Home1
Psychological tests2
Scientific Research Motivation Assessment3

Scientific Research Motivation Assessment Test

With 70 questions and a 13-minute completion time, the Scientific Research Motivation Assessment Test helps you explore what drives your involvement in scientific work, including internal interests, external influences, goals, values, and barriers, giving you a structured profile for self-reflection and planning.

Questions: 7013 minutes

Scientific Research Motivation Assessment: situation and reply bubbles

October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published

21,348 views

2,247 completions

1,955 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

1,955 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Indirect Motivation SubsystemIMS

Measures how strongly external, mediated factors (e.g., social environment and working conditions) influence engagement in scientific work.

example score20/49

20/49Low reliance on external factorsexample score

7 – 21Low reliance on external factors

22 – 35Moderate reliance on external factors

36 – 49High reliance on external factors

A score of 20 falls in the low range, suggesting that external circumstances play a relatively minor role in sustaining your motivation for scientific activity.

Reflective Motivational SubsystemRMS

Measures the extent to which a person reflects on, understands, and self-regulates their motives and goals in scientific activity.

example score35/49

35/49Moderate reflectionexample score

7 – 21Low reflection

22 – 35Moderate reflection

36 – 49High reflection

A score of 35 indicates a moderate level of reflection, suggesting generally good self-analysis and goal awareness in scientific work with some room for further strengthening of self-regulation.

Antimotivation SubsystemAS

Measures the extent of demotivating factors (e.g., fatigue, disappointment, reduced interest) that can hinder engagement in scientific work.

example score26/49

26/49Moderate barriersexample score

7 – 20Low barriers

21 – 34Moderate barriers

35 – 49High barriers

A score of 26 falls in the Moderate barriers range, suggesting noticeable but not overwhelming demotivating factors that may intermittently interfere with sustained scientific engagement.

Cognitive Motivational SubsystemCMS

Measures the strength of motivation to acquire new knowledge, explore, and master the unknown in scientific work.

example score21/49

21/49Moderateexample score

7 – 20Low

21 – 35Moderate

36 – 49High

A score of 21 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting a present but not dominant drive for learning and exploration in scientific activity.

Value-Based Motivational SubsystemVBMS

This scale measures how strongly scientific activity is integrated into a person's core values, beliefs, and life principles.

example score43/49

43/49High alignmentexample score

7 – 21Low alignment

22 – 35Moderate alignment

36 – 49High alignment

A score of 43 indicates that scientific activity is highly meaningful for you and closely aligned with your personal values and guiding principles.

Intrinsic Motivation SubsystemIMS

This scale measures the extent to which engagement in scientific work is driven by intrinsic interest, curiosity, and self-actualization motives.

example score26/49

26/49Moderateexample score

7 – 21Low

22 – 34Moderate

35 – 49High

A score of 26 indicates a moderate predominance of internal incentives, suggesting intrinsic interest supports your scientific activity but is not the sole driving factor.

Safety Motivation SubsystemSMS

This scale measures the extent to which a person seeks stability, predictability, and risk minimization in scientific work.

example score29/49

29/49Moderateexample score

7 – 20Low

21 – 35Moderate

36 – 49High

A score of 29 indicates a moderate preference for stability and predictability, with some openness to uncertainty when necessary.

Achievement Motivation SubsystemAMS

Measures the strength of a person's drive to achieve goals and gain recognition for scientific accomplishments.

example score31/49

31/49Moderate driveexample score

7 – 21Lower drive

22 – 35Moderate drive

36 – 49High drive

A score of 31 falls in the Moderate drive range, suggesting a generally steady focus on meeting research goals with a balanced need for recognition.

Competition SubsystemCS

Measures the extent to which a person is motivated by rivalry and outperforming others in scientific work.

example score14/49

14/49Low competition driveexample score

7 – 20Low competition drive

21 – 34Moderate competition drive

35 – 49High competition drive

A score of 14 indicates a low competitive orientation, suggesting scientific effort is less driven by rivalry or comparison with others.

External Motivational SubsystemEMS

Measures how strongly external rewards, recognition, and material incentives influence engagement in scientific work.

example score44/49

44/49Highexample score

7 – 21Low

22 – 35Moderate

36 – 49High

A score of 44 falls in the High range, indicating that external incentives and recognition are an important driver of your involvement in scientific activity.

Overall Motivation LevelOML

This scale measures the overall intensity of a person’s motivation to engage in scientific research activities by combining multiple motivational components.

example score193/490

193/490Lowexample score

70 – 209Low

210 – 349Moderate

350 – 490High

A score of 193 falls in the Low range, suggesting relatively weak overall engagement and drive toward scientific work compared to higher scores on this scale.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Graduate Students and PhDs

41%OF USERS

They take it to understand what keeps them engaged in research and how to sustain momentum through long projects and setbacks.

Research Scientists and Lecturers

34%OF USERS

They use it to map their motivational profile, prevent burnout, and align tasks with what drives their best work.

Academic HR and Supervisors

25%OF USERS

They administer it to better support, develop, and place researchers based on the motives that most influence performance and satisfaction.

BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.

Shaded area — where most people score

Dot — the average

You — your score lands on each curve after the test— your score, after the test

Indirect Motivation SubsystemIMS

You?

Average26.2

Typical rangeTypical18.5 – 33.8

Possible7 – 49

Reflective motivational subsystemRms

You?

Average34.5

Typical rangeTypical28.1 – 40.8

Possible7 – 49

Subsystem of AntimotivationSoA

You?

Average21.8

Typical rangeTypical15.6 – 28.1

Possible7 – 49

Cognitive Motivational SubsystemCMS

You?

Average25.2

Typical rangeTypical17.3 – 33.1

Possible7 – 49

Value-Motivational SubsystemVS

You?

Average25.4

Typical rangeTypical18.7 – 32.2

Possible7 – 49

Subsystem of Internal MotivationSoIM

You?

Average21.5

Typical rangeTypical15.6 – 27.4

Possible7 – 49

Safety Motivation SubsystemSMS

You?

Average30.4

Typical rangeTypical25 – 35.8

Possible7 – 49

Achievement Motivation SubsystemAMS

You?

Average24.6

Typical rangeTypical19.4 – 29.8

Possible7 – 49

Subsystem "competition"S"

You?

Average32.4

Typical rangeTypical27.3 – 37.6

Possible7 – 49

External Motivational SubsystemEMS

You?

Average26.2

Typical rangeTypical18.6 – 33.8

Possible7 – 49

Overall Level of MotivationOLoM

You?

Average327.6

Typical rangeTypical266 – 389.2

Possible70 – 490

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

Please read the questions, statements, or quotations from well-known scientists presented below carefully. Indicate the extent to which you agree with each one. For each item, select the response option that best reflects your level of agreement.

- Completely untrue
- Untrue
- Rather untrue
- Not sure
- Rather true
- True
- Completely true
- Completely untrue
- Untrue
- Somewhat untrue
- Not sure
- Somewhat true
- True
- Completely true
- Completely untrue
- Untrue
- Rather untrue
- Not sure
- Rather true
- True
- Completely true

These are 3 of the 70 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Scientific Research Motivation Assessment Test - Description and methodology of the test

motivation

work motivation

Researchers, students, and people considering scientific work can use this assessment to examine the motives that sustain or weaken engagement. The Scientific Research Motivation Assessment Test shows whether involvement is shaped more by curiosity, values, achievement, competition, external conditions, security needs, or motivational barriers. A scientific motivation test can turn these tendencies into questions for career planning, work design, and self-reflection.

What This Assessment Explores

Motivation in scientific research appears as related tendencies, not one fixed trait. Items address autonomy, recognition, inquiry, setbacks, security, social context, and meaning in scientific work. Results show prominent directions.

These dimensions appear below:

Indirect Motivation Subsystem (7-49) measures external conditions; External Motivational Subsystem (7-49) measures rewards and recognition.
Reflective Motivational Subsystem (7-49) measures self-analysis and self-regulation; Antimotivation Subsystem (7-49) measures barriers.
Cognitive Motivational Subsystem (7-49) measures knowledge and exploration; Value-Based Motivational Subsystem (7-49) measures alignment with principles.
Intrinsic Motivation Subsystem (7-49) measures curiosity and self-realization; Safety Motivation Subsystem (7-49) measures stability and security.
Achievement Motivation Subsystem (7-49) measures success and recognition; Competition Subsystem (7-49) measures rivalry.
Overall Motivation Level (70-490) measures overall engagement.

Each scale is shown with Low, Moderate, and High bands; corresponding ranges define the displayed levels.

Methodology and Scientific Basis

The research motivation questionnaire presents statements with seven ordered response options, ranging from complete untruth to complete truth, with neutral or uncertain choices where appropriate. The wording covers work habits, scientific curiosity, achievement, competition, recognition, autonomy, setbacks, social influence, and anticipated consequences. Results are reported as additive profiles across the displayed dimensions; the overall index gives a broad estimate of engagement intensity.

The methodology is conceptually consistent with the framework discussed by Karpov and Razina (2018), and with Razina’s 2016 inventory and 2015 analysis of motivational subsystem stability. These publications provide the closest evidence base for the questionnaire’s structure, but the online assessment should not be described as a direct adaptation, replication, or validation of those studies.

Interpret the categories as descriptive levels for this questionnaire rather than universal norms. Scores can vary with current workload, career stage, recent success or disappointment, and the respondent’s willingness to answer candidly. Because the instrument relies on self-report and the online format does not establish population norms or clinical cutoffs, the profile is best used to identify motivational patterns and practical questions for further reflection.

Author: Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan

Literature:

Karpov, Anatolii V., and Tat'yana V. Razina. “Technique for Studying Motivation Toward Scientific Activity: Development and Practical Application.” Russian Psychological Journal, Thematic Issue 1, vol. 15, no. 2/1, 2018, pp. 57-68. 10.21702/rpj.2018.2.1.4
Razina, Tat'yana V. “The Inventory for the Study of Scientific Activity Motivation.” International Research Journal, no. 2 (44), 2016. 10.18454/IRJ.2016.44.043
Razina, Tat'yana V. “Motivational Subsystems Stability of Scientific Activities to Wide Social Environment and Narrow Scientific Environment.” Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, 2015, no. 1, vol. II, pp. 129-133

Updated: 2025-10-02