169 JPJO 6 (2) (2021) 169-175 Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga Available online at: https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/article/view/31536 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jpjo.v6i2.31536 Sport Motivation of Paralympic Athletes after Injury Deasyanti, Juriana*, Sambadha Adhi Susetyo Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia Article Info Article History : Received January 2021 Revised April 2021 Accepted Mei 2021 Available online September 2021 Keywords : Injury, Motivation, Paralympic Athletes Abstract Motivation for performing sport is complex because most athletes have multiple moti- vations, including extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Understanding the athlete motiva- tion dynamics, especially after a sports injury, is crucial because the injury may nega- tively affect the athlete's psychosocial conditions. This study figured out the motiva- tion level of Paralympic athletics athletes after injury. A total of 44 Paralympic athletes were involved in the survey. The Sports Motivation Scale (SMS) was used to identify the athlete's motivation level. The SMS was developed within the self-determination theory (SDT) framework to assess various forms of motivation, namely amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. This study found that, out of 44 Paralympic athletics athletes after an injury, only 5 (4.55%) of the athletes were reported in the high amotivation level, and 15 (34.09%) of the athletes were identified in the moderate amotivation lev- el. This finding indicates that injury does not really affect amotivation, as the athletes exhibit a high level of extrinsic motivation (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation) and intrinsic motivation. Based on these motivation profiles, the Paralympic coaches should adjust their approach in motivating the Paralympic athletes to return to their training and competitions after injury.  Correspondence Address : Jl. Rawamangun Muka Raya Jakarta Timur, Indonesia E-mail : deasyanti@unj.ac.id https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index 170 INTRODUCTION Every athlete has the possibility to get injured ei- ther during regular practices/training or in the competi- tion. The impact of the injury on the athlete's psychoso- cial aspects has gained attention from scholars because of the undesirable consequences of injury. It can be a complex process for some athletes to return to sport. Cited from several studies, some concerning issues related to athletes after an injury, such as the ability to perform and pre-injury period, anxiety related to reinju- ry, and alienation feeling from teammates or coaches (Iñigo, Podlog, & Hall, 2015). In contrast, the athletes who return to sport after an injury have different rea- sons underlying their behaviors. Different studies find out various motivations driv- ing the athletes to return to sport. For example, summa- rized from several research, Podlog & Eklund (2010) identify that motivations include monetary incentives, fear of sanctions, athlete identity, or sense of accom- plishment of the competition. In addition, returning to sport after injury requires psychological readiness that involves three attributes: confidence in performance, realistic expectation of their sports capabilities, and mo- tivation to achieve the pre-injury performance standard (Podlog, Banham, Wadey, & Hannon, 2015). There are different motivational theories to under- stand sport motivations, such as achievement goal theo- ry, competence motivation theory, and self- determination theory (Li, Kawabata, & Zhang, 2018). This study used self-determination theory (SDT) to frame the motivations underlying the athlete's return to sport after injury. According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2019), motivations range from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation continuum. Ex- trinsic motivation refers to doing something to get out- comes separable from the enjoyment of the activity it- self, while intrinsic motivation refers to doing an activi- ty because it is inherently pleasurable and satisfactory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2019). Motivation is critical to sports performance. Therefore, understanding the factors affecting athlete motivation is essential. In the SDT view, because most athletes have multiple reasons to engage in sport, the motivation for sport becomes a complex phenomenon. However, SDT provides a comprehensive theoretical and applicable framework for understanding how vari- ous extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are related to different athlete behaviors in sport (Pelletier, Rocchi, Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan, 2013). According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2019), mo- tives that energize behaviors can vary from amotiva- tion, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation. Fur- thermore, people's behaviors can be motivated simulta- neously by several motives, either intrinsically and ex- trinsically (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Amotivation is the state when individuals act with- out an intention or do not have any intention to act so that they do not act at all. When individuals cannot perceive contingency between behaviors and the out- come of behaviors, they have a reason to stop their ac- tions (Deci & Ryan, 2008). For example, athletes in this state may decide to stop participating in sport (Pelletier et al., 1995). Unlike other perspectives on motivation, SDT differentiates extrinsic motivation into four types, namely external regulation, introjected regulation, iden- tified regulation, and integrated regulation. These ex- trinsic motivations reflect the degree to which individu- als can regulate their behaviors. It indicates the level of autonomous or self-determined behavior from the least to the most self-determined. External regulation refers to behaviors directed and controlled by external demands, such as reward and punishment. The locus of behavior causality is entirely external (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Introjected regulation is a type of extrinsic motivation in which behavior regula- tion is driven by individuals but not entirely accepted as part of their own, recognized as a partial internalization. The goal of behaviors is to demonstrate ability and achieve self-worth to avoid guilt, anxiety, and shame of failure. Individuals with introjection motivation still feel that external demands pressure and control them (Ryan & Deci, 2019). In identified regulation, individ- uals value their behaviors as personally important. For this reason, they regulate their behaviors with- out feeling pressured or controlled. Despite accepting responsibility for regulating the behaviors as their own, it has not been entirely internal. Identified regulation transforms into integrated regulation when individuals fully accept the behavior regulation as their own be- cause of its congruence with their values, objectives, and needs. Although actions in integrated regulation have similarities with intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation is still categorized as extrinsic motivation Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Deasyanti Jurian & Sambadha Adhi Susetyo/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (2) (2021) 171 because the goal of actions is to attain separable out- comes rather than the interest or satisfaction from the behaviors. Intrinsic motivation refers to doing activities because of the inherent pleasure or enjoyment of the activity. Individuals who regulate their behaviors are highly self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Assessing different types of athlete motivation in sport (extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation) is essential because each motivation type is associated with varying outcomes. Positive consequences are relat- ed to the end of the intrinsic motivation continuum (Podlog & Eklund, 2007). Moreover, Mallett, Kawa- bata, Newcombe, Otero-Forero, & Jackson (2007) sum- marize numerous studies that individuals with higher autonomous motivation levels show more engagement, more remarkable persistence, higher adaptive resili- ence, and better performance. On the other hand, cited from several studies, (Li et al., 2018) state that amotiva- tion and external regulation are related to negative ef- fects, such as burnout, negative moral behaviors, and drop-out. Furthermore, the more self-determined moti- vation is associated with adaptive behaviors, whereas the less self-determined is related to maladaptive out- comes (Jowett, Adie, Bartholomew, Yang, Gustafsson, & Jiménez, 2017). Therefore, due to the different con- sequences of different types of motivation, it is crucial to monitor the athlete motivation from SDT perspec- tives. Research on non-disabled athlete motivation is considerable. In contrast, research on the motivation of athletes with physical disabilities is limited. This study filled this gap in the literature. Only a few researchers dedicated study to Paralympic sport (Kadyrbaiuly, 2018). This study explored the motivation in sport, es- pecially for the Paralympic athletes who experienced injuries. As noted by the International Paralympic Com- mittee in 2012, the injury rate of disabled athletes was higher than the of non-disabled athletes (Guerro, Mar- tin, & Prokesova, 2021). Moreover, Fagher, Dahlström, Jacobsson, Timpka, & Lexell (2020) reported a high prevalence of injuries and illnesses among Paralympic athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to describe the motivation level (within the SDT framework) of the Paralympic athletics athletes after experiencing an injury. By under- standing various athlete motivations after injury, the coaches can modify the best approach for motivating the athletes to engage in sport. In addition, findings from this study could give information to the Paralym- pic coaches about the motivation level of the Paralym- pic athletes after injury. The Paralympic coaches are then required to adjust their approach to motivate the Paralympic athletes to return to sport based on their motivation profile. (Banack, Sabiston, & Bloom, 2011) state that coaches should try to match the program to athletes' functional capacity and ability level with a dis- ability. The coaches need to understand the athlete's disabilities and limitations in performing movements (Alexander, 2020, in ALexander & Bloom, 2021). METHODS Participants A total of 44 Paralympic athletics athletes were involved in a survey, comprising 14 (33,33 %) females and 30 (66,67%) males. The age range of participants was from 16 to 34 years (Mean= 26,51, SD= 5,61). Most of the participants graduated from high school (59.09%) and secondary school (18.18%). The partici- pants identified the severity level of injury. Out of 44 participants, 5 (11.36%) participants had a serious inju- ry, and 39 (88.64%) participants experienced a minor injury. The length of injury and rehabilitation was var- ied, from several days to several months. Sampling Procedure The population of this study was the Paralympic athletics athletes having been trained at the National Training Center (Pelatnas) in Solo. Due to the small population (less than 100), this study used a total sam- pling approach (Sugiyono, 2013). Therefore, all the Paralympic athletics athletes were involved as the sam- ples of this study. Measures The Sports Motivation Scale (SMS) was devel- oped by Pelletier et al. (1995) and revised into SMS-6 by Mallett et al. (2007). This scale was used to assess the individual level of motivation to the sport. The new- est version of SMS (SMS II) was published by Pelletier et al. in 2013. However, this study used the former re- vised version (SMS-6) (Mallett et al., 2007). In this scale, participants indicated their responses to the state- ments using a Likert scale. Originally, the SMS used a 7-point Likert scale, but this study modified the scale Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Deasyanti Jurian & Sambadha Adhi Susetyo/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (2) (2021) 172 into a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (does not corre- spond at all) to 5 (corresponds completely). The SMS consists of 24 statements that measure six forms of motivation: amotivation, external regula- tion, introjected regulation, identified regulation, inte- grated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. The coeffi- cient of internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach Alpha, which ranged from 0.73 to 0.82 with a mean of 0.77 (Mallett et al., 2007), demonstrating an acceptable level. Procedure All targeted participants were provided with infor- mation explaining the purpose of the study and volun- tary nature to involve in this study. All targeted partici- pants, who were invited, agreed to participate in this study. Participants completed the questionnaire in a paper and pencil format. The questionnaire was a self- report comprising demographic information, injury ex- periences, and the scale to measure motivation level in sport. The participants also reported injury types and categorized the injury into severe and minor injuries. RESULT As mentioned above, the SMS consists of 24 items in which each type of motivation is assessed by 4 items. Therefore, the minimum and maximum scores of each type are 4 and 20, respectively. Descriptive analysis of each motivation type is portrayed in Table 1. Based on the total score of participants in each motivation type, participants in this study were catego- rized into three motivation level groups: low, moderate, and high. However, the cut-off score for categorizing the three groups was not based on the empirical score distribution but was associated with the theoretical mean and standard deviation (Mean=12, SD=2.67). Those who had scores < 9.33 were grouped into a low level. Those who had a score between 9.34 and 14.67 were classified into the moderate level. Those who gained a score > 14.97 were associated with a high lev- el. The participant distribution of each motivation type is shown in Table 3 or Figure 1. Table 3 and Figure 1 show that 4,55 % of the ath- letes are in the high amotivation level, 34.09 % are in the moderate amotivation level, and 61.38 % are in the low motivation level. This finding indicates that only a small number of Paralympic athletics athletes exhibited a lack of intention to participate in the sport after injury. Furthermore, in external regulations, the number of par- ticipants in moderate (47.73%) and high (45.45%) mo- tivation level is almost similar. This number represents that most participants regulated their behaviors because of external rewards. As shown in Table 2, more than 70% of participant motives of behaviors were for pres- tige. Interestingly, although more than 50% of partici- pants were concerned with material incentives, 37,30% were not motivated by material benefits. In introjected regulation, the percentage of athletes with high motiva- tion levels (72.73%) is significantly higher than moder- ate motivation levels (27.73%). It can also be seen that in identified and integrated regulation, the number of athletes with a high level of motivation increased. They moved from 90.91% in identified regulations to 93.18% in integrated regulation. This finding shows that more athletes had a sense of self-determination in regulating their behaviors in the sport after injury. However, the- number of athletes expressing intrinsic motivation (86.36%) was less than the integrated regulation. Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Table 1. Statistics Descriptive of Motivation Types Amotivation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Identified Regulation Integrated Regulation Intrinsic Motivation Maximum 15 19 20 20 20 20 Minimum 5 7 12 12 11 11 Mean 8,75 14,18 16,05 16,77 16,66 16,70 SD 2,48 2,84 2,01 1,74 1,80 2,03 Deasyanti Jurian & Sambadha Adhi Susetyo/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (2) (2021) 173 Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Table 2. Percentages of Participant Responses in the SMS Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Amotivation 1 I don’t know anymore; I have the impression of being incapable of succeeding in this sport 43,2 45 11,4 0,0 0,0 2 I don’t know if I want to continue to invest my time and effort as much in my sport anymore 4,5 22,7 0,4 22,7 6,8 3 It is not clear to me anymore; I don’t really think my place is in sport 40,9 47,7 0,1 2,3 0,0 4 I don’t seem to be enjoying my sport as much as I previously did 20,5 50,0 0,2 6,8 6,8 External Regulation 5 Because it allows me to be well regarded by people that I know 4,5 13,6 0,2 38,6 27,3 6 For the prestige of being an athlete 4,5 9,1 0,1 43,2 29,5 7 For the material and/or social benefits of being an athlete 6,8 29,5 0,1 45,5 6,8 8 To show others how good I am at my sport 6,8 15,9 0,2 40,9 18,2 Introjected Regulation 9 Because it is absolutely necessary to do sports if we want to be in shape 2,3 11,4 0,1 34,1 45,5 10 Because I must do sports to feel good about myself 2,3 0,0 0,1 75,0 15,9 11 Because I would feel bad if I was not taking time to do it 4,5 2,3 0,2 40,9 34,1 12 Because I must do sports regularly 2,3 0,0 0,1 68,2 15,9 Identified Regulation 13 Because it is a good way to learn lots of things which could be useful to me in other areas of my life 0,0 2,3 0,0 50,0 47,7 14 Because it is one of the best ways I have chosen to develop other aspects of my life 0,0 0,0 0,1 54,5 38,6 15 Because it is one of the best ways to maintain good relationships with my friends 0,0 6,8 0,1 61,4 25,0 16 Because training hard will improve my performance 2,3 2,3 0,1 72,7 15,9 Integrated Regulation 17 Because it is part of the way in which I have chosen to live my life 0,0 2,3 0,0 61,4 36,4 18 Because it is an extension of me 0,0 0,0 0,0 65,9 29,5 19 Because participation in my sport is consistent with my deepest principles 2,3 0,0 0,1 68,2 20,5 20 Because participation in my sport is an integral part of my life 0,0 9,1 0,0 63,6 25,0 Intrinsic Motivation 21 For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity 9,1 4,5 0,0 52,3 29,5 22 Because I feel a lot of personal satisfaction while mastering certain difficult train- ing techniques 0,0 2,3 0,1 59,1 29,5 23 For the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities 0,0 0,0 0,0 52,3 43,2 24 For the pleasure of discovering new performance strategies 2,3 0,0 0,0 59,1 36,4 Table 3. Percentages of Participant Responses in the SMS Amotivation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Identified Regulation Integrated Regulation Intrinsic Motivation N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) Low 27 61,36 3 6,82 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0,00 Moderate 15 34,09 21 47,73 12 27,27 4 9,09 3 6,82 6 13,64 High 2 4,55 20 45,45 32 72,73 40 90,91 41 93,18 38 86,36 Figure 1. Percentages of Each Motivation Level Deasyanti Jurian & Sambadha Adhi Susetyo/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (2) (2021) 174 DISCUSSION The finding of this study shows that more than 86% of athletes had a high level of motivation in identi- fied regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic mo- tivation. This finding supports the previous research stating that athletes generally show a high level of moti- vation, including extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. There is no significant motivational behavior difference between Paralympians and non-Paralympian, but disa- bled athletes are driven mainly by a high level of intrin- sic motivation (Szemes, Szájer, & Tóth, 2017). Howev- er, in this study, the percentages of athletes who had high levels of external regulation were almost 50%, while those with high introjected regulation were 72.73%. In the SDT view, external and introjected reg- ulations mean that extrinsic motivation drives individu- al behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Regarding the athletes having high extrinsic moti- vation, the coaches should adapt their approach to the athletes to decrease the number of athletes who still need external pressure to be motivated. Banack et al. (2011) suggest the importance of the relationship be- tween coach autonomy-supportive behaviors and disa- bled athlete motivations in sport. Furthermore, (Podlog & Dionigi, 2010) describe specific strategies for coach- es in approaching the athletes to return to sport after experiencing an injury, such as autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors (Rocchi, Pelletier, & Lauren Cou- ture, 2013). However, this study also found that the Paralym- pic athletes also had high intrinsic motivation levels despite experiencing an injury. This finding is related to the small number of athletes who experienced a severe injury. Having different kinds of athlete motivation in sport concurrently verify that motivation in sport is a complex phenomenon. Moreover, this result confirms Banack et al. (2011) conclusion from several studies that athletes with physical disabilities tend to exhibit a high level of intrinsic motivation. Even though the in- trojected, identified, and integrated regulations are dif- ferent types of extrinsic motivations, those types are considered autonomous motives (Podlog & Eklund, 2010) and intrinsic motivation. This study has several limitations. Due to the im- balance of female and male participants, this study did not compare the level of sports motivation based on gender. This study also did not limit the fixed time frame of injury. Therefore, the size effect of injury on their sport motivation may vary. A study of Swedish Paralympic athletes reports that females have a higher prevalence of getting injured than males in the one-year retrospective period (Fagher et al., 2020). Based on these limitations, further research is suggested to con- sider several issues, such as the participant gender pro- portion, type of impairment, type of injury, and time frame of injury. In addition to sport motivation, it is also interesting to explore the athlete's reasons for re- maining committed to sport after experiencing an injury CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Paralympic athletics athlete's motivation in sport in this study was not affected by their injury. They presented a high level of motivation, especially in self-determined motivation (identified and integrated regulations) and intrinsic motivation. Despite the athlete's high motivation level, the coaches still have to consider the athlete's motivational profiles to maintain their motivation and performance in sport. REFERENCES Alexander, D., & Bloom, G. A. (2021). Coaching Ath- letes with a Disability. In D. Hackfort & R. J. Schinke (Eds.), Rouledge International Encyclopedia of Sport and Exercise Psychology. New York: Roudledge. Banack, H. R., Sabiston, C. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Coach autonomy support, basic need satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation of paralympic athletes. Re- search Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(4), 722– 730. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599809 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, devel- opment, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801 Fagher, K., Dahlström, Ö., Jacobsson, J., Timpka, T., & Lexell, J. (2020). Prevalence of Sports-Related Inju- ries and Illnesses in Paralympic Athletes. PM and R, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12211 Guerro, M. D., Martin, J.J., & Prokesova, E. (2021). Psychological intervention with paralympics ath- letes. In P. C. Bertollo, M., Filho, E., & Terry (Ed.), Advancements in Mental Skills Training. New York: Roudledge. Iñigo, M. M., Podlog, L., & Hall, M. S. (2015). Why do athletes remain committed to sport after severe inju- ry? An examination of the sport commitment model. Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Deasyanti Jurian & Sambadha Adhi Susetyo/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (2) (2021) 175 Sport Psychologist, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1123/ tsp.2014-0086 Jowett, S., Adie, J.W., Bartholomew, K.J., Yang, S.X., Gustafsson, H., L.-, & Jiménez, A. (2017). Motiva- tional processes in the coach-athlete relationship: A multi-cultural self-determination approach. Psychol- ogy of Sport & Exercise. Retrieved from j.psychsport.2017.06.004 Kadyrbaiuly, B. (2018). The relationship between moti- vation and perceived autonomy of individual and team sports athletes with disabilities (Seoul National University). Retrieved from https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/ handle/10371/161391 Li, C., Kawabata, M., & Zhang, L. (2018). Validity and reliability of the Sport Motivation Scale-II for Chi- nese athletes. International Journal of Sport and Ex- ercise Psychology, 16(1). https:// doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1153130 Mallett, C., Kawabata, M., Newcombe, P., Otero- Forero, A., & Jackson, S. (2007). Sport motivation scale-6 (SMS-6): A revised six-factor sport motiva- tion scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, (8), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.psychsport.2006.12.005 Pelletier, L. G., Rocchi, M. A., Vallerand, R. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Validation of the re- vised sport motivation scale (SMS-II). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, (14), 329–341. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.002 Pelletier, L. L. G., Fortier, M. M. S., Tuson, K. M., Val- lerand, R. J., Brikre, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a New Measure of Intrinsic Motivation , Extrinsic Motivation , and Amotivation in Sports : The Sport Motivation Scale ( SMS ). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, (17), 35–53. Podlog, L., Banham, S. M., Wadey, R., & Hannon, J. C. (2015). Psychological readiness to return to competi- tive sport following injury: A qualitative study. Sport Psychologist, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1123/ tsp.2014-0063 Podlog, L., & Dionigi, R. (2010). Coach strategies for addressing psychosocial challenges during the return to sport from injury. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28 (1197–1208), 10. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.487873 Podlog, L., & Eklund, R. (2007). Psychosocial Consid- erations of the Return to Sport Following Injury . In Psychological Bases of Sport Injuries. Podlog, L., & Eklund, R. C. (2010). Returning to com- petition after a serious injury: The role of self- determination. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(8), 819–831. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02640411003792729 Rocchi, M. A., Pelletier, L. G., & Lauren Couture, A. (2013). Determinants of coach motivation and au- tonomy supportive coaching behaviours. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.psychsport.2013.07.002 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psy- chologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003 -066X.55.1.68 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by Brick: The Origins, Development, and Future of Self- Determination Theory. https://doi.org/10.1016/ bs.adms.2019.01.001 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrin- sic motivation from a self-determination theory per- spective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 Sugiyono. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kuali- tatif, dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta. Szemes, Á., Szájer, P., & Tóth, L. (2017). Sport moti- vation and perceived motivational climate among members of a national para-swimming team. Cogni- tion, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal , Vol. 21. https://doi.org/10.24193/cbb.2017.21.19 Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Deasyanti Jurian & Sambadha Adhi Susetyo/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (2) (2021)