Assessing current concerns and goals idiographically: A review of the Motivational Structure Questionnaire family of instruments

BACKGROUND: There have been two kinds of methods for assessing individuals' motivation and their goal-striving behavior. The idiographic method obtains respondents' individual descriptions of their behavior or inner experiences. The nomothetic approach uses a standardized questionnaire in which respondents select from a set of alternatives. Idiographic responses provide rich, individualized information, but they make comparisons across different individuals difficult. By contrast, the nomothetic approach loses valuable individualized information, but it readily lends itself to cross-individual comparisons. OBJECTIVE: The present authors have developed a family of motivational assessment instruments within the framework of the Goal Theory of Current Concerns and individuals' goal pursuits. Each of these instruments is a hybrid version of the idiographic and nomothetic methods. Each one obtains individualized information about each respondent at the start of the assessment, but it then utilizes rating scales that allow comparisons across different individuals to be made. The objective of the present article is to present this family of hybridized instruments for potential use in routine outcome monitoring. METHOD: The method used in this article was to review the development of this family of hybrid assessments instruments over the preceding decades and the research on their psychometric properties and clinical applications. These hybrid tools include the Interview Questionnaire, Work Concerns Inventory, Motivational Structure Questionnaire, and Personal Concerns Inventory and their variants. The review includes only the idiographic-nomothetic approaches that are based on the Goal Theory of Current Concerns. RESULTS: The review reveals that for each instrument, motivational indices are calculated, which have been shown to be valid and reliable. Analyses have also revealed adaptive and maladaptive motivational factors. CONCLUSIONS: The measures discussed here have proven useful in clinical applications, when, for example, they are used as components of Systematic Motivational Counseling and the Life Enhancement and Advancement Programme for helping individuals improve their motivational structure. Similarly, the measures hold promise for use in routine outcome monitoring.