Rehabilitation Measures Database
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale

Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale

Last Updated

Purpose

The physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES) is a validated, 18 question survey used to assess participant enjoyment of a physical activity.

Acronym PACES

Area of Assessment

Patient Satisfaction
Quality of Life
Stress & Coping
Motivation
Mental Health

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

CDE Status

Not a CDE -- last searched 5/10/2025.

Populations

Healthy Adults
Stroke
Non-Specific Patient Population
Mixed Populations

Key Descriptions

  • The PACES is an easy to administer questionnaire on patient enjoyment of physical activity that has been widely used in the research setting
  • It consists of 18 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, with total scores ranging from 18 to 126
  • Higher scores indicate greater enjoyment, and a cutoff of 63 can be used to determine if a participant enjoyed the activity or not.

Number of Items

18

Equipment Required

  • Paper and pen (for paper version)
  • Computer or tablet (for digital version)

Time to Administer

Approximately 5 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed 5/10/2025 by Dr. Benjamin Petrie, MD, Spinal Cord Injury Medicine Fellow, Shirley Ryan 无码专区/Northwestern University.

 

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

General Health
Emotion

Professional Association Recommendation

None found -- last searched 5/10/2025

Considerations

  • Cultural and language adaptations may be needed for diverse populations.
  • Suitable for individuals with varying levels of physical activity experience.
  • Shorter 8- (PACES-8, Mullen et al., 2011) and 4-item (PACES-S, Chen et al., 2021) versions of the PACES have been developed.
  • A 16-item revised PACES (Molt et al., 2001) was designed for adolescent girls, with two items removed, other items rewritten, and the 7-point bipolar scale replaced with a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Disagree a lot” to 5 = “Agree a lot”).

 

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Non-Specific Patient Population: (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991; n = 37; age range = 18-24; female = 17; male = 20)

  • SEM (calculated) for Bicycling (n = 37) = 3.74
  • SEM (calculated) for Jogging (n = 37) = 3.95

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Non-Specific Patient Population: (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991)

  • MDC95 (calculated) for Bicycling (n = 37) = 10.37
  • MDC95 (calculated) for Jogging (n = 37) = 10.94

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Non-Specific Patient Population: (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991)

  • Poor test-retest reliability for bicycling: (ICC = 0.60)
  • Acceptable test-retest reliability for jogging: (ICC = 0.93)

 

Internal Consistency

Non-Specific Patient Population: (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96*

 

Elementary School Children: (Moore et al., 2009; n = 564 third grade students; mean age = 8.72 (0.54); female = 296 (52.5%))

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha (n = 511) = 0.87

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Elementary School Children: (Moore et al., 2009)

  • Correlations between PACES and other factors (controlling for sex and race):
    • Excellent correlation with task goal orientation (r = 0.66, p < 0.01)
    • Poor correlations with perceptions of athletic competence (r = 0.25, p < 0.01), physical appearance (r = 0.23, p < 0.01), and self-reported physical activity (r = 0.16, p < 0.01)

 

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Normative Data

Mixed Populations: (Murrock et al., 2016; n = 40 adults with functional limitations; mean age = 63 (7.9) years; age range = 45-87; comorbidity rating (Charleston Scale) = 2.3 (2.4))

  • Mean score on PACES at baseline: 99.4 (20.7)

 

Internal Consistency

Mixed Populations: (Murrock et al., 2016; n = 40)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95*

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions. 

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Mixed Populations: (Murrock et al., 2016; n = 40)

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the PACES with the Physical Function component of the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) (r = 0.38, p = 0.02)
    • Higher physical function resulted in higher enjoyment for physical activity

 

Stroke

back to Populations

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Stroke: (Putrino et al., 2017; n = 10 individuals with chronic stroke; mean age = 69.5 (9.9); male = 7; female = 3)

  • Excellent concurrent validity between PACES scores and improvement in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity Function (FMA-UE) score following digital gaming therapy (Spearman’s Rho = 0.82, p < 0.005 for total FMA-UE; Rho = 0.74, p < 0.01 for wrist-hand FMA-UE)

 

Healthy Adults

back to Populations

Normative Data

Healthy Adults: (Heesch et al., 2006; n = 378; mean age = 49.8 (SD = 9.6); female = 49.5%)

  • Mean score on PACES (n = 370): 84.16 (19.85)

 

Internal Consistency

Healthy Adults: (Heesch et al., 2006)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha (n = 370) = 0.95*

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

 

Bibliography

Chen, C., Weyland, S., Fritsch, J., Woll, A., Niessner, C., Burchartz, A., Schmidt, S. C. E., & Jekauc, D. (2021). A Short Version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale: Development and Psychometric Properties. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 18, 11035 

Heesch, K. C., M?sse, L. C., & Dunn, A. L. (2006). Using Rasch modeling to re-evaluate three scales related to physical activity: enjoyment, perceived benefits and perceived barriers. Health Education Research, 21 Suppl 1(SUPPL.1). 

Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K. J. (1991). Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale: Two Validation Studies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 50–64. 

Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Fulton, G., & Pate, R. R. (2001). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(2), 110-117.

Mullen, S. P., Olson, E. A., Phillips, S. M., Szabo, A. N., Wojcicki, T. R., Mailey, E. L., Gothe, N. P., Fanning, J. T., Kramer, A. F., & McAuley, E. (2011).  Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in older adults: invariance of the physical activity enjoyment scale (paces) across groups and time. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 103. 

Moore, J. B., Yin, Z., Hanes, J., Duda, J., Gutin, B., & Barbeau, P. (2009). Measuring Enjoyment of Physical Activity in Children: Validation of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(SUPPL.1), 116–129. 

Murrock, C. J., Bekhet, A., & Zauszniewski, J. A. (2016). Psychometric Evaluation of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale in Adults with Functional Limitations. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 37(3), 164–171. 

Putrino, D., Zanders, H., Hamilton, T., Rykman, A., Lee, P., & Edwards, D. J. (2017). Patient Engagement Is Related to Impairment Reduction During Digital Game-Based Therapy in Stroke. Games for Health Journal, 6(5), 295-302. 

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Apr 24, 2025

Rapid Assessment of Physic...

read more

updated Feb 27, 2025

Psychosocial Impact of Ass...

read more

updated Jan 14, 2025

Work and Social Adjustment...

read more