A meta-analytic review of achievement goal orientation correlates in competitive sport: a follow-up to lochbaum et al. (2016)

Recent quantitative research in competitive sport with the Task and Ego Orientations in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) and Perceptions of Success Questionnaire (POSQ) pointed to a potential critical issue that the two questionnaires did not agree across a number tested hypotheses (Lochbaum, Kazak Çetinkalp, Graham, Wright, & Zazo, 2016). Thus, the present quantitative review examined whether correlates of the two achievement goal orientations were moderated by the two measures. To achieve this purpose, 772 unique correlates (489 TEOSQ, 283 POSQ; 402 task orientation, 370 ego orientation) from 93 studies spanning 1989-2016 from 32 countries with 26,387 participants were placed into 15 different categories and meta-analyzed. The task goal orientation was significantly and small to moderate in meaningfulness related to adaptive success factors (rw=.29), maladaptive success factors (rw=-.12), desirable behaviors (rw=.28), positive emotions (rw=.35), amotivation (rw=-.13), extrinsic motivation (rw=.20), external regulations (rw=.12), internal regulations (rw=.34), intrinsic motivation (rw=.47), the mastery/task climate (rw=.38), perceived competence (rw=.26), and trait selfesteem (rw=.35). The ego goal orientation was significantly and small in meaningfulness related to adaptive success factors (rw=.10), maladaptive success factors (rw=.12), negative emotions (rw=.11), undesirable behaviors (rw=.23), amotivation (rw=.16), extrinsic motivation (rw=.28), external regulation (rw=.21), intrinsic motivation (rw=.14), performance/ego climate (rw=.28), and perceived competence (rw=.17). The questionnaire measure was a significant moderator for the task goal orientation relationship with desirable behaviors (POSQ rw=.24; TEOSQ rw=.37), internal regulations (POSQ rw=.26; TEOSQ rw=.39), and trait self-esteem (POSQ rw=.45; TEOSQ rw=.32) and for the ego goal orientation relationship with performance/ego climate (POSQ rw=.34; TEOSQ rw=.24). Overall, the extent of the questionnaire type being a concern when examining correlates was fortunately minimal. Yet, differences in the two dominant measures exit. Recommendations for future research examining both the TEOSQ and POSQ were proposed