well in physical activities .58
Cognitive/object persistence
Works a long time to put something together .71
Works a long time trying something
.71
challenging
Tries to complete tasks, even if it takes time .69
Tries to complete puzzles even if it is hard .68
Repeats a new skill until he or she can do it .47
Mastery pleasure
Shows excitement when successful .73
Smiles broadly after finishing something .73
Gets excited when figures something out .60
Is pleased when solves a challenging
.60
problem
Smiles when makes something happen .57
Social mastery with peers
Tries to get included when children are
.77
playing
Tries hard to make friends with other kids .67
Tries to do things that keep children
.49 .53
interested
Tries to keep playing with other kids .53
Tries hard to make other children feel better .44
Note. Principal axis factor analysis with Varimax rotation. These five factors account for 58% of the variance.
Loading less than .40 have been omitted. # indicates that the item loads on incorrect factor.

Morgan, Liao, et al. (2017)

38
 DMQ 18 Psychometric Data for School Age Children

Table 6. Internal consistency of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) School-Aged Version
(Child Self-ratings and Teacher Ratings)

Children self-rating Teacher Rating

Items in
DMQ 18 scale (n=255)
Scale
Mean ± SD Cronbach’s α Mean ± SD Cronbach’s α
Persistence scale
Cognitive/ object 6 3.45 ± 0.74 .75 3.59 ± 1.07 .94
Gross Motor 5 3.75 ± 0.91 .85 3.91 ± 0.90 .93
Social w. Adults 6 3.20 ± 0.83 .81 3.57 ± 0.86 .90
Social w. Children 6 3.58 ± 0.77 .77 3.67 ± 0.78 .92
Total persistence 23 3.48 ± 0.62 .89 3.67 ± 0.71 .95
Expressive scale
Mastery Pleasure 5 3.97 ± 0.84 .83 3.78 ± 0.68 .90
Negative Reactions 8 2.93 ± 0.69 .70 3.04 ± 0.52 .56
frustration/ anger 4 3.01 ± 0.82 .59 3.19 ± 0.72 .57
sadness/ shame 4 2.84 ± 0.79 .57 2.90 ± 0.57 .36
General Competence 5 3.08 ± 0.76 .74 3.59 ± 1.05 .95

Huang & Peng (2015)

39
 Table 7. Test-retest reliability (a month apart) of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) School-
Age Self-Rating version (Taiwan; n = 251)
No. of Wave 1 Wave 2
scales Items r
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD

Persistence scales
Cognitive/ object 6 3.45 ± 0.74 3.37 ± 0.75 .71**
Gross Motor 5 3.74 ± 0.93 3.62 ± 0.81 .73**
Social w. Adults 6 3.22 ± 0.82 3.33 ± 0.86 .70**
Social w. Children 6 3.60 ± 0.77 3.52 ± 0.81 .70**
Total persistence 23 3.49 ± 0.63 3.43 ± 0.66 .79**
Expressive scales
Mastery Pleasure 5 3.99 ± 0.84 3.84 ± 0.90 .69**
Negative Reactions 8 2.93 ± 0.70 2.93 ± 0.70 .54**
frustration/anger 4 3.01 ± 0.82 2.97 ± 0.78 .52**
sadness/shame 4 2.85 ± 0.81 2.89 ± 0.75 .43**
General Competence 5 3.08 ± 0.77 3.09 ± 0.72 .68**
Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

Huang & Peng (2015)

Table 8. Criterion-related validity of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) _School-Age version (Taiwan;
n= 234)

DMQ 18 score Academic achievement (child report)

Total Persistent .24*

Mastery Pleasure .25**
Negative Reaction -.19*
Total Mastery .26**
*p < .05 **p < .01
Note: Academic achievement was the mean score of monthly examination in Chinese, English, Math, and Science.

Huang & Peng (2015)

40
Table 9. Teacher-Child Inter-correlations for the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) School-
age version from 62 Taiwanese 5th to 8th Grade Teachers and Their Students

No. of Teacher-rating Child-self rating

Scales items r
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD

Persistence scales
Cognitive/ object 6 3.59 ± 1.07 3.63 ± 0.72 .33**
Gross Motor 5 3.91 ± 0.90 3.70 ± 0.92 .28**
Social w. Adults 6 3.57 ± 0.86 3.39 ± 0.81 .16
Social w. Children 6 3.67 ± 0.78 3.62 ± 0.69 .09
Total persistence 23 3.67 ± 0.71 3.58 ± 0.62 .25*
Expressive scales
Mastery Pleasure 5 4.25 ± 0.62 3.89 ± 0.94 .42**
Negative Reactions 8 3.04 ± 0.52 2.98 ± 0.71 .08
frustration/anger 4 3.19 ± 0.72 3.09 ± 0.78 .12
sadness/shame 4 2.90 ± 0.57 2.87 ± 0.80 .09
General Competence 5 3.59 ± 1.05 3.29 ± 0.69 .44**
Note: *p<.05 **p<. 01

Huang & Peng (2015)

41
 Appendix 3
DMQ 18 Forms

Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) English versions

Infant Motivation Questionnaire (rated by an adult)
Preschool Motivation Questionnaire (rated by an adult)
School-age Motivation Questionnaire (rated by an
adult) School-age Motivation Questionnaire (self-rating)
Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) Chinese versions
Infant Motivation Questionnaire (rated by an adult)
Preschool Motivation Questionnaire (rated by an adult)
School-age Motivation Questionnaire (rated by an
adult) School-age Motivation Questionnaire (self-rating)
Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) Hungarian versions (available on request)

Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18) Spanish versions (available on request)

42
 Infant Motivation Questionnaire

Child’s ID Age Circle one: Boy Girl Today’s Date

Months
Rater’s Relationship to Child: Mother Father Other (please specify)

Please CIRCLE the number that best indicates how typical each statement is of this child’s recent behavior. Children vary;
most are motivated to do some things but not others. Note that some of the items may not be typical of a child his or her
age, so it is okay to use a “not like this child” rating. Please try to answer all questions even if you are not sure.

NOT AT ALL EXACTLY

LIKE THIS LIKE THIS
CHILD CHILD

1. Repeats a new skill until he or she can do it 1 2 3 4 5

2. Smiles broadly after finishing something 1 2 3 4 5

3. Tries to do well at physical activities 1 2 3 4 5

4. Learns things quickly compared to children his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

5. Fusses if cannot do something 1 2 3 4 5

6. Tries to make other children feel better if they cry or seem sad 1 2 3 4 5

7. Tries to do things that keep other children interested 1 2 3 4 5

8. “Talks” to adults and tries to keep them interested 1 2 3 4 5

9. Gets frustrated when not able to complete a challenging task 1 2 3 4 5

10. Is developing faster than other children his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

11. Claps hands or shows excitement when he or she is successful 1 2 3 4 5

12. Tries to do well in physical activities even when they are difficult 1 2 3 4 5

13. Gets frustrated when not successful immediately 1 2 3 4 5

14. Tries to do things even if it takes a long time 1 2 3 4 5

15. Tries hard to interest adults in playing with him or her 1 2 3 4 5

16. Screams or bangs things after failing something 1 2 3 4 5

17. Explores all parts of an object or toy 1 2 3 4 5

18. Gets excited when he or she figures something out 1 2 3 4 5

19. Tries to influence play with me or other adults 1 2 3 4 5

20. Does things that are difficult for children his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

21. While playing with a toy, he or she smiles or gets excited 1 2 3 4 5

22. Tries to get adults to understand him or her 1 2 3 4 5

OVER PLEASE
 NOT AT ALL EXACTLY
LIKE THIS LIKE THIS
CHILD CHILD

23. Works for a long time trying to do something challenging 1 2 3 4 5

24. Tries hard to do cause and effect toys such as a busy box 1 2 3 4 5

25. Tries to understand other children 1 2 3 4 5

26. Repeats skills related to moving around until he or she can do them 1 2 3 4 5

27. Does most things better than other children his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

28. Tries hard to interact with other familiar children when near them 1 2 3 4 5

29. Will work for a long time trying to get something open 1 2 3 4 5

30. Smiles when he or she makes something happen 1 2 3 4 5

31. Understands things better than children his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

32. Tries to get included when other children are playing 1 2 3 4 5

33. Tries to find out what adults like and don’t like 1 2 3 4 5

34. Gets angry if cannot do something after trying 1 2 3 4 5

35. Tries to start play with other children 1 2 3 4 5

36. Repeats motor skills in order to do them well 1 2 3 4 5

37. Tries hard to understand my feelings 1 2 3 4 5

38. Tries hard to retrieve objects 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 infant. February 29, 2016

 嬰兒動機問卷
兒童編號:
兒童年齡: 性別：男 女； 填寫日期: 年 月 日
填寫者與孩童關係：母親 ，父親 ，其他 (請說明)

請根據以下每一題的描述，對照這個孩子的目前行為，依據符合程度，圈選 1 到 5。每個孩子
都不一樣；有些孩子對一些事情動機很強，對其他事情則動機不強。請注意，有些項目描述並
非符合您孩子年齡的表現，所以圈選”完全不符合這個孩子”並不代表孩子有問題。即使您不
確定這個孩子表現，也請回答所有問題。若填寫問卷過程中，有任何問題請與發問卷者討論。

完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 這
這 個
個 孩
孩 子
子

1. 會反覆練習一個新的技巧直到能做到為止。 1 2 3 4 5
2. 完成某件事以後會開心露出笑容。 1 2 3 4 5
3. 嘗試做好肢體活動。 1 2 3 4 5
4. 與同年齡孩子相比，他/她學習事情速度快。 1 2 3 4 5
5. 當不會做一件事的時候，就容易放棄。 1 2 3 4 5
6. 當其他孩子哭泣或悲傷時，會嘗試做一些事讓他們感覺好一點。 1 2 3 4 5
7. 會嘗試做一些事來讓其他孩子保持與他/她互動的興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
8. 會和大人"說話"（包括發出聲音），並嘗試讓大人保持與他/她互動的興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
9. 當無法完成困難任務時，會焦躁不安。 1 2 3 4 5
10. 比同年齡孩子發展快。 1 2 3 4 5
11. 當成功完成一件事時，他/她會拍手或表現出興奮的樣子。 1 2 3 4 5
12. 即使是困難的肢體活動，他也會嘗試做好。 1 2 3 4 5
13. 當一件事情無法立即成功時，會有挫敗的表現。 1 2 3 4 5
14. 即使做一些事情要花一段長的時間，他/她也會試著去做。 1 2 3 4 5
15. 會努力嘗試去引起大人的興趣來跟他/她玩。 1 2 3 4 5
16. 遭遇失敗後會尖叫或敲打物品。 1 2 3 4 5
17. 會探索一個物品或玩具各個部分。 1 2 3 4 5
18. 當弄懂一件事的時候，會很興奮。 1 2 3 4 5
19. 和我或其他大人一起玩時，會嘗試主導遊戲的方式。 1 2 3 4 5
 完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 這
這 個
個 孩
孩 子
子
20. 會做一些對他/她的年紀來說屬於困難的事。 1 2 3 4 5
21. 玩玩具時會微笑或表現出興奮的樣子。 1 2 3 4 5
22. 嘗試讓大人了解他/她的意思。 1 2 3 4 5
23. 會花一段長的時間嘗試去做一些有挑戰性的事。 1 2 3 4 5
24. 會努力嘗試去玩因果關係的玩具,譬如像是有多種玩法的玩具盒。 1 2 3 4 5
25. 嘗試去了解其他孩子。 1 2 3 4 5
26. 反覆練習身體移位的技巧，直到他/她可做到為止。 1 2 3 4 5
27. 很多事情做的比同年齡孩子好。 1 2 3 4 5
28. 當其他熟識孩子在附近時，會努力嘗試與他/她們互動。 1 2 3 4 5
29. 會花一段長的時間嘗試打開物品。 1 2 3 4 5
30. 促成一件事後，他/她會微笑。 1 2 3 4 5
31. 比同年齡孩子更能了解事物。 1 2 3 4 5
32. 看到別的孩子在玩的時候會嘗試加入。 1 2 3 4 5
33. 嘗試去發現大人喜歡或不喜歡那些事物。 1 2 3 4 5
34. 嘗試做卻無法做到某些事時，會生氣。 1 2 3 4 5
35. 會嘗試主動去和別的孩子一起玩。 1 2 3 4 5
36. 為做好一些動作技巧會反覆練習。 1 2 3 4 5
37. 努力嘗試去了解我的感受。 1 2 3 4 5
38. 努力嘗試移動身體去拿到東西。 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 infant - Chinese version. March 28, 2015

 Preschool Motivation Questionnaire

Child’s ID Age Circle one: Boy Girl Today’s Date

Years Months
Rater’s Relationship to Child: Mother Father Other (please specify)

Please CIRCLE the number that best indicates how typical each statement is of this child’s recent behavior. Children vary;
most are motivated to do some things but not others. Note that some items may not be typical for a child his or her age, so it
is okay to use a “not like this child” rating. Please try to answer all questions even if you are not sure.

NOT AT ALL EXACTLY

LIKE THIS LIKE THIS
CHILD CHILD

1. Repeats a new skill until he or she can do it 1 2 3 4 5

2. Smiles broadly after finishing something 1 2 3 4 5

3. Tries to do well at motor activities 1 2 3 4 5

4. Solves problems quickly 1 2 3 4 5

5. Seems sad or ashamed when doesn’t accomplish a goal 1 2 3 4 5

6. Tries hard to make other children feel better if they cry or seem sad 1 2 3 4 5

7. Tries to do and say things that keep other children interested 1 2 3 4 5

8. When talking with adults, tries to keep them interested 1 2 3 4 5

9. Gets frustrated when not able to complete a challenging task 1 2 3 4 5

10. Is very good at doing most things 1 2 3 4 5

11. Shows excitement when he or she is successful 1 2 3 4 5

12. Tries to do well in physical activities even when they are challenging 1 2 3 4 5

13. Gets frustrated when does not do well at something 1 2 3 4 5

14. Tries to complete tasks, even if it takes a long time to finish 1 2 3 4 5

15. Tries hard to interest adults in playing with him or her 1 2 3 4 5

16. Protests after failing at something 1 2 3 4 5

17. Tries to complete toys like puzzles even if it takes hard work 1 2 3 4 5

18. Gets excited when he or she figures something out 1 2 3 4 5

19. Gets angry if cannot do something after trying hard 1 2 3 4 5

20. Does things that are difficult for children for his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

21. Is pleased when solves a challenging problem 1 2 3 4 5

22. Tries hard to get adults to understand him or her 1 2 3 4 5

OVER PLEASE
 NOT AT ALL EXACTLY
LIKE THIS LIKE THIS
CHILD CHILD

23. Works for a long time trying to do something challenging 1 2 3 4 5

24. Won’t look people in the eye when tries but cannot do something 1 2 3 4 5

25. Tries to understand other children 1 2 3 4 5

26. Repeats skills like jumping or running until he or she can do them 1 2 3 4 5

27. Does most things better than other children his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

28. Tries hard to make friends with other kids 1 2 3 4 5

29. Will work for a long time trying to put something together 1 2 3 4 5

30. Smiles when he or she makes something happen 1 2 3 4 5

31. Understands things well 1 2 3 4 5

32. Tries to get included when other children are playing 1 2 3 4 5

33. Tries to figure out what adults like and don’t like 1 2 3 4 5

34. Looks away when tries but cannot do something 1 2 3 4 5

35. Tries to keep play with other kids going for a long time 1 2 3 4 5

36. Tries hard to get better at physical skills 1 2 3 4 5

37. Tries hard to understand my feelings and those of other adults 1 2 3 4 5

38. Tries hard to improve his or her skill at throwing or kicking 1 2 3 4 5

39. Withdraws after trying but not succeeding 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 Pre-School. October 27, 2016

 學前兒童動機問卷
兒童編號:
兒童年齡: 性別：男 女； 填寫日期: 年 月 日
填寫者與孩童關係：母親 ，父親 ，其他 (請說明)

請根據以下每一題的描述，對照這個孩子的目前行為，依據符合程度，圈選 1 到 5。每個孩子
都不一樣；有些孩子對一些事情動機很強，對其他事情則動機不強。請注意，有些項目描述並
非符合您孩子年齡的表現，所以圈選”完全不符合這個孩子”並不代表孩子有問題。即使您不
確定這個孩子表現，也請回答所有問題。若填寫問卷過程中，有任何問題請與發問卷者討論。

完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 這
這 個
個 孩
孩 子
子

1. 會反覆練習一個新的技巧直到能做到為止。 1 2 3 4 5
2. 完成某件事以後會開心露出笑容。 1 2 3 4 5
3. 嘗試做好動作活動。 1 2 3 4 5
4. 遇到困難可快速解決問題。 1 2 3 4 5
5. 當無法達成某一設定目標時，會感到難過 1 2 3 4 5
6. 當其他孩子哭泣或悲傷時，會努力嘗試做一些事讓他們感覺好一點。 1 2 3 4 5
7. 會嘗試做和說一些事來讓其他孩子保持與他/她互動的興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
8. 和大人說話時，嘗試讓大人保持與他/她互動的興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
9. 當無法完成困難任務時，會焦躁不安。 1 2 3 4 5
10. 大部分事情都做的非常好。 1 2 3 4 5
11. 當成功完成一件事時，他/她會表現出興奮的樣子。 1 2 3 4 5
12. 即使是挑戰性的肢體活動，他也會嘗試做好。 1 2 3 4 5
13. 沒有把事情做好時，會有挫敗的表現。 1 2 3 4 5
14. 即使完成一些事情要花一段長的時間，他/她也會嘗試去做完。 1 2 3 4 5
15. 會努力嘗試去引起大人的興趣來跟他/她玩。 1 2 3 4 5
16. 遭遇失敗後會爭辯。 1 2 3 4 5
17. 設法完成如拼圖一類的玩具，即使這些玩具需花心力完成。 1 2 3 4 5
 完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 這
這 個
個 孩
孩 子
子

18. 當弄懂一件事的時候，會很興奮。 1 2 3 4 5
19. 努力嘗試做卻無法做到某些事時，會生氣。 1 2 3 4 5
20. 會做一些對他/她的年齡來說屬於困難的事。 1 2 3 4 5
21. 當解決一個難題時會顯得滿足愉悅。 1 2 3 4 5
22. 努力嘗試讓大人了解他/她的意思。 1 2 3 4 5
23. 會花一段長的時間嘗試去做一些有挑戰性的事。 1 2 3 4 5
24. 嘗試做某些事卻做不到時，會不看別人的眼睛。 1 2 3 4 5
25. 嘗試去了解其他孩子。 1 2 3 4 5
26. 重複練習跳躍或奔跑一類的技巧，直到他/她可做到為止。 1 2 3 4 5
27. 很多事情做的比同年齡孩子好。 1 2 3 4 5
28. 會努力嘗試去和其他的孩子交朋友。 1 2 3 4 5
29. 會花一段長的時間嘗試把東西組合在一起。 1 2 3 4 5
30. 促成一件事後，他/她會微笑。 1 2 3 4 5
31. 了解事物能力好。 1 2 3 4 5
32. 看到別的孩子在玩的時候會嘗試加入。 1 2 3 4 5
33. 嘗試去弄清楚大人喜歡或不喜歡那些事物。 1 2 3 4 5
34 想嘗試某件事但做不到時，會把目光移開。 1 2 3 4 5

35. 和其他孩子玩時，會嘗試讓遊戲維持一段長的時間。 1 2 3 4 5
36. 努力嘗試使肢體動作技巧更好。 1 2 3 4 5
37. 努力嘗試去了解我和其他大人的感受。 1 2 3 4 5
38. 努力嘗試改善他/她做丟或踢的動作技巧。 1 2 3 4 5
39. 經嘗試卻無法成功後，就會退縮。 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 Preschooler - Chinese version. March 28, 2015

 School-Age Motivation Questionnaire
(by adult)

Child’s ID Age _ _ Circle one: Male Female Today’s Date _ _

years

Rater’s Relationship to Child: Mother Father __ Teacher _ _ Other (please specify) _

Please CIRCLE the number that best indicates how typical each statement is of this child’s recent behavior. Children vary;
most are motivated to do some things but not others. Note that some of the questions may not be typical of a child his or her
age, so it is okay to use a “not like this child” rating. Please try to answer all questions even if you are not sure.

NOT AT ALL EXACTLY

LIKE THIS LIKE THIS
CHILD CHILD

1. Works on a new problem until he or she can do it 1 2 3 4 5

2. Is pleased with self when finishes something challenging 1 2 3 4 5

3. Tries to do well at athletic games 1 2 3 4 5

4. Solves problems quickly 1 2 3 4 5

5. Seems sad or ashamed when he or she doesn’t accomplish a goal 1 2 3 4 5

6. Tries hard to make other children feel better if they seem sad 1 2 3 4 5

7. Tries to say and do things that keep other children interested 1 2 3 4 5

8. Often discusses things with adults 1 2 3 4 5

9. Gets frustrated when not able to complete a challenging task 1 2 3 4 5

10. Is very good at doing most things 1 2 3 4 5

11. Gets excited when he or she is successful 1 2 3 4 5

12. Tries to do well in physical activities even when they are challenging 1 2 3 4 5

13. Gets frustrated when does not do well at something 1 2 3 4 5

14. Completes school work, even if it takes a long time 1 2 3 4 5

15. Tries hard to interest adults in his or her activities 1 2 3 4 5

16. Protests after failing at something tried hard to do 1 2 3 4 5

17. Tries to figure out all the steps needed to solve a problem 1 2 3 4 5

18. Gets excited when he or she figures something out 1 2 3 4 5

19. Tries to get adults to see his or her point of view 1 2 3 4 5

20. Does things that are difficult for kids his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

21. Is pleased when solves a problem after working hard at it 1 2 3 4 5

22. Tries hard to get adults to understand him or her 1 2 3 4 5

OVER PLEASE
 NOT AT ALL EXACTLY
LIKE THIS LIKE THIS
CHILD CHILD

23. Works for a long time trying to do something challenging 1 2 3 4 5

24. Won’t look people in the eye when tries but cannot do something 1 2 3 4 5

25. Tries hard to understand other children 1 2 3 4 5

26. Repeats sports skills until he or she can do them better 1 2 3 4 5

27. Does most things better than other kids his or her age 1 2 3 4 5

28. Tries hard to make friends with other kids 1 2 3 4 5

29. Will work for a long time trying to solve a problem for school 1 2 3 4 5

30. Smiles when succeeds at something he or she tried hard to do 1 2 3 4 5

31. Understands things well 1 2 3 4 5

32. Tries to get included when other kids are doing something 1 2 3 4 5

33. Tries to find out what adults like and don’t like 1 2 3 4 5

34. Looks away when tries but cannot do something 1 2 3 4 5

35. Tries to keep things going for a long time when playing with other kids 1 2 3 4 5

36. Tries hard to get better at sports 1 2 3 4 5

37. Tries hard to understand the feelings of adults 1 2 3 4 5

38. Tries hard to improve his or her ball-game skills 1 2 3 4 5

39. Withdraws after trying but not succeeding 1 2 3 4 5

40. Prefers to try challenging problems instead of easy ones 1 2 3 4 5

41. Gets angry if cannot do something after trying hard 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 school-age by adult. February 29, 2016

 學齡兒童動機問卷-成人填寫
兒童編號:
兒童年齡: 性別：男 女； 填寫日期: 年 月 日
填寫者與孩童關係：母親 ，父親 ，其他 (請說明)

請根據以下每一題的描述，對照這個孩子的日常行為，依據符合程度，圈選 1 到 5。每個孩子
都不一樣；有些孩子對一些事情動機很強，對其他事情則動機不強。請注意，有些項目描述並
非符合您孩子年齡的表現，所以圈選 ”完全不符合這個孩子”並不代表孩子有問題。即使您不
確定這個孩子的表現，也請回答所有問題。若填寫問卷過程中，有任何問題請與發問卷者討論。

完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 這
這 個
個 孩
孩 子
子

1. 對新的問題會持續努力，直到他/她把問題解決為止。 1 2 3 4 5
2. 完成挑戰的事情時，他/她會感到滿足愉悅。 1 2 3 4 5
3. 在體育競賽上，會嘗試做好。 1 2 3 4 5
4. 能夠快速地解決問題。 1 2 3 4 5
5. 當他/她無法達成某一設定目標時，會感到難過。 1 2 3 4 5
6. 當其他孩子難過時，他/她會努力嘗試讓他們感覺好一點。 1 2 3 4 5
7. 會嘗試說和做一些事，讓其他孩子與他/她保持互動的興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
8. 常常和大人討論事情。 1 2 3 4 5
9. 當無法完成困難任務時，他/她會感到焦躁不安。 1 2 3 4 5
10. 大部分的事情都做的非常好。 1 2 3 4 5
11. 當成功完成一件事時，他/她會感到興奮。 1 2 3 4 5
12. 即使是挑戰性的肢體活動，他/她也會嘗試做好。 1 2 3 4 5
13. 當沒有把事情做好時，會有挫敗的表現。 1 2 3 4 5
14. 即使要花一段長的時間，他/她也會完成學校功課。 1 2 3 4 5
15. 會努力嘗試讓大人對他/她在進行的活動感興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
16. 在努力嘗試做的事情失敗後，會爭辯。 1 2 3 4 5
17. 嘗試弄懂所有解決問題的步驟。 1 2 3 4 5
18. 當他/她弄懂一件事的時候，會很興奮。 1 2 3 4 5
19. 試著讓大人了解他/她的看法。 1 2 3 4 5
20. 會做一些對他/她的年齡來說屬於困難的事。 1 2 3 4 5
 完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 這
這 個
個 孩
孩 子
子

21. 當努力將問題解決時，會感到滿足愉悅。 1 2 3 4 5
22. 努力嘗試讓大人了解他/她。 1 2 3 4 5
23. 會花一段長的時間，嘗試去做一些有挑戰性的事情。 1 2 3 4 5
24. 嘗試做某些件事卻做不到時，會不看別人的眼睛。 1 2 3 4 5
25. 努力嘗試去了解其他孩子。 1 2 3 4 5
26. 重複練習運動技能，直到他/她可以做的不錯為止。 1 2 3 4 5
27. 很多事情做的比同年齡孩子好。 1 2 3 4 5
28. 會努力嘗試去和其他孩子交朋友。 1 2 3 4 5
29. 會花一段長時間嘗試解決學校的功課。 1 2 3 4 5
30. 當努力嘗試的事情成功時，他/她會微笑。 1 2 3 4 5
31. 了解事物的能力好。 1 2 3 4 5
32. 看到別的孩子在做事的時候，會嘗試加入。 1 2 3 4 5
33. 嘗試去弄清楚大人喜歡或不喜歡那些事物。 1 2 3 4 5
34. 想嘗試做一些事卻做不到時，會把目光移開。 1 2 3 4 5
35. 和其他孩子玩時，會嘗試讓遊戲維持一段長的時間 。 1 2 3 4 5
36. 努力嘗試在運動競賽中有較好的表現。 1 2 3 4 5
37. 努力嘗試去了解大人的感受。 1 2 3 4 5
38. 努力嘗試改善他/她在球類遊戲的技能。 1 2 3 4 5
39. 經過嘗試卻無法成功後，就會退縮。 1 2 3 4 5
40. 比較喜歡嘗試解決有挑戰性的問題，而不是簡單的問題。 1 2 3 4 5
41. 努力嘗試做卻無法做到某些事時，會生氣。 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 school-age by adult - Chinese version. March 28, 2015

 School-Age Motivation Questionnaire
Your ID Age Circle one: Male Female Today’s Date
years

Please CIRCLE the number that best indicates how much like you each statement is of you recently. Kids vary; most are
motivated to do some things, but not others. Note that some of the questions are not typical of kids your age, so it is okay
to use a “not like me” rating. Please try to answer all questions even if you are not sure.

NOT AT
ALL EXACTLY
LIKE ME LIKE ME

1. I work on a new problem until I can do it 1 2 3 4 5

2. I am pleased with myself when I finish something challenging 1 2 3 4 5

3. I try to do well at athletic games 1 2 3 4 5

4. I solve problems quickly 1 2 3 4 5

5. I am sad or ashamed when I don’t accomplish a goal 1 2 3 4 5

6. I try hard to make other kids feel better if they seem sad 1 2 3 4 5

7. I try to say and do things to keep other kids interested 1 2 3 4 5

8. I often discuss things with adults 1 2 3 4 5

9. I get frustrated when not able to complete a challenging task 1 2 3 4 5

10. I am very good at doing most things 1 2 3 4 5

11. I get excited when I am successful 1 2 3 4 5

12. I try to do well in physical activities even when they are challenging 1 2 3 4 5

13. I get frustrated when I don’t do well in something 1 2 3 4 5

14. I complete my school work, even if it takes a long time 1 2 3 4 5

15. I try hard to interest adults in my activities 1 2 3 4 5

16. I protest after failing something I tried hard to do 1 2 3 4 5

17. I try to figure out all the steps needed to solve a problem 1 2 3 4 5

18. I get excited when I figure something out 1 2 3 4 5

19. I try to get adults to see my point of view 1 2 3 4 5

20. I do things that are difficult for kids my age 1 2 3 4 5

21. I am pleased when I solve a problem after working hard at it 1 2 3 4 5

22. I try hard to get adults to understand me 1 2 3 4 5

OVER PLEASE
 NOT AT ALL EXACTLY
LIKE ME LIKE ME

23. I work for a long time trying to do something challenging 1 2 3 4 5

24. I don’t look people in the eye when I try but cannot do something 1 2 3 4 5

25. I try hard to understand other children 1 2 3 4 5

26. I repeat sports skills until I can do them well 1 2 3 4 5

27. I do most things better than other kids my age 1 2 3 4 5

28. I try hard to make friends with other kids 1 2 3 4 5

29. I will work for a long time trying to solve a problem for school 1 2 3 4 5

30. I smile when I succeed at something I tried hard to do 1 2 3 4 5

31. I understand things well 1 2 3 4 5

32. I try to get included when other kids are doing something 1 2 3 4 5

33. I try to find out what adults like and don’t like 1 2 3 4 5

34. I look away when I try but cannot do something 1 2 3 4 5

35. I try to keep things going when I am playing with other kids 1 2 3 4 5

36. I try hard to get better at sports 1 2 3 4 5

37. I try hard to understand the feelings of adults 1 2 3 4 5

38. I try hard to improve my ball-game skills 1 2 3 4 5

39. I withdraw after trying but not succeeding 1 2 3 4 5

40. I prefer to try challenging problems instead of easy ones 1 2 3 4 5

41. I get angry if I cannot do something after trying hard 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 school-age self. February 29, 2016

 學齡兒童動機問卷-兒童自填
兒童編號:
兒童年齡: 性別：男 女； 填寫日期: 年 月 日

請依照以下每一題的描述，從 1 到 5 中圈選最符合你狀況的數字。每個孩子都不一樣；有些孩
子對一些事情動機很強，對其他事情則動機不強。請注意，有些題目描述並非符合你這個年紀
孩子的表現，所以勾選”完全不符合我”並不代表你有問題。請試著回答所有的問題。若填寫
問卷過程中，有任何問題請與發問卷的人討論。

完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 我
我

1. 我對新的問題會持續努力，直到把問題解決為止。 1 2 3 4 5
2. 當我完成挑戰的事情時，我會感到滿足愉悅。 1 2 3 4 5
3. 在體育競賽上，我會嘗試做好。 1 2 3 4 5
4. 我能夠快速地解決問題。 1 2 3 4 5
5. 當我無法達到某一設定目標時，我會感到難過。 1 2 3 4 5
6. 當其他孩子看起來難過時，我會努力嘗試讓他們感覺好一點。 1 2 3 4 5
7. 會嘗試說和做一些事，讓其他孩子跟我保持互動的興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
8. 我常常和大人們討論事情。 1 2 3 4 5
9. 當無法完成困難任務時，我會感到焦躁不安。 1 2 3 4 5
10. 我大部分的事情都做的非常好。 1 2 3 4 5
11. 當成功完成一件事時，我會感到興奮 1 2 3 4 5
12. 即使是挑戰性的肢體活動，我也會嘗試做好。 1 2 3 4 5
13. 當我沒有把事情做好時，我會挫敗的表現。 1 2 3 4 5
14. 即使要花一段長的時間，我也會完成學校功課。 1 2 3 4 5
15. 我會努力嘗試讓大人對我在進行的活動感興趣。 1 2 3 4 5
16. 在努力嘗試的事情失敗後，我會爭辯。 1 2 3 4 5
17. 我會嘗試弄懂所有解決問題的步驟。 1 2 3 4 5
18. 當弄懂一件事的時候，我會感到很興奮。 1 2 3 4 5
19. 我試著讓大人了解我的看法。 1 2 3 4 5
20. 我會做一些對我的年齡來說屬於困難的事。 1 2 3 4 5
 完 完
全 全
不 符
符 合
合 我
我

21. 當努力將問題解決時，我會感到滿足愉悅。 1 2 3 4 5
22. 我努力嘗試讓大人了解我。 1 2 3 4 5
23. 我會花一段長的時間，嘗試去做一些有挑戰性的事情。 1 2 3 4 5
24. 嘗試做某件事卻做不到時，我會不看別人的眼睛 。 1 2 3 4 5
25. 我努力嘗試去了解其他孩子。 1 2 3 4 5
26. 我重複練習運動技能，直到可以做的不錯為止。 1 2 3 4 5
27. 很多事情我做的比同年齡孩子好。 1 2 3 4 5
28. 我會努力嘗試去和其他孩子交朋友。 1 2 3 4 5
29. 我會花一段長時間嘗試解決學校的功課。 1 2 3 4 5
30. 當努力嘗試的事情成功時，我會微笑。 1 2 3 4 5
31. 我了解事物的能力好。 1 2 3 4 5
32. 看到別的孩子在做事的時候，我會嘗試加入。 1 2 3 4 5
33. 我嘗試去弄清楚大人喜歡或不喜歡那些事物。 1 2 3 4 5
34. 想嘗試做事卻做不到時，我會將目光移開。 1 2 3 4 5
35. 和其他孩子玩時，我會嘗試讓遊戲維持一段長的時間。 1 2 3 4 5
36. 我努力嘗試在運動競賽中有較好的表現。 1 2 3 4 5
37. 我努力嘗試去了解大人的感受 1 2 3 4 5
38. 我努力嘗試改善在球類遊戲的技能。 1 2 3 4 5
39. 經過嘗試卻無法成功後，我會退縮。 1 2 3 4 5
40. 我比較喜歡嘗試解決挑戰性的問題，而不是簡單的問題。 1 2 3 4 5
41. 努力嘗試做卻無法做到某些事時，我會生氣。 1 2 3 4 5

DMQ 18 school-age self-rating - Chinese version. September 15, 2015