For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc.

on November 5, 2012
Permission for Netta Efroni to reproduce 1 copy
within one year of November 5, 2012

The FLOW Manual

The Manual for the Flow Scales
Manual, Sampler Set

Sue Jackson, PhD, Bob Eklund, PhD, & Andrew Martin, PhD

Copyright © 2010 Susan A. Jackson, Queensland, Australia. All rights reserved. This
manual may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher,
Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind
Garden, Inc.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the researchers who have contributed to the

development of the flow instruments described in this manual. First among such people
is Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who has, from the time the original flow scales were first
developed, generously provided feedback on their development. Thanks also to Jeanne
Nakamura for her helpful feedback on various versions of these flow scales. The flow
scales would not have progressed without the initial direction of Herbert Marsh, who
played an important role in the psychometric validation of the original flow scales. We
would also like to acknowledge the other researchers who have contributed to the
development of the flow scales, either with conceptual-level feedback, scale translation
research, or data collection assistance. There are too many to list here, but their
contributions can be found in the research described in this manual, and in publications
referred to herein. We also acknowledge the many people who have completed a
version of the flow scale, and thus contributed to the research described in this manual.
The research associated with the development and validation of the flow scales has
been conducted over a number of years, while the first author was working at the
following Australian universities: Victoria University of Technology, The University of
Queensland, Queensland University of Technology, and Charles Sturt University.
Research support provided by these institutions, as well as from the Australian
Research Council and the Australian Sports Commission, is acknowledged.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 2
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Contents
Chapter 1: The flow construct 5
a) Definitions and characterization of flow 5
b) The flow dimensions 6
c) Multidimensional, unidimensional, and core flow 10

Chapter 2: Description and forms of the Flow Scales 12

a) FLOW - LONG scales (36-item) 12
b) FLOW - SHORT scales (9-item) 15
c) FLOW - CORE scales (10-item) 15

Chapter 3: Procedures for administering and scoring the Flow Scales 16

a) Administering Dispositional flow scales 16
b) Administering State flow scales 16
c) Scoring LONG flow 16
d) Scoring SHORT flow 17
e) Scoring CORE flow 17
f) Interpreting flow scores 17
g) Potential audiences and research settings for the flow scales 18

Chapter 4: The development and validation of the Flow Scales 20

a) The construct validity approach used to validate the Flow Scales 20
b) Within-network validity of The LONG (36-item) Flow Scales 20
c) Between-network validity of the LONG Flow Scales 32
d) Validation of The SHORT (9-item) Flow Scales 35
e) Validation of The CORE (10-item) Flow Scales 37
f) Conclusion: The potential uses of the Flow Scales 40

Chapter 5: Flow Scale score profiles 41

a) Descriptive profiles 41
b) Standardized scoring tables for selected Flow Scales 41

References 63

About the authors 67

Appendices 68
a. LONG Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2)-Physical 69
b. LONG Flow State Scale (FSS-2)-Physical 71
c. LONG Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2)-General 73
d. LONG Flow State Scale (FSS-2)-General 75
e. SHORT Dispositional Flow Scale (S DFS-2) 77
f. SHORT Flow State Scale (S FSS-2) 78
g. CORE Dispositional Flow Scale (C DFS-2) 79

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 3
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

h. CORE Flow State Scale (C FSS-2) 80

i. Scoring LONG Flow (Dispositional) 81
j. Scoring LONG Flow (State) 82
k. Scoring SHORT Flow (Dispositional) 83
l. Scoring SHORT Flow (State) 84
m. Scoring CORE Flow (State & Dispositional) 85

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 4
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Chapter 1: The flow construct

a) Definitions and characterization of flow
As an optimal psychological state, flow represents those moments when
everything comes together for the performer. Flow is often associated with high levels of
performance and is a positive psychological experience. Csikszentmihalyi (1975)
developed the concept after investigating the experiences of individuals during times
when everything came together during performance of one’s chosen activity. The types
of activities investigated were diverse, ranging from surgery, to dancing, to chess, and
rock climbing. Despite such diversity in setting, there was considerable consistency of
responses regarding what was felt during moments that stood out as being special in
some way for the performer.
Since his initial investigations where the term “flow” was chosen to denote these
special absorbing experiences, Csikszentmihalyi (e.g., 1990, 1997) has continued a
research program examining this experience. Flow has been examined in daily living
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) and as a state of mind in scientific discoveries
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). There has been remarkable consistency in how flow has been
described by individuals across diverse settings. Flow is a special psychological state,
one that brings the recipient much enjoyment.
Flow occurs when one is totally involved in the task at hand. It can occur at
different levels of complexity but, by definition, flow is intrinsically rewarding, regardless
of whether it involves a simple game of throw and catch or a complicated and
dangerous gymnastics routine. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) described the different levels of
flow as micro and macro flow experiences. Micro flow experiences were proposed to fit
the patterns of everyday life, whereas macro flow was reserved for experiences
associated with higher levels of complexity and demand on the participant. When in
flow, one feels strong and positive, not worried about self or of failure. Flow can be
defined as an experience that stands out as being better than average in some way,
where the individual is totally absorbed in what she or he is doing, and where the
experience is very rewarding in and of itself (Jackson, 1993). This definition covers
several characteristics of flow.
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) concept of challenge-skill balance is crucial to the
definition of flow. Flow occurs only when the individual moves beyond his or her
average experience of challenge and skill. The moving beyond average signifies an
investment of psychic energy into a task, which is also a pre-requisite to flow. The
challenge-skills balance concept is best described graphically, and thus a model of flow
is presented below in Figure 1. When the perceived challenges are matched by a belief
in having the skills to meet the challenge, the stage is set for flow to occur.
The challenge-skill balance model of flow provides an understanding of a range
of psychological experiences in addition to flow. It can be seen in Figure 1 that when
challenges outweigh skills, anxiety is predicted. Conversely, when skills outweigh
challenges, relaxation, closely followed by boredom, is predicted. An absence of
significant challenge or skill requirements in a situation brings on a state of apathy.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 5
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

CHALLENGE AXIS High

Anxiety FLOW

Low Average High SKILLS AXIS

Apathy Relaxation-Boredom
Low
Figure 1. Model of the flow state. Adapted, with permission, from S.A. Jackson, S.A., &
M. Csikszentmihalyi, 1999. Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and
performances. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics), p. 37. Adapted from M.
Csikszentmihalyi and I.Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, Optimal experience: Psychological
studies of flow in consciousness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Understanding how flow relates to other psychological constructs such as

anxiety, and confidence, was an important consideration in developing the flow scales.
Referring back to the challenge-skill balance model of flow, flow represents optimal
experience, and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) uses these two terms interchangeably. We
consider the study of optimal experiences to be as important as focusing on problems,
or negative experiences. The tremendous growth of the positive psychology approach
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) demonstrates considerable support for the
significance of understanding positive human experiences. Csikszentmihalyi (1990)
provides a compelling argument for why flow experiences are important–they lead to
growth and complexity in consciousness.

b) The flow dimensions

The LONG and SHORT Flow scales were theoretically grounded in Csikszentmihalyi’s
(1990) nine-dimensional conceptualization of flow. These nine dimensions are:
challenge-skill balance, action-awareness merging, clear goals, unambiguous feedback,
concentration on task, sense of control, loss of self-consciousness, time transformation,
and autotelic experience. Considered together, these dimensions represent the optimal

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 6
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

psychological state of flow; singly they signify conceptual elements of this state. We
now define and describe the nine flow dimensions.

Challenge-skill balance.
Challenges can be thought of as opportunities for action, or goals. Skills are the
capacities that we possess to produce desired outcomes. Critical to the challenge-skill
balance is that the perception of challenge and skill drives the equation. This means our
beliefs, or confidence regarding what we are able to do in a situation, is more important
than what our objective skill levels might be. Challenges can be defined in a personal
way, separate from any structures of an activity. It is the perception of the defined
challenge that is critical to flow occurring.
When in flow, a dynamic balance exists between challenges and skills. In sports,
athletes continually challenge themselves with higher skill demands. The structure of
sports and any competitive endeavour provide continual opportunities for extending
oneself. For many people, physical activity (be it competitive or recreational) provides
one of the most concrete opportunities for setting and striving for personal challenges.
Challenges and skills, however, can be modified in any activity, making flow an
accessible experience across all domains of functioning.

Action-awareness merging.
When people are asked to describe what it feels like to be in flow, they often refer to this
idea of action-awareness merging. Performers describe feeling at one with the activity
being performed. How does this experience come about? Through total absorption in
what one is doing. Such involvement can lead to perceptions of oneness with the
activity that brings harmony and peace to an active engagement with a task.
A sense of effortlessness and spontaneity is associated with the flow dimension
of action-awareness merging. Feelings of automaticity are described by performers,
whose well-learnt routines enable them to process subconsciously and pay full attention
to their actions. The unity of consciousness apparent in this flow dimension illustrates
the idea of growth in complexity that results from flow experiences.

Clear goals.
Goal setting is a process that, when undertaken correctly, helps move a performer
toward flow. Once in this state, individuals describe knowing clearly what it is they are
supposed to do. Such clarity of purpose occurs on a moment-by-moment basis, keeping
the performer fully connected to the task and responsive to appropriate cues. Sports
provide an excellent setting for actions bound by clear goals and rules. The structure of
pre-set action allows more attention to be focused on immediate tasks. Personal goals
can also be set and continually monitored against this backdrop of in-built goals for
action. In fact, it is vital that athletes plan for their performance so that, when the time
comes, there is clarity of focus on the particular goals relevant to individual performers
and performances. Goals are a necessary part of achieving something worthwhile in

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 7
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

any endeavor. The focus that goals provide to actions also means that they are an
integral component of the flow experience.

Unambiguous feedback.
Closely associated with clear goals is the processing of how performance is progressing
in relation to these goals. Paying attention to feedback is a necessary step in
determining whether one is on track toward goals that have been set. When in flow,
feedback is easier to receive and interpret. The performer receives clear, unambiguous
information that he or she processes effortlessly, keeping performance heading in the
right direction.
Feedback can come from many sources. For athletes, and others who have a
physical component to what they do when in flow, one of the most important sources of
feedback is kinaesthetic awareness, or knowing the spatial location of one’s body. This
awareness is the internal information an athlete needs to optimise his or her
movements. Recognizing how the quality of a performance relates to an ideal
performance enables athletes to know, on a continuous basis, whether their movements
match what they want them to be. Feedback can come from a range of external
sources, including the environment in which the performance is occurring, to the
information provided by competitors or spectators. It is not necessary for feedback to
always be positive for flow to be experienced. When in flow, the nature of clear and
immediate feedback means that adjustments can be made to either keep a performer in
flow, or enable one to achieve this state. When receiving feedback associated with a
flow state, the performer does not need to stop and reflect on how things are
progressing. This information is seamlessly integrated into performance in an ongoing
way.

Total concentration on the task at hand.

This fifth characteristic defines one of the clearest indications of being in flow: one is
totally focused in the present on a specific task being performed. There are no
extraneous thoughts, and the distractibility that often accompanies involvement on any
task is wonderfully absent. Experiencing such clear moments provides much
satisfaction, which in turn leads to the growth in complexity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990,
1993) resulting from flow experiences.
Being totally connected to the task in which one is engaged epitomizes the flow
state. This connectedness relies on a present-centred focus—flow resides in being in
the present moment, rather than in the past or future. An interesting aspect of the
concentration experienced in flow is that even though it is complete and intense, it is
also spontaneous. In contrast to one’s usual experience, no effort is required to keep
the mind on task when in flow.

Sense of control.
Another frequently mentioned flow characteristic is a feeling of being in control. Some
have described a sense of infallibility when performing in flow. This empowering feeling

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 8
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

frees one from the all-too-frequent fear of failure that can creep into performance.
Failure thoughts are happily absent during flow, enabling the individual to take on the
challenges at hand.
Control, like the challenge-skill relationship, is a delicately balanced component
of flow. Although the perception of control is inherent to the experience, absolute
situational control does not actually exist. Challenge must be experienced for flow to be
experienced. Challenge does not exist under conditions of absolute control. Having the
experience of total control is likely to move an individual away from the experience of
flow and into relaxation or boredom. It is the possibility of keeping things under control
that keeps flow active. Like flow itself, the sense of control often lasts only a short time.
This relates back to keeping at the cutting edge of the challenge-skill balance within a
situation. If the feeling of being in control keeps going indefinitely, then the scales have
tipped in favour of skill over challenge, and flow is lost.

Loss of self-consciousness.
Most people live their lives surrounded by evaluations of how they are doing. Emanating
from many sources, one of the most insistent is from the self. In situations of
importance, it is difficult to stop constantly evaluating how we are doing in the eyes of
others; however, stopping this evaluation is necessary for flow. When an individual is no
longer concerned with what others think of them, self-consciousness has been lost.
People who perform publicly often find it difficult to lose self-consciousness. In
any activity, we face criticism–both from others and ourselves–which turns attention
away from the task and onto the self. The ego, that part of our self that questions,
critiques, and prompts self-doubt, needs to be quietened for flow. We can think of flow
as unselfconscious action. It is liberating to be free of the voice within our head that
questions whether we are living up to self or other-imposed standards.

Transformation of time.
Deep moments of flow seem to transform our perception of time. For some, the
experience is that time stops. For others, time seems to slow. Or it may be that time
seems to pass more quickly than expected. These sensations come about through the
intensity of involvement in flow. Because nothing else is entering our awareness during
the intense concentration of flow, we may be surprised to find that significant time has
passed while in this state. The intensity of focus may also contribute to perceptions of
time slowing, with a feeling of having all the time in the world to execute a move that is
in reality time-limited. Thus, there seems to be a close link between depth of
concentration and time transformation.
Time transformation may be the least frequently experienced flow dimension.
Sport research conducted to date has found lack of a robust association between time
transformation and the other flow dimensions. It may be that the nature of the sports
activity, where time is often part of the infrastructure or part of the challenge, is not
easily lost. Another possible explanation is that this dimension occurs only when the
flow experience is very deep (Tenenbaum, Fogarty, & Jackson, 1999). When time

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 9
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

transformation is experienced, it is one of the liberating dimensions of flow–to feel free

from the time dependence under which we live most of our lives.

Autotelic experience.
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) coined the term autotelic experience to describe the intrinsically
rewarding experience that flow brings to the individual. As described by
Csikszentmihalyi, the word is derived from two Greek words that describe doing
something for its own sake: “auto” = self, and “telos” = goal. Flow is such an enjoyable
experience that once experienced, it becomes a much sought after state.
Csikszentmihalyi described this dimension as the end result of the other eight flow
dimensions. For many, flow is the defining motivation to keep pushing towards higher
limits. Feelings of great enjoyment may come only after a flow performance; during a
flow performance, energy is directed fully into the task. Thus, it is generally after
completing an activity, upon reflection, that the autotelic aspect of flow is realized and
provides high motivation toward further involvement.
The dimensions of flow provide a conceptually coherent framework for
understanding optimal experience. Considerable consistency of flow experience has
been found across many different domains (see Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997;
Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). The next section introduces the
measurement approach designed by Jackson and colleagues to tap into these flow
dimensions.

c) Multidimensional, unidimensional, and core flow

The triad of flow scales developed by Jackson and colleagues (e.g., Jackson & Eklund,
2002; Jackson, Martin, & Eklund, 2008; Martin & Jackson, 2008) provides researchers
and practitioners with a suite of scales for assessing flow. The three types of flow scales
address the flow construct from different perspectives.

Multidimensional.
The Flow State Scale-2 (FSS-2) and Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2) are self-report
instruments designed to assess flow experiences from the nine-dimensional flow model.
These 36-item, or LONG Flow scales, have been shown over a number of studies to be
robust instruments that provide a detailed assessment of the dimensional flow model.
When a fine-grained description of flow characteristics according to the dimensional
flow model of Csikszentmihalyi (1990) is desired, then the long flow scales are the best
option.

Unidimensional.
While the dimensional flow model focuses on the nine flow dimensions, it is only when
these dimensions are experienced together that flow is thought to occur. To facilitate a
concise assessment of the global flow construct, the SHORT Flow scales were
developed. Drawn directly from the LONG scales, the items of the SHORT scales

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 10
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

provide a flow assessment that focuses on a holistic concept of flow as one coherent
experience that is drawn from the nine flow dimensions.

Core.
The third approach to assessing flow via self-report is based on the phenomenology, or
lived experience, of flow. That is, it is designed to tap into the core experience of being
in flow. It is a complementary approach to the dimensional flow model described above.
The CORE Flow scales are designed to describe what it is like to be in flow from the
perspective of the person in flow.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 11
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Chapter 2: Description and forms of the Flow Scales

In this chapter, the three types of Flow Scales are described, as well as the
content and intended uses of each instrument. Each of the three types of Flow Scales
has a dispositional and state version. By designing these two versions to each type of
scale, it is possible to assess flow in two ways: general tendency to experience flow, as
well as particular incidence (or non-incidence) of flow characteristics during a particular
event. In accordance with other psychological concepts employing a state-trait
distinction, it is proposed that flow is a specific psychological state, amenable to state-
based assessments, and also that people differ in their propensity to experience flow on
a regular basis (Jackson, Kimiecik, Ford, & Marsh, 1998).

a) FLOW – LONG scales (36-item)

The DFS-2.
This scale was designed as a dispositional assessment of the flow experience. It
assesses the general tendency to experience flow characteristics within a particular
setting nominated either by the respondent or investigator. There are several reasons
for directing respondents to think about the frequency with which they generally
experience the flow items within a particular activity. The first is to provide a context for
participants’ responses and to ground their thinking in a particular setting. Second, the
DFS-2 was designed in parallel with the FSS-2, where respondents report flow
experience within a particular just completed event. The contextualizing of the DFS-2
enables researchers to compare responses to the same activity across the FSS-2 and
DFS-2, and thus examine relationships between state and dispositional factors in
experience. Third, it is likely that most investigations using the DFS-2 will focus on
activities in which the respondents have invested psychic energy: activities of
importance to the respondents, where they are likely to encounter challenge, and for
which they have developed some skills. That is, activities conducive to flow
experiences.
Through assessing experience in self-choice activities, knowledge of the autotelic
personality, and factors that contribute to it, may be advanced. An autotelic person is
one who is more able to experience flow, and is described as a personality type by
Csikszentmihalyi (e.g., 1990, 1997).
While the DFS-2 is designed for grounding in a particular activity (or type of
activity), it should be answered at a time separate from immediate involvement in this
activity. As a dispositional measure, the DFS-2 is designed to elicit typical responses, or
how the person feels in general about their participation in a chosen activity. As a
dispositional measure, the DFS-2 is designed to assess individual differences in the
tendency to experience flow in specific activities. According to Csikszentmihalyi (e.g.,
1990) people differ in their ability to experience flow, as described by the autotelic
personality concept. The DFS-2 was designed to tap into this individual difference
aspect to flow. Thus, it is anticipated that responses to this instrument will remain fairly
stable over a long time frame.
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 12
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

There are no set time frames in which the respondent is asked to recall his or her
experience. However, it is possible to assign a timeframe by adding this to the
instructions preceding the scale. For example, you can include in the instructions a
statement such as, “Think about your experience in (name of activity) over the past
year, and answer the questions in relation to how you have generally felt while
participating.” The timeframe most appropriate to specify for respondents may depend
on the particular characteristics of the sample; for example, their age, amount of time in
the activity, or frequency of participation.
The FSS-2 is designed as a post-event assessment of flow, with instructions
worded to ground the respondent in a recently completed activity. By administering the
scale close to the conclusion of an activity, a more accurate assessment of the state
flow experience is possible.
Another possible use of the FSS-2 is to collect data on particular experiences of
significance to the participants. Respondents can be asked to think about a particular
experience (for example, a peak experience) and answer the scale in relation to this
event. A high-level flow experience, such as one tied into a peak performance or peak
experience, will remain a strong memory for the recipient, and thus the FSS-2 can be
used to tap into such memorable experiences.
The DFS-2 and/or FSS-2 have been translated into several languages, including
Greek (Stavrou & Zervas, 2004), French (Fournier, Gaudreau, Demontrond-Behr,
Visioli, Forrest, & Jackson, 2007), Japanese (Kawabata, Mallett, & Jackson, 2007),
Finnish (Räty & Laakkonen, personal communication, 2008), Spanish (Martínez-
Zaragoza, Benavides, Solanes, Pastor, & Martin del Rio, personal communication,
2008) Hungarian (Bimbo, personal communication, 2009), and Hindi (Singh, personal
communication, 2009) versions, with more translations presently underway.

Physical and General versions of LONG Flow.

This manual contains a new version of LONG Flow, which we have named LONG
Flow–General, as well as the original DFS-2/FSS-2, which we are calling here LONG
Flow–Physical Scales. The General versions of these instruments have minor wording
changes to make them adaptable to a wide range of settings. The Long Scales–
Physical were developed in sport and performance settings, and several items contain
words related to movement and performance. Users intending to assess people who
are performing in a sport or other movement-based context should select LONG Flow–
Physical. Users intending to assess people whose activity does not involve movement
or some sort of physical performance, should use the LONG Flow–General Scales.
These are general recommendations, and it is recognised that there may be situations
where potential users may prefer to use one instrument over the other. For example, if
one’s sample includes both physical and non-physical activities (e.g., assessing flow
amongst adolescents on sport, academic, and hobby), then LONG Flow-General, which
can also be used for physical-related activities, may be a practical choice. Researchers
wanting to compare the results of their participants to the descriptive and normative
data included in this manual may prefer to use LONG Flow-Physical, since the
quantitative research to date has been conducted with this version of the LONG Flow
scales.
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 13
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

LONG Flow Scale Items.

The items used in both versions of the flow scales follow a similar structure but differ in
wording according to the tense used: the FSS-2 items use a past tense, whereas the
DFS-2 items use a present tense. The scales differ in this way to fit with the context that
each version of the scales assesses.
Both the FSS-2 and DFS-2 contain 36 items. There are four items for each of the
nine dimensions of flow. Each dimension comprises a subscale of the total scale. An
example item from each dimension of the FSS-2 illustrates these scales:
Challenge-Skill Balance: “I was challenged, but I believed my skills would allow me
to meet the challenge.”
Action-Awareness Merging: “I made the correct movements without thinking about
trying to do so.”
Clear Goals: “I knew clearly what I want to do.”
Unambiguous Feedback: “It was really clear to me how my performance was
going.”
Concentration on Task at Hand: “My attention was focused entirely on what I was
doing.”
Sense of Control: “I had a sense of control over what I was doing.”
Transformation of Time: “The way time passed seemed to be different from normal.”
Autotelic Experience: “I really enjoyed the experience.”

The 36 items are designed to tap into the nine flow dimensions described in an
earlier section. In formulating the items, the definition of each flow dimension was
analysed across several of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975, 1990, 1993) descriptions of the
flow dimensions, earlier self-report scales designed to measure flow characteristics
(Begly, 1979; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Privette, 1984; Privette &
Bundrick, 1991), and qualitative descriptions of flow from elite athletes (Jackson, 1992,
1995, 1996).
The LONG Flow scales provide the most complete assessment of flow from the
three types of scales described in this manual. There are psychometric advantages to
longer, multi-dimensional self-report instruments. Nonetheless, practical considerations
often dictate the need for shorter, abbreviated versions. For example, during a sports
event, athletes and coaches may be willing to complete a 9-item scale, but reluctant to
answer a 36-item one. In large-scale projects involving multiple measures, short forms
may be preferable to keep a questionnaire to a reasonable size for participants. Or,
when a construct is not a central measure of a particular study, it can be reasonably
estimated with a short measure. For reasons such as these, Jackson and colleagues
(Jackson, Martin, & Eklund, 2008; Martin & Jackson, 2008) developed two short scales
to assess flow: the SHORT Flow Scales, and the CORE Flow Scales.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 14
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) FLOW – SHORT scales (9-item)

The SHORT flow scales are abbreviated versions of their longer parent forms, the FSS-
2 and DFS-2. Both the SHORT Flow State Scale-2 and the SHORT Dispositional Flow
Scale-2 contain nine items, with each item representing one of the nine flow
dimensions. The rating scales of the short scale are the same as those used in LONG
Flow. The short scales provide a succinct measure of the higher-order dimensional flow
model described in confirmatory factor analytic research with the 36-item scales. Initial
psychometric support for the SHORT Flow Scales is promising, although these are new
scales, and so further research is needed to examine their measurement properties.
Both dispositional and state forms have demonstrated good internal consistency
(Jackson & Martin, 2008; Martin et al., 2008). The SHORT Dispositional Flow Scale-2
has demonstrated robust CFA results across research with participants from sport,
work, school, and music (Jackson & Martin, 2008; Martin et al., 2008). The CFA values
for the SHORT Flow State Scale-2 are somewhat weaker, although fewer analyses
have been undertaken to date with this version of short flow (Jackson & Martin, 2008),
and in the research that has been conducted, better values have been obtained with
sport-specific versus pooled samples. From this finding, Jackson and Martin concluded
that the more situationally-sensitive state measures may work better from a
psychometric standpoint when used in specific contexts.

c) FLOW – CORE scales (10-item)

While the SHORT Flow Scales were designed as abbreviated versions of the 36-
item (LONG) Flow Scales, the rationale behind the CORE flow scales was different. The
aim here was to devise a succinct way of assessing the phenomenological experience
of flow. The CORE scales contain 10-items that are descriptions of what it feels like to
be in flow during a target activity. The items comprising the CORE Flow scales were
derived from qualitative research with elite athletes, describing what being in flow felt
like (Jackson, 1992, 1995, 1996). Expressions used by elite athletes to describe what it
is like to be in flow were adapted into short statements that scale respondents are
asked to rate on similar rating scales to the other flow scales. Model fit and reliability for
the CORE scales have been promising in the initial research conducted with these
scales (Martin & Jackson, 2008).

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 15
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Chapter 3: Procedures for administering and scoring the

Flow Scales
a) Administering Dispositional Flow Scales
The suggested instructions for answering the dispositional versions of the Flow scales
are as follows:
“Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in your
chosen activity. These questions relate to thoughts and feelings you may experience
during participation in your activity. You may experience these characteristics some of
the time, all of the time, or none of the time. There are no right or wrong answers. Think
about how often your experience each characteristic during your activity, then circle the
number that best matches your experience.”
In order to focus the respondent on one selected activity when answering the
scale, the following lead-in statement is included with these instructions: “When
participating in (name activity). . .”
The dispositional scales are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “1”
(never) to “5” (always). The premise for using this type of assessment is that people
who report more frequent occurrence of flow characteristics possess a greater
predisposition towards experiencing flow.

b) Administering State Flow Scales

The suggested instructions for the state versions of flow are as follows:
“Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in the event or
activity just completed. These questions relate to thoughts and feelings you may have
experienced while taking part. There are no right or wrong answers. Think about how
you felt during the event or activity and answer the questions using the rating scale
below. For each question, circle the number that best matches your experience.”
The lead-in statement, “During the event of (name event),” follows these
instructions, in order to focus respondents on the just completed activity. The state
scales are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5”
(strongly agree). Respondents are asked to indicate their extent of agreement with each
of the flow descriptors, in relation to activity that has just been completed. The state
scales should be administered as close as possible to the completion of the activity
being assessed, to promote clear recall. It is recommended that responses to the state
scales be collected within approximately one hour of completion of an activity.

c) Scoring LONG flow

There are four items for each of nine flow dimensions represented in the LONG Flow
scales. Total the item scores for each dimension, and then divide by four, to obtain flow
dimension item-average scores. If there are non-responses, average for the number of
responses available. If there is more than one non-response for a particular subscale,
the validity of that subscale is questionable. However, there are sophisticated statistical
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 16
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

approaches for managing missing data that some researchers may wish to use for
situations where there are large data sets and the statistical programs to run such
procedures.
A total LONG flow scale score can also be obtained by summing the item-
average dimension scores. It is recommended that dimension scores be used where
possible, as more detailed information about flow is available via the dimension profile
compared with a single global score. The flow scales were developed as
multidimensional instruments, to facilitate assessment of the flow construct at the level
of the nine flow dimensions of which the construct is comprised. Confirmatory factor
analyses have consistently demonstrated the dimensional approach to be stronger
psychometrically. Thus, where it fits with the research questions being addressed, a
multidimensional approach to scoring is recommended. See the Appendix for scoring
keys for the LONG Dispositional and State scales respectively.

d) Scoring SHORT Flow

There is one item for each of nine flow dimensions represented in the SHORT scales.
The item scores can be used to represent each flow dimension—although the LONG
Flow Scales are much better suited to providing dimension profiles than the SHORT
scales. The generally recommended procedure for scoring the SHORT scales is to sum
the 9 items together, and then divide by 9 to obtain a SHORT Flow score. If an item
score is missing, take the average of the items with responses. However, if there are
more than two missing responses on the scale, the validity of the scale responses is
questionable (taking into account the caveat above re statistical procedures for
managing missing data). See the Appendix for scoring keys for the SHORT
Dispositional and State scales respectively.

e) Scoring CORE Flow

The scoring procedure for the CORE flow scales is simply to sum the 10 items together,
and then divide by 10, to obtain a CORE Flow score. If an item score is missing, take
the average of the items with responses. However, if there are more than two missing
responses on the scale, the validity of the scale responses is questionable (taking into
account the caveat above re statistical procedures for managing missing data). See the
Appendix for scoring keys for CORE Dispositional and State flow.

f) Interpreting flow scores

The lowest possible score on the flow scales is 1, with the highest being 5. Scores can
easily be interpreted against the response format anchors. For example, a person
completing the state scales is asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each
item by selecting the most appropriate response category ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Therefore, lower item average values indicate a stronger
degree of disagreement with statements proposed and higher item average values
indicate a stronger degree of agreement with statements proposed. Low agreement with
statements indicative of a flow characteristic is suggestive that the person’s experience
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 17
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

was not substantively “flow-like” in nature. Conversely, strong endorsement of item

statements indicates that the individual was undergoing a substantively “flow-like”
experience.
When considering dimension-level scores of the LONG flow scales, there is likely
to be variation across the scores obtained for each of the nine flow dimensions. This
information may provide an indication of relative importance of the various flow
dimensions to the activity being assessed.
The mid-range score of ‘3’ on the state scales represents a “neither agree nor
disagree” option. This moderate score may indicate some degree of endorsement of the
item. It could, however, also indicate some ambiguity regarding relevance of the item to
the person’s experience of the activity under consideration. It is nonetheless reasonable
to interpret moderate-level scores as being neither strongly indicative that the person
has experienced the flow characteristic, nor strongly indicative that the person’s
experience did not include the flow characteristic being assessed.
A similar pattern can be interpreted for scores on the dispositional scales, with
the context of score interpretation being one of frequency of experience, rather than
extent of endorsement of a specific experience as with the state scales. A low range
score on one of the dispositional scales indicates that the flow characteristics of this
questionnaire are “never” (1) or “rarely” (2) experienced. Such lack of endorsement may
provide useful information on the relevance of the flow characteristic being assessed to
the setting or individuals being assessed.
A moderate score (for example, ‘3’ or “sometimes”) on the dispositional scales
indicates that the flow characteristics are experienced some of the time in the
respondent’s experience. A moderate, or mid-way score, range indicates that the
respondent reports experiencing the flow characteristic during the nominated activity
more than rarely, but not frequently. A high score range on the dispositional scale
indicates that the respondent “frequently” (4) to “always” (5) experiences the flow
characteristic in their nominated activity.

g) Potential audiences and research settings for the flow scales

The original flow scales were designed to assess flow in physical activity settings,
specifically sport and exercise. There is a considerable research base using flow in
physical activity settings (e.g., Jackson et al., 1998; Jackson & Eklund, 2002;
Karageorghis, Vlachopoulos, & Terry, 2000). While there is a specific focus on
movement in a small number of items, there is no reference to structure of the activity or
to competitiveness, aspects that might have otherwise tied the scales to a sports
environment. Since their development, interest in using the flow scales has come not
only from researchers interested in studying optimal experiences in physical activity
settings, but also such diverse activities as music (Wrigley, 2001), web-based
instructional activity (Chan & Repman, 1999), and computer games (BBCWorld –Click
Online 2002). As authors of the scales, we have communicated with researchers from
areas such as gifted education, work addiction, yoga, and business regarding utilization
of the flow scales in these settings. Moreover, there is considerable interest in
examining flow in relationship to other psychological constructs across these diverse

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 18
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

settings. Relationships with concepts such as hope, cohesion, personality type, intrinsic
motivation, burnout, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and anxiety have all captured the interest
of optimal experience researchers. Thus, it is clear that there is considerable interest in
examining flow across a range of settings, and in relation to a diverse set of
psychological constructs. It should be pointed out that Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) initial
book about the flow concept included data from a variety of settings including surgery,
music, dance, sports, and chess. This seminal publication gave strong support to the
idea of a consistent state of consciousness (that Csikszentmihalyi labelled “flow”)
across a diverse range of settings. The utility of the flow scales described in this manual
for assessing this experience across different settings is an exciting next phase in their
application. Wherever there is interest in assessing quality of experience and quality of
performance, the flow scales provide ways of empirically assessing flow.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 19
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Chapter 4: The development and validation of the Flow

Scales
a) The construct validity approach used to validate the Flow Scales
Psychometricians have emphasized the importance of developing and evaluating
frameworks and instruments within a construct validation approach (e.g., Cronbach,
1989; Marsh, 2002). Construct validity refers to the degree to which scores reflect the
desired construct, rather than some other construct (Heppner, Kivlignhan, & Wampold,
1992). The degree to which the construct at hand exhibits theorized structure and
logical relationships with other variables are regarded as primary ways of establishing
construct validity. Marsh (e.g., 1997, 2002) characterized the process of establishing
construct validity as a multi-step procedure that begins with analyses of factor structure
or dimensionality (within-network approach) and moves on to analysis of patterns of
relationship between the construct and other constructs (between-network approach).
The approach followed in the development and validation of the flow scales will be
described with specific reference to the processes followed for establishing the
construct validity of the LONG Flow Scales (Physical). These processes are described
in detail for the LONG Flow Scales, as these were the original scales to be developed,
and the new versions of the scales that were subsequently developed followed a similar
process, and were developed out of the framework of the LONG scales.

b) Within-network validity of the LONG Flow Scales

i. Development and validation of the original LONG Flow Scales
The LONG Flow Scales were grounded in extensive qualitative research with elite
performers. Jackson (1992, 1995, 1996) explored the perceptions elite performers held
of flow and how they attained this state during their performances. An important
consideration in developing self-report instruments to assess flow involved an interest in
being able to tap into the whole flow experience. Thus, the nine flow dimensions
described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) were used as the background structure when
forming the LONG Flow Scales. These scales were designed with the specific purpose
of assessing flow from a multidimensional perspective, and to include assessments of
specific experiences as well as more general tendencies to experience flow (i.e.,
dispositional and state flow).
Taking the aforementioned multidimensional approach to the measurement of
flow, Jackson developed a self-report instrument comprised of 36 items, and together
with Marsh (Jackson & Marsh, 1996), conducted initial psychometric assessment of this
scale. Items were developed from the nine dimensions of flow described by
Csikszentmihalyi (1990). In forming an initial pool of items, earlier self-report scales
designed with measurement of flow in mind (e.g., Begly, 1979; Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Privette, 1984; Privette & Bundrick, 1991) were examined as a
reference base. Qualitative research examining the flow construct (e.g., Jackson, 1992,
1995, 1996) was drawn upon for the phrasing of items. Seven experts in sport and
exercise psychology who had published flow-related research studies evaluated this
initial item pool. Feedback from the panel of experts led to a 54-item (6 items per scale)
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 20
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

instrument. This instrument was administered first to 252 physical activity participants.
This pilot study led to identification of some problematic items. Specifically, several
negatively or ambiguously worded items were found to be less effective in item
analyses and were replaced with more clearly stated, positively worded items. The
revised Flow State Scale was then administered to 394 physical activity participants,
primarily comprised of athletes. Confirmatory factor analyses of the data (N = 381)
analysed the fit of both a 54-item model and a shorter 36-item model. The fit of the 36-
item model was satisfactory, while the fit of the 54-item model was marginal. Taking
both the stronger CFA results for the 36-item version, and almost equal reliability
estimates between the 54-item and 36-item scales into account, it was clear that the 36-
item was the stronger version, and it was selected as the final version at this time.
The 36-item FSS contained four items for each of the nine flow dimensions.
Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated a satisfactory fit of both a nine first order
factor model and a higher order model with a global flow factor. Parameter estimates
provided good support for the nine-factor structure with freely estimated factor
correlations. The factor loadings were all substantial, ranging from .56 to .88, with a
median loading of .74. Correlations between the factors supported the separation into
nine flow factors. Although the relationships between the factors were all positive, the
size of the correlations ranged from low to moderate, varying from .18 to .72 (median r =
.50), and supporting the multidimensional model.
Jackson and Marsh (1996) also assessed a higher order model with one global
flow factor. Support was obtained for this higher order model. All of the nine factors
loaded on the higher order factor but there was considerable variability in the size of the
loadings, ranging frrom.39 for time transformation to .91 for sense of control.
The dispositional version of LONG Flow was developed subsequent to the state
version, to assess individual differences in propensity to experience flow, using
instructions that focused upon the frequency of experience of flow characteristics.
Marsh and Jackson (1999) reported a series of sophisticated confirmatory factor
analyses to individually and simultaneously evaluate the FSS and DFS measurements.
Overall, support was presented for the construct validity of both the state and
dispositional measures. Item loadings on first order factors ranged from .43 to .89 for
FSS (mean = .78), and from .29 to .86 for DFS (mean = .74). Simultaneous modelling of
the DFS and FSS scales provided support for the construct validity of the measures.
Observed correlations were substantially higher between matching dispositional factors
and state factors (.38 to .78, median r = .62) than between non-matching factors in all
instances. The correlation between DFS and FSS loss of self-consciousness factors (r =
.38) was the only correlation less than .56. In all cases, non-matching factor
relationships were lower than those observed between matching factors. Marsh and
Jackson (1999) found that models involving first order factors only fit marginally better
than models with higher order factors. Higher order factor loadings ranged from .00 to
.88 for the FSS (mean = .55) and from .04 to .89 for the DFS (mean = .62). While most
higher order factor loadings were reasonable (i.e., > .40), the time transformation factor
did not load on the higher order factor. This factor exhibited essentially no relationship
with the global factor in either DFS or FSS measurement.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 21
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Two of the flow dimensions measured by the LONG Flow Scales, lack of self
consciousness and time transformation, have lacked robust support across several
studies in a physical activity setting. In a study with masters’ level swimmers, Kowal and
Fortier (1999) found that these dimensions were not significantly associated with their
measures of situational motivation. Vlachopoulos et al. (2000), in a study of aerobic
dance participants, found time transformation and loss of self-consciousness to be less
associated with global flow than the rest of the flow dimensions.
The analyses of data collected with the original flow scales indicate that while
they performed reasonably well on the whole, there were areas where improvements
could be made. For example, in the hierarchical factor analytic model (Jackson &
Marsh, 1996; Kowal & Fortier, 1999; Marsh & Jackson, 1999; Vlachopoulos et al.,
2000), the original flow scales exhibited relatively weak associations between certain
flow dimensions (such as loss of self-consciousness and time transformation) and the
global flow factor. Inspection of parameter estimates (Jackson & Marsh, 1996; Marsh &
Jackson, 1999; Vlachopoulos et al, 2000) indicated that a small number of particular
items warranted some additional conceptual and empirical consideration. Thus,
revisions were undertaken and this led to the DFS-2 and the FSS-2.
ii. Development and validation of the revised LONG Flow Scales (DFS-2 & FSS-2)
When evaluating the measurement qualities of the flow scales, conceptual and
statistical issues were considered. As part of the conceptual evaluation, feedback on
items in the original scale was obtained from the developer of the flow model,
Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990), and new potential items developed. Potential new items
for the weaker-performing items statistically were also developed. Structural equation
modelling analyses were used to assess the small pool of new items and to come up
with new versions of the scales (Jackson & Eklund, 2002).
Study 1. Item identification sample. Revised versions of the FSS and DFS
were administered to a large, diverse group of physical activity participants. The revised
versions of the scales contained the original 36 items plus 13 additional items. These
additional items were devised as potential replacements to address the identified
conceptual or statistical concerns. Other than the additional items, the format of the
scales remained essentially the same as the original versions.
An item identification sample of just under 600 (N = 597) physical activity
participants completed the revised scales. Most participants provided only state or
dispositional data (n = 417) but a small pool did provide data on both revised scales (n =
180). The participant pool contained responses wide ranging in age from 17 to 72 years
(M = 26.3, SD = 10). There were approximately equal numbers of males (49%) and
females (51%). Eligibility for inclusion in the study involved a minimum participation in
physical activity of twice per week. There was a wide range of activities represented in
the sample. Activities ranged from highly competitive sports, such as rugby, to exercise
activities like weight training. In all, 33 different activity types were included. The most
frequently mentioned activities included touch football (N = 145), triathlon (N = 105),
running (N = 65), duathlon (N = 56), surfboat rowing (N = 45), track & field (N = 41),
swimming (N = 27), rugby (N = 25), soccer (N = 24), and volleyball (N = 23).
Participation levels also varied, ranging from international (10%) to national
(15%), state (24%), and club or school (26%) involvement. There were also participants
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 22
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

who indicated they either saw themselves as individual competitors (10%), or who did
not view their involvement as competitive (14%). Participants were recruited from
university undergraduate classes, sport teams, and sport events (such as triathlons).
There was a standardized information sheet given to all participants, outlining the
informed consent procedures and purpose of the study. The dispositional version of the
scale was completed at a time separate from participation, while the state version of the
scale was given to participants to complete directly after their activity. For the state
version, participants were asked to indicate the length of time between event completion
and the completion of the questionnaire. The average time was 24.6 minutes (SD =
25.2).
To select an optimal set of indicators from existing items and potential new items
described earlier, structural equation modelling procedures that used maximum
likelihood estimation were employed in an iterative process. Items loaded uniquely upon
factors in all analyses. In the selection process, a single item was introduced into a 36-
item measurement model consistent with previous studies (e.g., Jackson & Marsh,
1996; Marsh & Jackson, 1999). This process allows the performance of an item to be
evaluated (for example, item loading, pattern of associated residuals, modification
indices) within the context of all other construct indicators. This process was repeated
until a conceptually and empirically optimal 36-item solution (4 items per factor) was
identified. In the few instances where item selection was statistically ambiguous,
conceptual issues and the advantage of having a consistent set of indicators across
inventory formats were deciding issues. Goodness-of-fit in these analyses was
evaluated through the use of the 2 test statistic as well as the Non-normed Fit Index
(NNFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) (Hoyle & Panter, 1995).
Goodness-of-fit in these analyses was evaluated through the use of the 2 test
statistic as well as the Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI),
and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). The
2
is an absolute fit index. The NNFI estimates the relative improvement per degree of
freedom of the target model over a baseline model. The CFI assesses the relative
reduction in lack of fit as estimated by referencing the non-central 2 of a target model to
a baseline model. The RMSEA assesses the fit function of the target model adjusted by
the degrees of freedom.
NNFI and CFI values exceeding .90 and .95 are typically taken to indicate
acceptable and excellent model fits to the data (Hoyle & Panter, 1995; Hu & Bentler,
1999). For the RMSEA, values of less than .05 and .08 are taken to reflect, respectively,
a close fit and a reasonable model fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) while the relevant 90%
confidence intervals provide a useful context for interpretation of the observed point
values. Finally, evaluation of parameter estimates (i.e., factor loadings), modification
indices, and the pattern of standardized residuals were also crucial in making decisions
about the utility and statistical appropriateness of potential new items. Items were
considered to be strong indicators of their factor if they had larger factor loadings,
modification indices suggesting the item loaded simply, and residuals indicating a small
discrepancy between observed and model reproduced correlations for the variable.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 23
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Five of 13 new items were selected through these analyses to replace existing
items in the measurement of the flow experience scales. Table 1 presents the
goodness-of-fit values for the final set of 36 items (5 new, 31 original) that are identified
in the item identification analyses for both the first order factor model and higher order
model. Significant 2 values were observed in all instances. Nonetheless, both the first
order and the higher order models exhibited NNFI and CFI values well above .9 and
RMSEA confidence interval values suggesting the .05 criterion as tenable in these
analyses. The fit values were slightly better for the model involving exclusively first order
factors, but the difference is largely inconsequential.
Parameter estimates are presented from the Study 1 evaluation of the higher
order model in Table 2. The loadings of items on first order factors are all substantial,
ranging from .51 to .89 for the FSS-2 (mean = .78). The corresponding DFS-2 loadings
ranged from .59 to .86 (mean = .77). The loading of the first order factors on the global
flow factor is also presented in Table 2. They range between .23 and .94 (mean = .66)
for the FSS-2 and between .44 and .91 (mean = .71) for the DFS-2. Correlations
observed in Study 1 between the revised FSS-2 and DFS-2 first order latent factors
ranged from .13 to .76 (median r = .48) for the FSS-2, and from .24 to .78 (median r =
.51) for the DFS-2. These values indicate that the nine flow factors, while sharing
common variance as expected, measure reasonably unique constructs. Overall,
common variance between subscales tended towards less than 50%, making it
reasonable to conclude that the flow subscales tap into reasonably unique aspects of
the flow experience.
In summary, these results indicate that revised LONG Flow Scales (i.e., the DFS-
2 and the FSS-2) demonstrated acceptable factorial validity for assessing dispositional
and state flow, respectively. We considered it important to cross-validate the FSS-2 and
DFS-2 models to ensure that the results observed in the first study were not sample
specific. Data for this first study was collected with 49 item versions of the scales.
Cross-validation with the final 36-item versions of these scales was considered
important to ensure that items behaved appropriately in the context of the final
measurement presentation format. A cross-validation study (Jackson & Eklund, 2002)
was conducted to address these issues.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 24
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Table 1. Global Fit Indices for FSS-2 and DFS-2 Item Identification and Cross-
Validation Analyses

2
n df NNFI CFI RMSEA 90% CI
Measurement Model (9 First Order Factors)
Item ID FSS-2 391 1171.026 558 .915 .925 .053 .049 - .057
X-Val FSS-2 422 1177.558 558 .931 .939 .051 .047 - .055
Item ID DFS-2 386 956.859 558 .943 .950 .043 .038 - .048
X-Val DFS-2 574 1427.219 588 .901 .912 .052 .049 - .055

Higher Order Factor Model (9 First Order Factors, 1 Second Order Factor)
Item ID FSS-2 391 1266.189 585 .910 .917 .055 .050 - .059
X-Val FSS-2 422 1305.374 585 .923 .929 .054 .050 - .058
Item ID DFS-2 386 1063.348 585 .935 .940 .046 .042 - .050
X-Val DFS-2 574 1606.487 585 .889 .897 .055 .052 - .058

Note. Item ID = Item Identification model. X-Val = Cross-validation model.

Reprinted from S.A. Jackson and R.C. Eklund, 2002, “Assessing flow in physical activity: The flow
state scale-2 and dispositional flow scale-2,” Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 24(2): 133-150.
© Human Kinetics, Inc.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 25
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Table 2. Loadings from Item Identification and Cross-Validation Analyses of the

FSS-2 and DFS-2
FSS-2 Analyses DFS-2 Analyses

Factor Item Item ID X-Val Item ID X-VAL

F1 - Balance FSS01 .574 .605 .622 .514

F1 - Balance FSS10 .813 .812 .797 .707

F1 - Balance FSS19 .808 .809 .852 .745

F1 - Balance FSS28 .781 .763 .806 .771

F2 - Merging FSS02 .629 .743 .666 .711

F2 - Merging FSS11 .682 .848 .760 .733

F2 - Merging FSS20 .840 .845 .832 .828

F2 - Merging FSS29 .849 .864 .775 .832

F3 - Goals FSS03 .725 .779 .677 .719

F3 - Goals FSS12 .774 .850 .777 .747

F3 - Goals FSS21 .763 .795 .783 .773

F3 - Goals FSS30 .771 .758 .815 .709

F4 - Feedback FSS04 .733 .736 .860 .728

F4 - Feedback FSS13 .851 .785 .815 .797

F4 - Feedback FSS22 .801 .853 .855 .824

F4 - Feedback FSS31 .810 .832 .810 .788

F5 - Concentration FSS05 .659 .775 .665 .611

F5 - Concentration FSS14 .672 .697 .684 .643

F5 - Concentration FSS23 .887 .866 .815 .806

F5 - Concentration FSS32 .866 .892 .844 .780

F6 - Control FSS06 .772 .799 .704 .675

F6 - Control FSS15 .786 .799 .744 .718

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 26
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

F6 - Control FSS24 .820 .842 .815 .771

F6 - Control FSS33 .805 .786 .837 .718

F7 - Consciousness FSS07 .822 .854 .742 .760

F7 - Consciousness FSS16 .826 .912 .853 .812

F7 - Consciousness FSS25 .786 .780 .780 .638

F7 - Consciousness FSS34 .874 .903 .846 .823

F8 - Time FSS08 .796 .813 .721 .733

F8 - Time FSS17 .754 .871 .793 .826

F8 - Time FSS26 .510 .433 .587 .606

F8 - Time FSS35 .763 .722 .741 .732

F9 - Autotelic FSS09 .755 .849 .702 .683

F9 - Autotelic FSS18 .771 .771 .736 .550

F9 - Autotelic FSS27 .835 .885 .779 .789

F9 - Autotelic FSS36 .810 .898 .831 .779

F10 -Flow F1 .779 .819 .846 .821

F10 -Flow F2 .807 .704 .800 .718

F10 -Flow F3 .736 .739 .806 .768

F10 -Flow F4 .602 .597 .673 .707

F10 -Flow F5 .763 .669 .776 .725

F10 -Flow F6 .938 .895 .900 .908

F10 -Flow F7 .446 .471 .441 .432

F10 -Flow F8 .232 .208 .449 .300

F10 -Flow F9 .660 .649 .706 .605

Reprinted from S.A. Jackson and R.C. Eklund, 2002, “Assessing flow in physical activity: The flow
state scale-2 and dispositional flow scale-2,” Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 24(2): 133-150.
© Human Kinetics, Inc.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 27
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Study 2. Cross-validation sample. Approximately 900 (N =897) physical activity

participants completed the new versions of the Flow Scales identified in Study 1. Most
provided only DFS-2 or FSS-2 data (n = 798), but a small pool provided data on both of
the revised scales (n = 99). The DFS-2 followed the format of the original DFS in the
structure of the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to think about how often they
experienced each characteristic described in the items and to rate their responses on a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Following the structure of the
FSS, the FSS-2 involves respondents indicating extent of agreement with the items
potentially characterizing their experience in a just completed event. Responses are
given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The age range for this sample was 16 to 82 years (M = 26.3, SD = 11.1). Males
(48%) and females (52%) were approximately equally represented. Eligibility for
inclusion in the sample was the same as for Study 1, a minimum of twice per week
participation in one’s activity. There were 27 activity types, ranging from highly
competitive sports (such as US college football) to exercise activities (such as
aerobics). This sample included a substantial number of dance and yoga participants,
providing responses from physically-oriented activities that were not specifically sports
or exercise. The most commonly reported activities included running (N = 255), dance
(N = 177), yoga (N = 99), triathlon (N = 56), Australian rules football (N = 51), basketball
(N = 47), American football (N = 46), rugby (N = 33), track and field (N = 33), and soccer
(N = 31). Involvement ranged from international (5%) to national (11%), US College
(16%), state (17%), club or school (23%), as well as participants who indicated being
individual competitors (13%) or who did not compete at all (14%).
Participants were recruited from a variety of physical activity settings, as well as
from university undergraduate classes of human movement or psychology. A standard
introduction sheet was given to all participants, outlining the informed consent
procedures and purpose of the study. The dispositional version of the scale was
completed at a time separate from participation, while the state version of the scale was
given to participants to complete directly after completing their activity. For the state
version, participants were asked to indicate the length of time between event completion
and completion of the questionnaire. The average time was 24.8 minutes (SD = 26.1).
Analyses and fit indices employed in Study 2 were consistent with the procedures
described in Study 1, other than one improvement in statistical technique was made.
Specifically, analyses in Study 2 were conducted using means and covariances that
were obtained via Graham and Hofer’s (1995) EMCOV23 program to manage missing
data. This program employs the EM algorithm (Dempster, Laird & Rubin, 1977). The EM
algorithm implements, by repeated imputation-estimation cycles, the Full Information
Maximum Likelihood (FIML) approach for estimating means and covariance matrices
from incomplete data. FIML treatment of missing data is a theory-based approach
considered to be superior to the mean-imputation method (Wothke, 2000) that was
employed in Study 1.
Table 1 shows goodness-of-fit values for the DFS-2 and FSS-2 in cross-
validation analyses for both a nine first order factor measurement model and the higher
order global flow factor model. Satisfactory observed fit values were obtained for both
the first order and the higher order models in these cross-validations. The DFS-2 and

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 28
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

FSS-2 measurement models exhibit NNFI and CFI values all exceeding .9. RMSEA
point estimate values for these models marginally exceed .05. Nonetheless, RMSEA
90% confidence intervals surrounding the point estimates indicate that it would be
intemperate to conclude that the RMSEA values do not indicate a close fit of models to
data. The higher order factor models exhibit NNFI and CFI values approximating or
exceeding .9. RMSEA point estimate values for these models marginally exceed .05.
RMSEA 90% confidence intervals indicate that the models provide a reasonable if not
close fit for the data. Overall, the fit values suggest a slightly better fit for the first order
factor models, particularly for the DFS-2.
Parameter estimates presented in Table 2 show good support for the nine flow
dimensions. The loadings of items on the first order factors are all substantial, ranging
from .43 to .91 for the FSS-2 (mean = .80). The corresponding DFS-2 loadings ranged
from .51 to .83 (mean = .73). Correlations among the first order factors ranged from .06
to .74 (median r = .40) for the FSS-2, and between .16 and .73 (median r = .48) for the
DFS-2. Again, the magnitude of these relationships indicate that the flow subscales tap
into reasonably unique aspects of the flow experience. Table 2 reveals that the loadings
of the first order factors on the global flow factor range between .21 and .90 (mean =
.64) for the FSS-2 and between .30 and .91 (mean = .67) for the DFS-2.
In summary, the two studies described above demonstrate that the revised flow
scales provide satisfactory tools that can be used to assess dispositional and state flow.
These two studies were described in detail in a scale validation paper by Jackson and
Eklund (2002), and an initial test manual by the same authors (Jackson & Eklund,
2004). The present manual extends this earlier test manual by including several new
versions of the flow scales, and it updates the LONG Flow scale information with the
latest research.
The LONG scales reported on in Jackson and Eklund (2002, 2004), the DFS-2
and FSS-2, contained five replacement items that provided a more conceptually
coherent and statistically sound measurement of the flow dimensions. The fit values for
the new item set were better than those obtained with the original flow scales. The item-
identification analyses did not reveal any substantial weaknesses statistically with the
scales. Nonetheless, the higher-order factor loadings for time transformation remained
relatively weak. At the item level, one time transformation item had a relatively weak
factor loading in the cross-validation analysis of the FSS-2. The loading on the DFS-2
cross-validation analysis was reasonable and so it is unclear whether the item is
problematic or simply dependent on the situational variation that is part of FSS
sampling. Interestingly, the item was one of the new items that focused on time passing
quickly.
Despite the introduction of new items, the higher order factor loadings on the
global flow factor for loss of self-consciousness and more so, for time transformation,
remained relatively low. Jackson and Eklund (2002) suggested several possible
reasons for this pattern of relationships. In relation to loss of self-consciousness, the self
and body awareness necessary for competent physical performance may cloud the
distinction between this level of awareness and what is measured in the loss of self-
consciousness sub-scale. For example, a figure skater is concerned with how she
presents herself during her performance, since she is judged on the presentation of her

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 29
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

routine. For performers such as this, there is likely to be low endorsement of a loss of
self-consciousness item such as, “I am not concerned with how I am presenting myself”.
An unintended but interesting development to the new loss of self-consciousness
sub-scale described by Jackson and Eklund (2002) is a self-presentational emphasis in
how this dimension is measured in the DFS-2 and FSS-2. The items tend toward a
focus on loss of concern with evaluation of self by others. This is a central consideration
in loss of self-consciousness, and may be particularly relevant in the public realm of
sports and physical activity. The item set may present a more narrow definition of loss
of self-consciousness than intended by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), who refers to a lack of
focus upon information we normally use to represent who we are to ourselves when
experiencing this dimension. With regard to the time transformation dimension, it has
previously been discussed how time awareness may be part of the challenge to some
activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). For example, in some sports, the clock is an integral
part of the structure of the situation or the performance evaluation (Jackson & Marsh,
1996; Jackson & Eklund, 2002). Despite the improvements in the higher-order loading
of time transformation with the new item set of the DFS-2 and FSS-2, this dimension
remained the dimension with the lowest higher-order factor loading on the global flow
factor. Future research could be directed at assessing whether this dimension is
dependent on certain situations or types of activities. The time transformation factor has
demonstrated good internal consistency, and provides a useful and conceptually
relevant measure of the extent to which respondents perceive a difference in the
passing of time during flow experiences. With more data collected on the time and self-
consciousness dimensions across different types of settings, it should become clearer
whether there are situations, or types of individuals, where these dimensions are
significant components of the flow experience. Investigating how these two dimensions
are experienced in different settings, and across different levels of performers, should
help advance understanding of how the process of flow operates. An exploratory study
of the dimensions of flow using IRT analysis (Tenenbaum, Fogarty, & Jackson, 1999)
suggested that the loss of self-consciousness and time transformation dimensions may
only be experienced in deeper levels of flow. This type of sequential analysis of the
process of flow may help to explain the differences in endorsement of the flow
dimensions found in CFA analyses.
A further, large-scale psychometric evaluation of the LONG Flow Scales was
published in 2008 (Jackson, Martin, & Eklund, 2008). With large Ns (652 DFS-2, 499
FSS-2), and sophisticated CFA analyses, Jackson and colleagues again demonstrated
substantive psychometric support for the Long scales. Goodness of fit indices, along
with descriptives on the scales representing the nine-factor and higher order models are
shown in Table 3.
Reliability of the Long Flow Scales. The reliability, or internal consistency, of
the flow scales has consistently been demonstrated to be robust. The initial study of the
original Flow State Scale (Jackson and Marsh, 1996) found alphas ranging from .80 to
.86, with a mean alpha of .83. Similar internal consistency values were found in
subsequent data collections. Jackson et al. (1998) in their study of master athletes,
found alphas ranging from .72 to .91 (mean alpha = .85) for the FSS, and from .70 to
.88 for the DFS (mean alpha = .82). A study with a cohort of competitive athletes by

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 30
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Jackson et al. (2001) obtained alphas ranging from .76 to .92 (mean alpha = .85) for the
FSS, and from .72 to .89 (mean alpha = .81) for the DFS.
DFS-2 and FSS-2 scales have demonstrated equally strong internal
consistency estimates. In the Jackson and Eklund (2002) item identification sample,
reliability estimates for the FSS-2 ranged from .80 to .90, with a mean alpha of .85.
DFS-2 internal consistency estimates in the item identification sample ranged from .81
to .90, with a mean alpha of .85. In the cross-validation sample, reliability estimates for
the FSS-2 ranged from .80 to .92 (mean alpha = .87), and for the DFS-2 from .78 to .86
(mean alpha = .82). In a further psychometric evaluation of the Long flow scales,
Jackson, Martin, & Eklund (2008) found internal consistency estimates ranging from .80
to .89 for the DFS-2, and from .76 to .90 for the FSS-2. The reliability of the flow scales
reported by other researchers has also been satisfactory, as shown in the following
examples. Kowal and Fortier (1999) using the original FSS with master swimmers (n =
203) found alphas ranging from .76 to .89 (mean alpha of .84). Karageorghis et al
(2000) using the original FSS with aerobic dance participants (n = 1231) obtained
alphas ranging from .65 to .84, with a mean alpha of .80.
Table 3. LONG (36-item) and SHORT (9-item) Flow Descriptive and CFA Statistics
Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Reliability CFA Load
Range (mean)
DISPOSITION 36 item
Challenge skill balance 3.69 .59 -.43 .56 .81 .50-.83 (.72)
Action awareness 3.74 .65 -.49 .76 .87 .76-.83 (.80)
Clear goals 3.97 .61 -.36 .63 .80 .63-.79 (.72)
Unambiguous feedback 3.94 .64 -.23 -.03 .87 .73-.84 (.80)
Concentration on task 3.66 .69 -.17 .01 .85 .65-.86 (.77)
Sense of control 3.80 .61 -.17 .11 .83 .72-.76 (.75)
Loss self-consciousness 3.36 .85 -.03 -.23 .89 .74-.88 (.83)
Transformation of time 3.49 .79 -.42 .53 .87 .70-.88 (.79)
Autotelic experience 4.20 .61 -.72 .54 .83 .65-.84 (.75)
2
CFA Model Fit 9 first-order factors: = 1380.96 df =558; CFI=.98; NNFI=.98; RMSEA=.05;
SRMR=.04
2
CFA Model Fit Higher-order model: = 1603.14, df =585; CFI=.98; NNFI=.97; RMSEA=.05;
SRMR=.06
STATE 36 item
Challenge skill balance 3.70 .66 -.44 .42 .76 .42-.80 (.68)
Action awareness 3.32 .91 -.22 -.69 .90 .80-.87 (.84)
Clear goals 3.94 .60 -.33 .53 .80 .67-.78 (.72)
Unambiguous feedback 3.85 .63 -.66 1.23 .86 .75-.80 (.78)
Concentration on task 3.69 .81 -.34 -.41 .87 .64-.90 (.79)
Sense of control 3.72 .76 -.52 .14 .88 .73-.86 (.80)
Loss self-consciousness 3.85 .90 -.70 .01 .90 .74-.93 (.84)
Transformation of time 3.50 .83 -.37 .02 .85 .64-.82 (.77)
Autotelic experience 4.13 .69 -.81 1.09 .86 .70-.84 (.78)
2
CFA Model Fit 9 first-order factors: = 1332.89 df =558; CFI=.98; NNFI=.97; RMSEA=.05;
SRMR=.05
2
CFA Model Fit Higher-order model: = 1717.60, df =585; CFI=.97; NNFI=.96; RMSEA=.06;
SRMR=.08

Adapted from S.A. Jackson, A.J. Martin, and R.C. Eklund, 2008, “Long and short measures of
flow: The construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts,” Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology 30(5): 561-570. © Human Kinetics, Inc.
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 31
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Summary of within-network validity of the Long flow scales. As discussed,

one of the main statistical tools used to assess within-network validity is confirmatory
factor analyses (CFA). Substantial factorial validity evidence has been published on the
LONG flow scales in CFA reports of the DFS, DFS-2, FSS, and FSS-2 (e.g., Jackson,
Martin, & Eklund, 2008; Jackson & Eklund, 2002; Jackson & Marsh, 1996; Jackson et
al., 2001; Marsh & Jackson, 1999, Vlachopoulos et al., 2000). This evidence provides
strong support for the factorial validity of the Flow Scales.

c) Between-network validity of the LONG Flow Scales

Jackson and colleagues (Jackson et al. 1998; Jackson et al, 2001) reported between-
network construct validity results for the original flow questionnaires. Theoretically
expected patterns of the relationship between flow and psychological constructs were
observed between flow and perceived ability, anxiety, and intrinsic motivation (Jackson
et al., 1998). These constructs were chosen for evaluation of between-network validity
because, theoretically speaking, they are expected to be related to the flow experience.
To understand these relationships, it is useful to refer back to the flow model (see
Figure 1). In order for flow to occur, individuals must have belief in their skills in a
challenging situation. Thus, perceived ability is a necessary precursor to flow. When
perceived skills are lacking, a person in a challenging situation can experience anxiety
rather than flow, as illustrated in Figure 1. The relationship between flow and intrinsic
motivation is similarly clear. Flow, as an autotelic state, is intrinsically motivating by
definition.
Using global flow scores of the original LONG Flow Scales as dependent
variables, the above constructs were observed to be significant flow predictors (Jackson
et al., 1998). Specifically, 38% of the variance in global dispositional flow was
accounted for by a perceived ability measure (Jackson & Roberts, 1992), (β = .29); the
concentration disruption subscale (β = -.28) of Smith et al.’s (1990) trait anxiety scale;
and an experience stimulation (intrinsic motivation) subscale (β = .24) of Pelletier et al.’s
(1995) sports motivation scale. For global state flow, 27% of the variance was explained
by perceived ability (β = .23), intrinsic motivation-stimulation (β = .22), and a worry
subscale (β = -.20) from the anxiety measure.
Using canonical correlation analyses, Jackson et al. (1998) examined
multivariate relationships among these same constructs and flow subscales. A single
significant canonical function accounted for more than 10% of the variance in the set of
dispositional flow subscales. All dispositional flow constructs had meaningful loadings
on the flow variate, except the time transformation subscale. Challenge-skill balance
had the strongest standardized canonical loading (.91), followed by concentration (.80),
clear goals (.72), sense of control (.71), unambiguous feedback (.70), and autotelic
experience (.50). Action-awareness merging and loss of self-confidence loaded more
weakly on the canonical variate in approximating .30. This variate had a canonical
correlation with the predictor variable variate of Rc = .72. The most substantive loadings
on the predictor variate were perceived ability (.86) and concentration disruption (-.70)
(Jackson et al. 1998). Similar findings were obtained for the canonical correlation
analyses with the state flow set, although anxiety worry (-.79) loaded most strongly on
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 32
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

the state flow variate. Overall, freedom from worry and distraction, combined with
perceptions of competence, were significant factors related to flow in this study.
In another correlational study (Jackson et al., 2001) relationships were examined
between flow and dimensions of athletic self-concept, and athletes’ psychological skills.
These constructs were selected to examine potential relationships with flow due to
theoretical relevance. Multidimensional self-concept was chosen to examine the
relationship between the perceived skills side of the flow equation from the perspective
of more specific facets of physical self-concept. Psychological skills were included
because the attainment of flow is not an easy outcome; psychological skill use was
predicted to facilitate the flow experience.
In global dispositional flow, both self-concept (R2 = .53) (Marsh, Hey, Johnson, &
Perry, 1997) and psychological skills (R2 = .58) (Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy, 1999)
accounted for substantial amounts of variance. There was considerable overlap
between these two sets of predictors. The resultant analyses and results are described
in detail in Jackson et al. (2001). Specific facets of self concept and psychological skills
that showed the strongest relationships with flow variate in canonical analyses were as
follows: (a) self concept factors of overall performance potential (standardized canonical
loadings of .88 DFS & .78 FSS), mental skills (loadings of .87 DFS & .81 FSS), and
physical skills (loadings of .77 DFS & .62 FSS); (b) psychological skills of negative
thinking (loadings of -.66 DFS & -.73 FSS), activation (loadings of .66 DFS & .68 FSS),
emotional control (loadings of .66 DFS & .73 FSS), relaxation (loadings of .64 DFS &
.67 FSS), goal-setting (loadings of .61 DFS & .45 FSS), and imagery (loadings of .60
DFS & .52 FSS). In both of the above-mentioned studies, dispositional flow
demonstrated stronger relationships with the various psychological constructs than did
the state flow measures. This was an expected finding given that all of the non-flow
constructs were also assessed at a dispositional level. It also provides support for the
reliability of the DFS as a dispositional measure of flow.
Kowal and Fortier (1999) found theoretically expected patterns of relations
between flow, as assessed by the original FSS, and motivation, in a sample of master
swimmers. Significant correlations were observed between global flow and intrinsic
motivation (r = .60, p < .01), and between global flow and self-determined extrinsic
motivation (r = .44, p < .01). A non-significant association was found between non-self-
determined extrinsic motivation and global flow (r = -.08, p = .259). Swimmers motivated
in a self-determined way reported higher instances of flow than swimmers who reported
a low incidence of flow. Differences were found between high and low flow groups on
intrinsic motivation (t (112) = -9.12, p < .001) and self-determined extrinsic motivation (t
(105) = -5.87, p < .001). Situational determinants of perceived competence, autonomy,
and relatedness were also positively related to flow experiences.
Karageorghis et al. (1999) examined relationships between state flow and post-
exercise feelings. They found positive associations between the FSS (original) and
post-exercise feelings of revitalization, tranquillity, and positive engagement constructs
assessed by the Exercise Feeling Inventory (Gauvin & Rejeski, 1993). Using structural
equation modelling techniques, moderate to strong positive associations were found
between global flow and positive engagement (β = .59), revitalization (β = .55), and
tranquillity (β = .46).

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 33
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

The studies by Jackson et al. (1998; 2001), Kowal and Fortier (1999), and
Karageorghis et al. (2000) demonstrate that logically relevant constructs were related to
the flow construct in theoretically expected patterns. This demonstrates support for
between-network validity of the flow scales. These studies were conducted with the
original versions of the flow scales. More recent research examining relationships with
relevant psychological constructs and the revised flow scales has also been conducted.
Jackson, Martin, and Eklund (2008) assessed the between-network validity of the
LONG flow scales in two ways. First, several theoretically relevant constructs were
examined in their relationship to dispositional and state flow. Moderate associations
were found between dispositional flow and measures of intrinsic motivation (Pelletier et
al., 1995), (mean r = .34); perceived competence (Jackson & Roberts, 1992), (mean r =
.38); and anxiety (Spielberger, 1983) (mean r = -.36). For state flow, a situational
measure of intrinsic motivation (Guay, Vallerand, & Briere, 2001), (mean r = .33) was
moderately correlated with the FSS-2, while a measure of positive well-being
(Subjective Exercise Experience Scale, McAuley & Courneya, 1994) had a moderately
high correlation (mean r = .42).
Jackson, Martin, and Eklund (2008) also examined between-network validity by
assessing invariance across different forms of the flow scales. Described in detail in this
validation paper, the results of seven multigroup CFAs, assessing five models were
described. The most critical model, involving holding factor loadings invariant across
models, showed relative invariance. Relatively invariant fit indices on factor loadings
indicate that loadings across different forms of flow scales are predominantly congruent.
Fit tended to decline on other parameters–particularly on uniquenesses–when short
state flow was introduced to invariance tests.
Predictive validity. The relationships between FSS (original) flow ratings and
performance (subjective and objective) correlates (such as perceived skill, perceived
success, subjective performance ratings, overall finishing position) have been examined
via correlational analyses. Specifically, flow state dimensions were positively correlated
with measures of perceived skill and perceived success (Jackson et al., 1998). There
were a number of significant correlations with the state flow subscales. Perceived skill
had the strongest associations with challenge-skill balance (r = .55), sense of control (r
= .36), and global flow (r = .49). Perceived success had the strongest relationships with
autotelic experience (r = .57), challenge-skill balance (r = .45), a sense of control (r =
.36), and global flow (r = .41).
In another study (Jackson et al., 2001), the flow dimensions of autotelic
experience (β = .42) and challenge-skill balance (β = .26) were significant predictors of
subjective performance ratings (R2 = .46, p < .0001). Clear goals (β = -.24), challenge-
skill balance, (β = -.19) and action-awareness merging (β = -.15) were significant
predictors of overall finishing position (R2= .13, p = .002). Performance measures in
both studies were more strongly related to FSS measures than to DFS measures. This
was expected, since FSS ratings were specifically tied to performance ratings. Stronger
relationships were found with self-reported performance levels than with more objective
performance measures. These strong relationships are probably a reflection of the level
of similarity between the types of measurement used to assess performance and flow.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 34
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

d) Validation of the SHORT Flow Scales

There are psychometric advantages to longer, multi-dimensional self-report instruments.
However, practical considerations often dictate the need for shorter, abbreviated
versions. For example, during a sports event, athletes and coaches may be willing to
complete a 9-item scale, but reluctant to answer a 36-item one. In large-scale projects
involving many measures, short forms may be preferable to keep a questionnaire
package to a reasonable size for participants, or because a particular construct is not
the central focus, and can be reasonably estimated with a short measure. For reasons
such as these, Jackson and colleagues (Jackson, Martin, & Eklund, 2008; Martin &
Jackson, 2008) developed short scales to assess flow.
SHORT Flow is a summary measure of the LONG Flow Scales, and comprises
both a dispositional and a state version. Given the extant support for the higher order
model in the LONG scales, developing a brief measure that captured this global flow
construct was deemed worthwhile. One item from each of the nine flow dimensions was
chosen, to ensure that the SHORT Flow Scale was representative of the dimensional
flow model. Items were selected based on the size of their standardized factor loading
in previous CFA research, with the strongest loading item for each factor being
selected. Where there was more than one item with an equal factor loading, the item
with the strongest face validity was selected to represent that factor. An initial study
trialling the SHORT scale (Martin, Tipler, Marsh, Richards, & Williams, 2006) showed
good internal consistency (alpha = .82) for the scale, and hypothesized relationships
with physical activity motivation were found.
Because the SHORT scales were derived from the LONG scales, it was possible to
examine the set of nine selected items through embedded CFA analyses of the item-
identification and cross-validation samples of Jackson and Eklund (2002). That is, in the
study by Jackson, Martin, and Eklund (2008), CFAs of the SHORT scales were
conducted on data collected (Jackson & Eklund, 2002) on the LONG scales, from which
the nine items (i.e., embedded) of the SHORT scales were drawn. Goodness-of-fit
indices based on these preliminary analyses showed acceptable fit. Goodness of fit
indices based on these preliminary analyses of the SHORT scales showed acceptable
fit. The CFAs for the dispositional SHORT flow for the item-identification sample
(embedded 2 = 66.89 df =27; CFI=.99; NNFI=.98; RMSEA=.05; SRMR=.03) and the
cross-validation sample (embedded 2 = 127.87 df =27; CFI=.96; NNFI=.95;
RMSEA=.07; SRMR=.04) demonstrated a good fit of the hypothesized models to the
data. Similarly, the CFAs for the state SHORT flow for the item-identification sample
(embedded 2 = 74.13 df =27; CFI=.97; NNFI=.97; RMSEA=.05; SRMR=.03) and the
cross-validation sample (embedded 2 = 124.30 df =27; CFI=.97; NNFI=.96;
RMSEA=.06; SRMR=.04) demonstrated a good fit of the hypothesized models to the
data. Coefficient alpha estimates of reliability from the item-identification and cross-
validation data sets of Jackson and Eklund (2002) for the SHORT DFS-2 were .81 and
.74, and for the SHORT FSS- 2 .77 and .78 respectively. Thus, the nine items selected
for the SHORT flow scales were assessed as providing a suitable short measure of
flow.
Following this preliminary CFA analysis of the SHORT Flow Scales, a more
comprehensive examination of SHORT flow was conducted by Jackson, Martin, and
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 35
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Eklund (2008). Two models were examined using a large data set of physical activity
participants. The first assessed a set of independent (i.e., stand alone and not part of
the 36-item LONG scale) nine items. The second assessed the nine items that were
embedded in the LONG scale. As can be seen in Table 4, both independent and
embedded, dispositional and state, flow factors are reliable and the scores are
approximately normally distributed. In terms of goodness of fit indices, the dispositional
SHORT flow factors fit the data much better (independent 2 = 145.27 df =27; CFI=.95;
NNFI=.93; SRMR =.05; RMSEA=.08; embedded 2 = 72.58 df =27; CFI=.98; NNFI=.97;
SRMR =.04; RMSEA=.05) than the state SHORT flow factors (independent 2 = 462.04
df =27; CFI=.87; NNFI=.83; SRMR =.08; RMSEA=.13; embedded 2 = 183.45 df =27;
CFI=.90; NNFI=.87; SRMR =.07; RMSEA=.11), which did not reach acceptable criterion
levels of fit across all indices. This difference in relative fit may be because more
general dispositional ratings of flow do not discriminate so readily between factors and
so a short measure pooling factors does not markedly reduce fit. On the other hand,
more situation specific state-like measures may require greater discrimination between
factors and a short measure drawing these factors together. Some support was found in
the slightly higher mean inter-scale correlation for the 36-item dispositional scale (r =
.43) compared to the state scale mean inter-scale correlation (r = .37).
Table 4. SHORT (9-item) Flow Descriptive and CFA Statistics
Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Reliability CFA Load Range
(mean)
DISPOSITION 9 item
Independent short 3.82 .48 -.15 -.01 .77 .30-.69 (.54)
2
CFA Model Fit: = 145.27 df =27; CFI=.95; NNFI=.93; RMSEA=.08; SRMR=.05
STATE 9 item
Independent short 3.78 .54 -.50 1.49 .77 .13-.69 (.52)
2
CFA Model Fit: = 462.04 df =27; CFI=.87; NNFI=.83; RMSEA=.14; SRMR=.08
DISPOSITION 9 item
Embedded short 3.75 .48 -.15 .37 .77 .25-.73 (.54)
2
CFA Model Fit: = 72.58 df =27; CFI=.98; NNFI=.97; RMSEA=.05; SRMR=.04
STATE 9 item
Embedded short 3.73 .51 -.15 .28 .75 .02-.73 (.50)
2
CFA Model Fit: = 183.45 df =27; CFI=.90; NNFI=.87; RMSEA=.11; SRMR=.07

Adapted from S.A. Jackson, A.J. Martin, and R.C. Eklund, 2008, “Long and short measures of
flow: The construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts,” Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology 30(5): 561-570. © Human Kinetics, Inc.

To examine possible reasons for the poor fit obtained with the total sample, a sub-
set of the state SHORT scale data was examined through CFA. With an N of 220, a ball
sport sample obtained acceptable fit ( 2 = 110.74 df =27; CFI=.93; NNFI=.90; SRMR =
.06; RMSEA=.12). The RMSEA was on the high side, but this may have been due to
sample size and the small number of indicators in the short scale.
To assess the extent to which the short items captured the essence of their
corresponding long factor, latent correlations between the nine factors comprising the
36-item (LONG) flow scales and the nine-item (SHORT) flow scales were examined.
Using matching data, there was an N of 580 for the dispositional scales, and 475 for the
state scales. There was good fit for both the dispositional model ( 2 = 1,660.98 df =801;
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 36
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

CFI=.98; NNFI=.98; SRMR=.04; RMSEA=.05) and the state model ( 2 = 1,683.71 df

=801; CFI=.98; NNFI=.97; SRMR=.05; RMSEA=.05). SHORT items correlated at
acceptably high levels with their long latent factor counterpart for dispositional (range r =
.66 -.83; mean r = .76) and state (range r = .65 -.82; mean r = .73) models. These
findings demonstrate that both dispositional and state SHORT scales provide good
representation of their corresponding long versions. The latent correlation between the
higher-order LONG dispositional factor and the SHORT flow factor was .97 ( 2 =
4,157.35 df =935; CFI=.94; NNFI=.93; SRMR=.08; RMSEA=.07), and the correlation
between the higher-order LONG state factor and its SHORT flow factor counterpart was
.89 ( 2 = 4,316.60 df =935; CFI=.92; NNFI=.92; SRMR=.10; RMSEA=.08)—also
indicating high correspondence between long and short forms.
In a subsequent larger-scale study on SHORT flow by Martin and Jackson (2008), the
internal and external validity of this brief flow measure was examined across the domains of
work, sport, and music. Internal validity was analyzed via descriptive statistics and
hypothesized model fit. Each of the SHORT scales was found to be reliable and
approximately normally distributed. CFAs showed acceptable fit of the hypothesized models
to the data for work flow ( 2 = 136.78 df =27; CFI=.94; NNFI=.92; SRMR=.05; RMSEA=.08),
sport flow ( 2 = 112.38 df =27; CFI=.93; NNFI=.91; SRMR=.06; RMSEA=.12), and flow in
music ( 2 = 45.11 df =27; CFI=.99; NNFI=.98; SRMR=.04; RMSEA=.06). Interestingly, the
music scale fit the data best. Factor loadings ranged from .23 to .73 (mean = .51) for the work
sample, .47 to .71 (mean = .62) for the sport sample, and .41 to .71 (mean = .61) for the
music sample. Internal consistency estimates were reasonable across these three samples,
being .73 for the work sample, .83 for the sport sample, and .84 for the music sample.
A series of external validity analyses were conducted comprising analyses of
hypothesized key correlates of SHORT flow in the Martin and Jackson (2008) validation
study. External correlates were participation, enjoyment, buoyancy, aspirations, adaptive
cognitions, adaptive behaviors, impeding/maladaptive cognitions, and maladaptive behaviors.
Table 5 demonstrates that the SHORT flow measures for work, sport, and music were related
to the external correlates in parallel and hypothesized directions.

e) Validation of the CORE Flow Scales

As described earlier, the idea for the CORE Flow Scales is to tap into the
phenomenology of the flow experience. These scales were designed to capture aspects of
the central subjective experience of flow, and items were drawn from statements that elite
performers made in describing their experience in flow. This set of 10 items was examined
across a large sample, covering the domains of academic school work, school extra-
curricular activity, and sport.
CFA and descriptive results for this diverse sample were reported in detail in Martin
and Jackson (2008), and will be summarized here. Good fit of the hypothesized models to the
data were obtained for core general school flow ( 2 = 585.80 df =35; CFI=.98; NNFI=.98;
SRMR=.04; RMSEA=.08), core mathematics flow ( 2 = 172.73 df =35; CFI=.98; NNFI=.97;
SRMR=.04; RMSEA=.10), core flow in extracurricular activity ( 2 = 590.18 df =35; CFI=.98;
NNFI=.97; SRMR=.03; RMSEA=.08), and core flow in sport ( 2 = 124.79 df =35; CFI=.97;
NNFI=.96; SRMR=.05; RMSEA=.11). There were some larger than ideal RMSEA values in
Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 37
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

some models, but in the context of acceptable CFIs and NNFIs, the relatively lower sample
sizes for mathematics and sport, and because RMSEAs for unidimensional scales are often
lower than for multidimensional scales (Kenny & McCoach, 2003), these values were not
considered problematic. Factor loadings ranged from .61 to .85 (mean = .76) for the general
school sample, .56 to .89 (mean = .78) for the mathematics sample, .53 to .80 (mean = .72)
for the extracurricular sample, and .59 to .85 (mean = .74) for the sport sample. Internal
consistency estimates were strong across these three samples, being .93 for the general
school sample, .94 for the mathematics sample, .91 for the extracurricular sample, and .92
for the sport sample.
A series of external validity analyses were conducted for the following key correlates:
participation, enjoyment, buoyancy, aspirations, adaptive cognitions, adaptive behaviors,
impeding/maladaptive cognitions, and maladaptive behaviors. Table 6 shows that CORE flow
measures were related to external correlates in parallel and hypothesized ways. Generally
high correlations were found between CORE flow in general school, mathematics, and
extracurricular activities with key correlates. Consistently lower ‘off target’ correlations
between extracurricular activity and general school key correlates supported discriminant
validity between different core flow constructs. Follow-up analyses to determine the
relationship between general school core flow and extracurricular activity core flow yielded a
correlation of .22, indicating good discrimination between the two core flow measures.
Although the key correlate measures were not available for the sport sample, the SHORT
flow measure for sport was available and subsidiary analyses found a .72 correlation
between CORE and SHORT flow – indicating overlap, but 50% of the variance left unshared.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 38
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Table 5. SHORT Flow: External Validity (Motivation and Engagement) Correlations

Participation Enjoyment Buoyancy Aspirations Adaptive Adaptive Impeding Maladaptive Mean
Cognitions Behaviors Cognitions Behaviors Absolute
r
SHORT FLOW
WORK
.74 .82 .81 .71 .72 .59 -.59 -.70 .71
SPORT
.90 .89 .74 .81 .73 .69 -.37 -.47 .70
MUSIC
.80 .73 .68 .73 .82 .70 -.49 -.60 .69

Table 6. CORE Flow: External Validity (Motivation and Engagement) Correlations

Participation Enjoyment Buoyancy Aspirations Adaptive Adaptive Impeding Maladaptive Mean
Cognitions Behaviors Cognitions Behaviors Absolute
r
CORE FLOW
GENERAL SCHOOL
(Embedded CORE) .56 .71 .42 .68 .74 .83 -.11 -.79 .61

MATHEMATICS
(Independent CORE) .49 .58 .15 .42 .67 .68 -.23 -.72 .49

EXTRACURRICULAR
(Independent CORE) .25 .13 .20 .12 .23 .18 -.10 -.15 .17

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 39
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

f) Conclusion: The potential uses of the Flow Scales

The triad of Flow Scales developed by Jackson and colleagues (e.g., Jackson & Eklund,
2002; Jackson, Martin, & Eklund, 2008; Martin & Jackson, 2008) provides researchers
and practitioners with a good choice of measurement options for assessing flow. The
36-item, or LONG Flow Scales, has been shown over a number of studies to be robust
instruments that provide a detailed assessment of the dimensional flow model. When a
fine-grained description of flow characteristics according to the dimensional flow model
of Csikszentmihalyi (1990) is desired, then the LONG Flow Scales are the best option.
The LONG scales are also ideally suited to intervention-based research, providing
assessment of modifiable flow characteristics in the nine-order dimensional approach.
The SHORT Flow Scales provide a suitable tool for a brief assessment of flow from
the nine-dimensional conceptualization. Grounded in a solid psychometric base, the 9-item
SHORT Flow Scales are useful when an aggregate measure of the nine flow dimensions is
desired. Studies aiming to capture aggregate or global flow that reflects broader parameters
(e.g., challenge-skill balance, clear goals, sense of control etc.) may find this scale useful.
The equally short, CORE Flow Scales provide a valid and reliable assessment of the central,
or core, subjective experience of being in flow. Studies aiming to capture the very specific ‘in
the zone’ experience may opt for core flow. The two brief Flow Scales offer different, but
complementary ways of assessing flow. With half the variance between them unexplained
(Martin & Jackson, 2008), they are clearly not the same construct. Given the generally strong
psychometric properties across all three scales, their internal and external validity, decision-
making regarding which scale to use should be determined by the purpose of a given study.
LONG, SHORT, and CORE flow offer different, but complementary ways of assessing flow,
and should open up more possibilities for including flow as a focal construct in research
across a diverse range of settings.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 40
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Chapter 5: Flow Scales’ score profiles

a) Descriptive profiles
In this chapter, we present descriptive data on Flow Scale scores obtained across a
diverse range of activities. The data presented are illustrative of the types of scores, and
scoring patterns, obtained with the questionnaires across the groups that have been
sampled to date. For example, aggregate descriptive data collected on the DFS-2 and
FSS-2 are presented in Tables 7 and 13 respectively. Note that these item-average
scale scores have a possible range of 1 to 5. In all instances, the average values for the
total subscale scores fall above the midpoint of 3. Tables 8 through 17 (excluding Table
13) present descriptive statistics for LONG flow on various activity categorizations,
including sport, exercise, yoga, creative and performing arts.
Table 18 presents aggregate data for SHORT flow in physical activity (sport and
exercise), yoga, music, and work. Table 19 presents aggregate data for the CORE Flow
Scales in school extracurricular and sport samples.
Although the sampling was quite wide-ranging for the data presented in this
chapter, it was in no way random or representative, and thus should be regarded as
descriptive. As more data are collected with the different versions of the flow scales, it
should be possible to add to these flow databases, and to do so across a broad range
of settings. Researchers who collect data with the flow scales are invited to submit their
data for inclusion in future revisions of this manual, and will be acknowledged for any
data submitted for such purposes.

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales

Once a raw score has been calculated for each Flow factor, depending on the particular
target activity and sample under focus, this raw score can be converted to a T-score.
Unlike raw scores, T-scores on one factor are more readily compared with T-scores on
another factor. Hence, converting scores to T-scores has the advantage of placing
each factor on an approximately common metric. Using non-normalised T-scores
equates the means and standard deviations of the different scores for each Flow factor
but does not affect the shape of their distributions. T-scores have a mean of 50 and a
standard deviation of 10.
T-scores are provided in this Manual (see below) for:
- LONG Dispositional Flow (Physical Activity)
- LONG State Flow (Physical Activity)
- LONG Dispositional Flow (Yoga)
- CORE Flow (Extracurricular Activity)
- SHORT Dispositional Flow (Physical Activity)
- SHORT State Flow (Physical Activity)

If you deem your sample or its target activity comparable to those in the
standardized tables, then you can consider converting raw scores to T-scores.
However, if your sample or its activities deviate markedly from the ones standardized
here, then using raw scores may be preferable.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 41
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

It is important to note that this approach is not without its limitations. First, it
assumes that no one factor is systematically higher or lower than another. In reality, this
is not the case – it is clear that some factors evince higher rates of agreement than
others. Second, this approach assumes that the shape of distributions for each factor is
the same. In reality, this is not the case either – for example, the skew of a number of
factors are different. Hence, some care should be taken when interpreting T-scores.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 42
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Descriptive tables.
A. LONG Flow - Dispositional (DFS) Tables
Table 7. DFS Descriptive Statistics: Composite sample of participants across performance settings
N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 4921 1.22 5.00 3.76 0.44
Challenge-Skill Balance 5369 1.00 5.00 3.71 0.58
Merging of Action and Awareness 5366 1.00 5.00 3.44 0.70
Clear Goals 5376 1.00 5.00 3.87 0.64
Unambiguous Feedback 5392 1.00 5.00 3.82 0.64
Concentration on Task at Hand 5437 1.00 5.00 3.67 0.64
Sense of Control 5377 1.00 5.00 3.75 0.62
Loss of Self-Consciousness 5424 1.00 5.00 3.65 0.93
Time Transformation 5396 1.00 5.00 3.61 0.78
Autotelic Experience 5417 1.00 5.00 4.32 0.58

Table 8. DFS Descriptive Statistics: Physical Activity Sample

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 1717 1.22 5.00 3.78 0.44
Challenge-Skill Balance 1717 1.25 5.00 3.76 0.61
Merging of Action and Awareness 1717 1.25 5.00 3.74 0.63
Clear Goals 1717 1.00 5.00 4.04 0.61
Unambiguous Feedback 1717 1.00 5.00 3.94 0.64
Concentration on Task at Hand 1717 1.25 5.00 3.69 0.65
Sense of Control 1717 1.00 5.00 3.82 0.60
Loss of Self-Consciousness 1717 1.00 5.00 3.38 0.84
Time Transformation 1717 1.00 5.00 3.48 0.75
Autotelic Experience 1717 1.00 5.00 4.19 0.61

Table 9. DFS Descriptive Statistics: Yoga sample

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 2668 1.22 5 3.78 0.43
Challenge-Skill Balance 3116 1.00 5 3.7 0.57
Merging of Action and Awareness 3113 1.00 5 3.28 0.69
Clear Goals 3123 1.00 5 3.79 0.61
Unambiguous Feedback 3139 1.00 5 3.79 0.62
Concentration on Task at Hand 3184 1.00 5 3.67 0.63
Sense of Control 3124 1.00 5 3.74 0.61
Loss of Self-Consciousness 3171 1.00 5 3.9 0.88
Time Transformation 3144 1.00 5 3.69 0.78
Autotelic Experience 3164 1.00 5 4.42 0.52

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 43
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Table 10. DFS Descriptive Statistics: Creative and Performing Arts sample
N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 372 2.19 5.00 3.56 0.48
Challenge-Skill Balance 372 2.00 5.00 3.62 0.58
Merging of Action and Awareness 372 1.00 5.00 3.37 0.66
Clear Goals 372 1.50 5.00 3.80 0.77
Unambiguous Feedback 372 1.25 5.00 3.60 0.72
Concentration on Task at Hand 372 1.25 5.00 3.56 0.71
Sense of Control 372 1.50 5.00 3.49 0.71
Loss of Self-Consciousness 372 1.00 5.00 3.03 0.91
Time Transformation 371 1.00 5.00 3.56 0.88
Autotelic Experience 372 1.33 5.00 4.01 0.74

Table 11. DFS Descriptive Statistics: Sport sample*

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 1452 1.22 5.00 3.79 0.43
Challenge-Skill Balance 1452 1.25 5.00 3.80 0.59
Merging of Action and Awareness 1452 1.25 5.00 3.76 0.60
Clear Goals 1452 1.00 5.00 4.05 0.60
Unambiguous Feedback 1452 1.00 5.00 3.96 0.63
Concentration on Task at Hand 1452 1.50 5.00 3.72 0.63
Sense of Control 1452 1.00 5.00 3.80 0.59
Loss of Self-Consciousness 1452 1.00 5.00 3.36 0.83
Time Transformation 1452 1.00 5.00 3.47 0.75
Autotelic Experience 1452 1.00 5.00 4.20 0.58

Table 12. DFS Descriptive Statistics: Exercise sample*

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 265 2.17 5.00 3.74 0.49
Challenge-Skill Balance 265 1.25 5.00 3.56 0.68
Merging of Action and Awareness 265 1.25 5.00 3.63 0.76
Clear Goals 265 2.25 5.00 4.01 0.66
Unambiguous Feedback 265 1.75 5.00 3.85 0.65
Concentration on Task at Hand 265 1.25 5.00 3.56 0.77
Sense of Control 265 1.75 5.00 3.89 0.66
Loss of Self-Consciousness 265 1.00 5.00 3.53 0.90
Time Transformation 265 1.25 5.00 3.55 0.76
Autotelic Experience 265 1.75 5.00 4.14 0.71
* Note. Sport and Exercise samples are sub-samples of the Physical Activity sample presented in Table 8.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 44
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

B. LONG Flow - State (FSS) Tables

Table 13. FSS Descriptive Statistics: Composite sample of participants from a range of performance
settings
N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 1544 1.31 5.00 3.75 0.50
Challenge-Skill Balance 1544 1.25 5.00 3.68 0.68
Merging of Action and Awareness 1544 1.00 5.00 3.48 0.85
Clear Goals 1544 1.25 5.00 4.01 0.64
Unambiguous Feedback 1544 1.25 5.00 3.87 0.65
Concentration on Task at Hand 1544 1.00 5.00 3.71 0.81
Sense of Control 1544 1.00 5.00 3.72 0.76
Loss of Self-Consciousness 1544 1.00 5.00 3.87 0.91
Time Transformation 1544 1.00 5.00 3.44 0.81
Autotelic Experience 1544 1.00 5.00 4.02 0.78

Table 14. FSS Descriptive Statistics: Physical Activity sample

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 1311 1.31 5.00 3.76 0.51
Challenge-Skill Balance 1311 1.25 5.00 3.70 0.69
Merging of Action and Awareness 1311 1.00 5.00 3.56 0.82
Clear Goals 1311 1.25 5.00 4.03 0.64
Unambiguous Feedback 1311 1.25 5.00 3.88 0.66
Concentration on Task at Hand 1311 1.00 5.00 3.70 0.81
Sense of Control 1311 1.00 5.00 3.73 0.77
Loss of Self-Consciousness 1311 1.00 5.00 3.89 0.89
Time Transformation 1311 1.00 5.00 3.41 0.81
Autotelic Experience 1311 1.00 5.00 4.00 0.79

Table 15. FSS Descriptive Statistics: Yoga sample

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 142 2.75 4.64 3.76 0.41
Challenge-Skill Balance 142 1.75 5.00 3.60 0.66
Merging of Action and Awareness 142 1.00 5.00 2.98 0.87
Clear Goals 142 2.25 5.00 3.89 0.57
Unambiguous Feedback 142 2.00 5.00 3.85 0.55
Concentration on Task at Hand 142 2.00 5.00 3.75 0.80
Sense of Control 142 2.00 5.00 3.72 0.70
Loss of Self-Consciousness 142 2.00 5.00 4.16 0.76
Time Transformation 142 1.00 5.00 3.64 0.76
Autotelic Experience 142 2.75 5.00 4.30 0.57

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 45
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Table 16. FSS Descriptive Statistics: Sport sample

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 858 1.31 5.00 3.75 0.51
Challenge-Skill Balance 858 1.25 5.00 3.69 0.69
Merging of Action and Awareness 858 1.00 5.00 3.63 0.77
Clear Goals 858 1.25 5.00 4.06 0.65
Unambiguous Feedback 858 1.25 5.00 3.86 0.66
Concentration on Task at Hand 858 1.00 5.00 3.70 0.78
Sense of Control 858 1.00 5.00 3.70 0.76
Loss of Self-Consciousness 858 1.00 5.00 3.86 0.90
Time Transformation 858 1.00 5.00 3.34 0.81
Autotelic Experience 858 1.00 5.00 3.91 0.83

Table 17. FSS Descriptive Statistics: Exercise sample

N Min Max Mean SD
Flow 453 1.86 4.97 3.80 0.51
Challenge-Skill Balance 453 1.25 5.00 3.74 0.69
Merging of Action and Awareness 453 1.00 5.00 3.42 0.91
Clear Goals 453 1.50 5.00 3.98 0.63
Unambiguous Feedback 453 1.75 5.00 3.90 0.67
Concentration on Task at Hand 453 1.00 5.00 3.69 0.85
Sense of Control 453 1.00 5.00 3.80 0.77
Loss of Self-Consciousness 453 1.00 5.00 3.96 0.88
Time Transformation 453 1.00 5.00 3.55 0.81
Autotelic Experience 453 1.25 5.00 4.18 0.67

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 46
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

C) Short and Core Flow Tables

Table 18. Short Flow Descriptive Statistics
N Min Max Mean SD
Short Flow Dispositional
Physical Activity 616 2.22 5.00 3.82 0.49
Sport Activity 495 2.22 5.00 3.82 0.48
Exercise Activity 121 2.44 4.78 3.79 0.52
Rescaled Data
Music 219 1.78 5.00 3.95 0.72
Work 631 2.22 5.00 4.09 0.56
Short Flow State
Physical Activity 605 1.22 5.00 3.77 0.56
Sport Activity 359 1.22 5.00 3.68 0.55
Exercise Activity 246 1.56 5.00 3.88 0.56
Yoga 185 2.56 4.89 3.85 0.45

Table 19. Core Flow Descriptive Statistics

N Min Max Mean SD
Dispositional
School Extra-Curricular Activity 2202 1.30 5.00 4.41 0.59
State
Sport Activity 220 1.00 5.00 3.37 0.74

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 47
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.77 M=3.74 M=4.04 M=3.94 M=3.69 M=3.82 M=3.38 M=3.48 M=4.19 M=3.78
SD=.61 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.64 SD=.65 SD=.60 SD=.84 SD=.75 SD=.61 SD=.44
1.00 4.59 1.00 6.51 1.00 0.16 1.00 4.06 1.00 8.62 1.00 3.00 1.00 21.67 1.00 16.93 1.00 0 1.00 0
1.05 5.41 1.05 7.30 1.05 0.98 1.05 4.84 1.05 9.38 1.05 3.83 1.05 22.26 1.05 17.60 1.05 0 1.05 0
1.10 6.23 1.10 8.10 1.10 1.80 1.10 5.63 1.10 10.15 1.10 4.67 1.10 22.86 1.10 18.27 1.10 0 1.10 0
1.15 7.05 1.15 8.89 1.15 2.62 1.15 6.41 1.15 10.92 1.15 5.50 1.15 23.45 1.15 18.93 1.15 0.16 1.15 0
1.20 7.87 1.20 9.68 1.20 3.44 1.20 7.19 1.20 11.69 1.20 6.33 1.20 24.05 1.20 19.60 1.20 0.98 1.20 0
1.25 8.69 1.25 10.48 1.25 4.26 1.25 7.97 1.25 12.46 1.25 7.17 1.25 24.64 1.25 20.27 1.25 1.80 1.25 0
1.30 9.51 1.30 11.27 1.30 5.08 1.30 8.75 1.30 13.23 1.30 8.00 1.30 25.24 1.30 20.93 1.30 2.62 1.30 0
1.35 10.33 1.35 12.06 1.35 5.90 1.35 9.53 1.35 14.00 1.35 8.83 1.35 25.83 1.35 21.60 1.35 3.44 1.35 0
1.40 11.15 1.40 12.86 1.40 6.72 1.40 10.31 1.40 14.77 1.40 9.67 1.40 26.43 1.40 22.27 1.40 4.26 1.40 0
1.45 11.97 1.45 13.65 1.45 7.54 1.45 11.09 1.45 15.54 1.45 10.50 1.45 27.02 1.45 22.93 1.45 5.08 1.45 0
1.50 12.79 1.50 14.44 1.50 8.36 1.50 11.88 1.50 16.31 1.50 11.33 1.50 27.62 1.50 23.60 1.50 5.90 1.50 0
1.55 13.61 1.55 15.24 1.55 9.18 1.55 12.66 1.55 17.08 1.55 12.17 1.55 28.21 1.55 24.27 1.55 6.72 1.55 0
1.60 14.43 1.60 16.03 1.60 10.00 1.60 13.44 1.60 17.85 1.60 13.00 1.60 28.81 1.60 24.93 1.60 7.54 1.60 0.45
1.65 15.25 1.65 16.83 1.65 10.82 1.65 14.22 1.65 18.62 1.65 13.83 1.65 29.40 1.65 25.60 1.65 8.36 1.65 1.59
1.70 16.07 1.70 17.62 1.70 11.64 1.70 15.00 1.70 19.38 1.70 14.67 1.70 30.00 1.70 26.27 1.70 9.18 1.70 2.73
1.75 16.89 1.75 18.41 1.75 12.46 1.75 15.78 1.75 20.15 1.75 15.50 1.75 30.60 1.75 26.93 1.75 10.00 1.75 3.86
1.80 17.70 1.80 19.21 1.80 13.28 1.80 16.56 1.80 20.92 1.80 16.33 1.80 31.19 1.80 27.60 1.80 10.82 1.80 5.00
1.85 18.52 1.85 20.00 1.85 14.10 1.85 17.34 1.85 21.69 1.85 17.17 1.85 31.79 1.85 28.27 1.85 11.64 1.85 6.14
1.90 19.34 1.90 20.79 1.90 14.92 1.90 18.13 1.90 22.46 1.90 18.00 1.90 32.38 1.90 28.93 1.90 12.46 1.90 7.27
1.95 20.16 1.95 21.59 1.95 15.74 1.95 18.91 1.95 23.23 1.95 18.83 1.95 32.98 1.95 29.60 1.95 13.28 1.95 8.41
Note that negative T-scores have been fixed to zero

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 48
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY cont.

LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.77 M=3.74 M=4.04 M=3.94 M=3.69 M=3.82 M=3.38 M=3.48 M=4.19 M=3.78
SD=.61 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.64 SD=.65 SD=.60 SD=.84 SD=.75 SD=.61 SD=.44
2.00 20.98 2.00 22.38 2.00 16.56 2.00 19.69 2.00 24.00 2.00 19.67 2.00 33.57 2.00 30.27 2.00 14.10 2.00 9.55
2.05 21.80 2.05 23.17 2.05 17.38 2.05 20.47 2.05 24.77 2.05 20.50 2.05 34.17 2.05 30.93 2.05 14.92 2.05 10.68
2.10 22.62 2.10 23.97 2.10 18.20 2.10 21.25 2.10 25.54 2.10 21.33 2.10 34.76 2.10 31.60 2.10 15.74 2.10 11.82
2.15 23.44 2.15 24.76 2.15 19.02 2.15 22.03 2.15 26.31 2.15 22.17 2.15 35.36 2.15 32.27 2.15 16.56 2.15 12.95
2.20 24.26 2.20 25.56 2.20 19.84 2.20 22.81 2.20 27.08 2.20 23.00 2.20 35.95 2.20 32.93 2.20 17.38 2.20 14.09
2.25 25.08 2.25 26.35 2.25 20.66 2.25 23.59 2.25 27.85 2.25 23.83 2.25 36.55 2.25 33.60 2.25 18.20 2.25 15.23
2.30 25.90 2.30 27.14 2.30 21.48 2.30 24.38 2.30 28.62 2.30 24.67 2.30 37.14 2.30 34.27 2.30 19.02 2.30 16.36
2.35 26.72 2.35 27.94 2.35 22.30 2.35 25.16 2.35 29.38 2.35 25.50 2.35 37.74 2.35 34.93 2.35 19.84 2.35 17.50
2.40 27.54 2.40 28.73 2.40 23.11 2.40 25.94 2.40 30.15 2.40 26.33 2.40 38.33 2.40 35.60 2.40 20.66 2.40 18.64
2.45 28.36 2.45 29.52 2.45 23.93 2.45 26.72 2.45 30.92 2.45 27.17 2.45 38.93 2.45 36.27 2.45 21.48 2.45 19.77
2.50 29.18 2.50 30.32 2.50 24.75 2.50 27.50 2.50 31.69 2.50 28.00 2.50 39.52 2.50 36.93 2.50 22.30 2.50 20.91
2.55 30.00 2.55 31.11 2.55 25.57 2.55 28.28 2.55 32.46 2.55 28.83 2.55 40.12 2.55 37.60 2.55 23.11 2.55 22.05
2.60 30.82 2.60 31.90 2.60 26.39 2.60 29.06 2.60 33.23 2.60 29.67 2.60 40.71 2.60 38.27 2.60 23.93 2.60 23.18
2.65 31.64 2.65 32.70 2.65 27.21 2.65 29.84 2.65 34.00 2.65 30.50 2.65 41.31 2.65 38.93 2.65 24.75 2.65 24.32
2.70 32.46 2.70 33.49 2.70 28.03 2.70 30.63 2.70 34.77 2.70 31.33 2.70 41.90 2.70 39.60 2.70 25.57 2.70 25.45
2.75 33.28 2.75 34.29 2.75 28.85 2.75 31.41 2.75 35.54 2.75 32.17 2.75 42.50 2.75 40.27 2.75 26.39 2.75 26.59
2.80 34.10 2.80 35.08 2.80 29.67 2.80 32.19 2.80 36.31 2.80 33.00 2.80 43.10 2.80 40.93 2.80 27.21 2.80 27.73
2.85 34.92 2.85 35.87 2.85 30.49 2.85 32.97 2.85 37.08 2.85 33.83 2.85 43.69 2.85 41.60 2.85 28.03 2.85 28.86
2.90 35.74 2.90 36.67 2.90 31.31 2.90 33.75 2.90 37.85 2.90 34.67 2.90 44.29 2.90 42.27 2.90 28.85 2.90 30.00
2.95 36.56 2.95 37.46 2.95 32.13 2.95 34.53 2.95 38.62 2.95 35.50 2.95 44.88 2.95 42.93 2.95 29.67 2.95 31.14

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 49
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY cont.

LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.77 M=3.74 M=4.04 M=3.94 M=3.69 M=3.82 M=3.38 M=3.48 M=4.19 M=3.78
SD=.61 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.64 SD=.65 SD=.60 SD=.84 SD=.75 SD=.61 SD=.44
3.00 37.38 3.00 38.25 3.00 32.95 3.00 35.31 3.00 39.38 3.00 36.33 3.00 45.48 3.00 43.60 3.00 30.49 3.00 32.27
3.05 38.20 3.05 39.05 3.05 33.77 3.05 36.09 3.05 40.15 3.05 37.17 3.05 46.07 3.05 44.27 3.05 31.31 3.05 33.41
3.10 39.02 3.10 39.84 3.10 34.59 3.10 36.88 3.10 40.92 3.10 38.00 3.10 46.67 3.10 44.93 3.10 32.13 3.10 34.55
3.15 39.84 3.15 40.63 3.15 35.41 3.15 37.66 3.15 41.69 3.15 38.83 3.15 47.26 3.15 45.60 3.15 32.95 3.15 35.68
3.20 40.66 3.20 41.43 3.20 36.23 3.20 38.44 3.20 42.46 3.20 39.67 3.20 47.86 3.20 46.27 3.20 33.77 3.20 36.82
3.25 41.48 3.25 42.22 3.25 37.05 3.25 39.22 3.25 43.23 3.25 40.50 3.25 48.45 3.25 46.93 3.25 34.59 3.25 37.95
3.30 42.30 3.30 43.02 3.30 37.87 3.30 40.00 3.30 44.00 3.30 41.33 3.30 49.05 3.30 47.60 3.30 35.41 3.30 39.09
3.35 43.11 3.35 43.81 3.35 38.69 3.35 40.78 3.35 44.77 3.35 42.17 3.35 49.64 3.35 48.27 3.35 36.23 3.35 40.23
3.40 43.93 3.40 44.60 3.40 39.51 3.40 41.56 3.40 45.54 3.40 43.00 3.40 50.24 3.40 48.93 3.40 37.05 3.40 41.36
3.45 44.75 3.45 45.40 3.45 40.33 3.45 42.34 3.45 46.31 3.45 43.83 3.45 50.83 3.45 49.60 3.45 37.87 3.45 42.50
3.50 45.57 3.50 46.19 3.50 41.15 3.50 43.13 3.50 47.08 3.50 44.67 3.50 51.43 3.50 50.27 3.50 38.69 3.50 43.64
3.55 46.39 3.55 46.98 3.55 41.97 3.55 43.91 3.55 47.85 3.55 45.50 3.55 52.02 3.55 50.93 3.55 39.51 3.55 44.77
3.60 47.21 3.60 47.78 3.60 42.79 3.60 44.69 3.60 48.62 3.60 46.33 3.60 52.62 3.60 51.60 3.60 40.33 3.60 45.91
3.65 48.03 3.65 48.57 3.65 43.61 3.65 45.47 3.65 49.38 3.65 47.17 3.65 53.21 3.65 52.27 3.65 41.15 3.65 47.05
3.70 48.85 3.70 49.37 3.70 44.43 3.70 46.25 3.70 50.15 3.70 48.00 3.70 53.81 3.70 52.93 3.70 41.97 3.70 48.18
3.75 49.67 3.75 50.16 3.75 45.25 3.75 47.03 3.75 50.92 3.75 48.83 3.75 54.40 3.75 53.60 3.75 42.79 3.75 49.32
3.80 50.49 3.80 50.95 3.80 46.07 3.80 47.81 3.80 51.69 3.80 49.67 3.80 55.00 3.80 54.27 3.80 43.61 3.80 50.45
3.85 51.31 3.85 51.75 3.85 46.89 3.85 48.59 3.85 52.46 3.85 50.50 3.85 55.60 3.85 54.93 3.85 44.43 3.85 51.59
3.90 52.13 3.90 52.54 3.90 47.70 3.90 49.38 3.90 53.23 3.90 51.33 3.90 56.19 3.90 55.60 3.90 45.25 3.90 52.73
3.95 52.95 3.95 53.33 3.95 48.52 3.95 50.16 3.95 54.00 3.95 52.17 3.95 56.79 3.95 56.27 3.95 46.07 3.95 53.86

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 50
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY cont.

LONG DISPOSITIONAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.77 M=3.74 M=4.04 M=3.94 M=3.69 M=3.82 M=3.38 M=3.48 M=4.19 M=3.78
SD=.61 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.64 SD=.65 SD=.60 SD=.84 SD=.75 SD=.61 SD=.44
4.00 53.77 4.00 54.13 4.00 49.34 4.00 50.94 4.00 54.77 4.00 53.00 4.00 57.38 4.00 56.93 4.00 46.89 4.00 55.00
4.05 54.59 4.05 54.92 4.05 50.16 4.05 51.72 4.05 55.54 4.05 53.83 4.05 57.98 4.05 57.60 4.05 47.70 4.05 56.14
4.10 55.41 4.10 55.71 4.10 50.98 4.10 52.50 4.10 56.31 4.10 54.67 4.10 58.57 4.10 58.27 4.10 48.52 4.10 57.27
4.15 56.23 4.15 56.51 4.15 51.80 4.15 53.28 4.15 57.08 4.15 55.50 4.15 59.17 4.15 58.93 4.15 49.34 4.15 58.41
4.20 57.05 4.20 57.30 4.20 52.62 4.20 54.06 4.20 57.85 4.20 56.33 4.20 59.76 4.20 59.60 4.20 50.16 4.20 59.55
4.25 57.87 4.25 58.10 4.25 53.44 4.25 54.84 4.25 58.62 4.25 57.17 4.25 60.36 4.25 60.27 4.25 50.98 4.25 60.68
4.30 58.69 4.30 58.89 4.30 54.26 4.30 55.63 4.30 59.38 4.30 58.00 4.30 60.95 4.30 60.93 4.30 51.80 4.30 61.82
4.35 59.51 4.35 59.68 4.35 55.08 4.35 56.41 4.35 60.15 4.35 58.83 4.35 61.55 4.35 61.60 4.35 52.62 4.35 62.95
4.40 60.33 4.40 60.48 4.40 55.90 4.40 57.19 4.40 60.92 4.40 59.67 4.40 62.14 4.40 62.27 4.40 53.44 4.40 64.09
4.45 61.15 4.45 61.27 4.45 56.72 4.45 57.97 4.45 61.69 4.45 60.50 4.45 62.74 4.45 62.93 4.45 54.26 4.45 65.23
4.50 61.97 4.50 62.06 4.50 57.54 4.50 58.75 4.50 62.46 4.50 61.33 4.50 63.33 4.50 63.60 4.50 55.08 4.50 66.36
4.55 62.79 4.55 62.86 4.55 58.36 4.55 59.53 4.55 63.23 4.55 62.17 4.55 63.93 4.55 64.27 4.55 55.90 4.55 67.50
4.60 63.61 4.60 63.65 4.60 59.18 4.60 60.31 4.60 64.00 4.60 63.00 4.60 64.52 4.60 64.93 4.60 56.72 4.60 68.64
4.65 64.43 4.65 64.44 4.65 60.00 4.65 61.09 4.65 64.77 4.65 63.83 4.65 65.12 4.65 65.60 4.65 57.54 4.65 69.77
4.70 65.25 4.70 65.24 4.70 60.82 4.70 61.88 4.70 65.54 4.70 64.67 4.70 65.71 4.70 66.27 4.70 58.36 4.70 70.91
4.75 66.07 4.75 66.03 4.75 61.64 4.75 62.66 4.75 66.31 4.75 65.50 4.75 66.31 4.75 66.93 4.75 59.18 4.75 72.05
4.80 66.89 4.80 66.83 4.80 62.46 4.80 63.44 4.80 67.08 4.80 66.33 4.80 66.90 4.80 67.60 4.80 60.00 4.80 73.18
4.85 67.70 4.85 67.62 4.85 63.28 4.85 64.22 4.85 67.85 4.85 67.17 4.85 67.50 4.85 68.27 4.85 60.82 4.85 74.32
4.90 68.52 4.90 68.41 4.90 64.10 4.90 65.00 4.90 68.62 4.90 68.00 4.90 68.10 4.90 68.93 4.90 61.64 4.90 75.45
4.95 69.34 4.95 69.21 4.95 64.92 4.95 65.78 4.95 69.38 4.95 68.83 4.95 68.69 4.95 69.60 4.95 62.46 4.95 76.59
5.00 70.16 5.00 70.00 5.00 65.74 5.00 66.56 5.00 70.15 5.00 69.67 5.00 69.29 5.00 70.27 5.00 63.28 5.00 77.73

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 51
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.56 M=4.03 M=3.88 M=3.70 M=3.73 M=3.89 M=3.41 M=4.00 M=3.76
SD=.69 SD=.82 SD=.65 SD=.66 SD=.81 SD=.77 SD=.89 SD=.81 SD=.79 SD=.51
1.00 10.87 1.00 18.78 1.00 3.38 1.00 6.36 1.00 16.67 1.00 14.55 1.00 17.53 1.00 20.25 1.00 12.03 1.00 0
1.05 11.59 1.05 19.39 1.05 4.15 1.05 7.12 1.05 17.28 1.05 15.19 1.05 18.09 1.05 20.86 1.05 12.66 1.05 0
1.10 12.32 1.10 20.00 1.10 4.92 1.10 7.88 1.10 17.90 1.10 15.84 1.10 18.65 1.10 21.48 1.10 13.29 1.10 0
1.15 13.04 1.15 20.61 1.15 5.69 1.15 8.64 1.15 18.52 1.15 16.49 1.15 19.21 1.15 22.10 1.15 13.92 1.15 0
1.20 13.77 1.20 21.22 1.20 6.46 1.20 9.39 1.20 19.14 1.20 17.14 1.20 19.78 1.20 22.72 1.20 14.56 1.20 0
1.25 14.49 1.25 21.83 1.25 7.23 1.25 10.15 1.25 19.75 1.25 17.79 1.25 20.34 1.25 23.33 1.25 15.19 1.25 0.78
1.30 15.22 1.30 22.44 1.30 8.00 1.30 10.91 1.30 20.37 1.30 18.44 1.30 20.90 1.30 23.95 1.30 15.82 1.30 1.76
1.35 15.94 1.35 23.05 1.35 8.77 1.35 11.67 1.35 20.99 1.35 19.09 1.35 21.46 1.35 24.57 1.35 16.46 1.35 2.75
1.40 16.67 1.40 23.66 1.40 9.54 1.40 12.42 1.40 21.60 1.40 19.74 1.40 22.02 1.40 25.19 1.40 17.09 1.40 3.73
1.45 17.39 1.45 24.27 1.45 10.31 1.45 13.18 1.45 22.22 1.45 20.39 1.45 22.58 1.45 25.80 1.45 17.72 1.45 4.71
1.50 18.12 1.50 24.88 1.50 11.08 1.50 13.94 1.50 22.84 1.50 21.04 1.50 23.15 1.50 26.42 1.50 18.35 1.50 5.69
1.55 18.84 1.55 25.49 1.55 11.85 1.55 14.70 1.55 23.46 1.55 21.69 1.55 23.71 1.55 27.04 1.55 18.99 1.55 6.67
1.60 19.57 1.60 26.10 1.60 12.62 1.60 15.45 1.60 24.07 1.60 22.34 1.60 24.27 1.60 27.65 1.60 19.62 1.60 7.65
1.65 20.29 1.65 26.71 1.65 13.38 1.65 16.21 1.65 24.69 1.65 22.99 1.65 24.83 1.65 28.27 1.65 20.25 1.65 8.63
1.70 21.01 1.70 27.32 1.70 14.15 1.70 16.97 1.70 25.31 1.70 23.64 1.70 25.39 1.70 28.89 1.70 20.89 1.70 9.61
1.75 21.74 1.75 27.93 1.75 14.92 1.75 17.73 1.75 25.93 1.75 24.29 1.75 25.96 1.75 29.51 1.75 21.52 1.75 10.59
1.80 22.46 1.80 28.54 1.80 15.69 1.80 18.48 1.80 26.54 1.80 24.94 1.80 26.52 1.80 30.12 1.80 22.15 1.80 11.57
1.85 23.19 1.85 29.15 1.85 16.46 1.85 19.24 1.85 27.16 1.85 25.58 1.85 27.08 1.85 30.74 1.85 22.78 1.85 12.55
1.90 23.91 1.90 29.76 1.90 17.23 1.90 20.00 1.90 27.78 1.90 26.23 1.90 27.64 1.90 31.36 1.90 23.42 1.90 13.53
1.95 24.64 1.95 30.37 1.95 18.00 1.95 20.76 1.95 28.40 1.95 26.88 1.95 28.20 1.95 31.98 1.95 24.05 1.95 14.51
Note that negative T-scores have been fixed to zero

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 52
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY cont.

LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.56 M=4.03 M=3.88 M=3.70 M=3.73 M=3.89 M=3.41 M=4.00 M=3.76
SD=.69 SD=.82 SD=.65 SD=.66 SD=.81 SD=.77 SD=.89 SD=.81 SD=.79 SD=.51
2.00 25.36 2.00 30.98 2.00 18.77 2.00 21.52 2.00 29.01 2.00 27.53 2.00 28.76 2.00 32.59 2.00 24.68 2.00 15.49
2.05 26.09 2.05 31.59 2.05 19.54 2.05 22.27 2.05 29.63 2.05 28.18 2.05 29.33 2.05 33.21 2.05 25.32 2.05 16.47
2.10 26.81 2.10 32.20 2.10 20.31 2.10 23.03 2.10 30.25 2.10 28.83 2.10 29.89 2.10 33.83 2.10 25.95 2.10 17.45
2.15 27.54 2.15 32.80 2.15 21.08 2.15 23.79 2.15 30.86 2.15 29.48 2.15 30.45 2.15 34.44 2.15 26.58 2.15 18.43
2.20 28.26 2.20 33.41 2.20 21.85 2.20 24.55 2.20 31.48 2.20 30.13 2.20 31.01 2.20 35.06 2.20 27.22 2.20 19.41
2.25 28.99 2.25 34.02 2.25 22.62 2.25 25.30 2.25 32.10 2.25 30.78 2.25 31.57 2.25 35.68 2.25 27.85 2.25 20.39
2.30 29.71 2.30 34.63 2.30 23.38 2.30 26.06 2.30 32.72 2.30 31.43 2.30 32.13 2.30 36.30 2.30 28.48 2.30 21.37
2.35 30.43 2.35 35.24 2.35 24.15 2.35 26.82 2.35 33.33 2.35 32.08 2.35 32.70 2.35 36.91 2.35 29.11 2.35 22.35
2.40 31.16 2.40 35.85 2.40 24.92 2.40 27.58 2.40 33.95 2.40 32.73 2.40 33.26 2.40 37.53 2.40 29.75 2.40 23.33
2.45 31.88 2.45 36.46 2.45 25.69 2.45 28.33 2.45 34.57 2.45 33.38 2.45 33.82 2.45 38.15 2.45 30.38 2.45 24.31
2.50 32.61 2.50 37.07 2.50 26.46 2.50 29.09 2.50 35.19 2.50 34.03 2.50 34.38 2.50 38.77 2.50 31.01 2.50 25.29
2.55 33.33 2.55 37.68 2.55 27.23 2.55 29.85 2.55 35.80 2.55 34.68 2.55 34.94 2.55 39.38 2.55 31.65 2.55 26.27
2.60 34.06 2.60 38.29 2.60 28.00 2.60 30.61 2.60 36.42 2.60 35.32 2.60 35.51 2.60 40.00 2.60 32.28 2.60 27.25
2.65 34.78 2.65 38.90 2.65 28.77 2.65 31.36 2.65 37.04 2.65 35.97 2.65 36.07 2.65 40.62 2.65 32.91 2.65 28.24
2.70 35.51 2.70 39.51 2.70 29.54 2.70 32.12 2.70 37.65 2.70 36.62 2.70 36.63 2.70 41.23 2.70 33.54 2.70 29.22
2.75 36.23 2.75 40.12 2.75 30.31 2.75 32.88 2.75 38.27 2.75 37.27 2.75 37.19 2.75 41.85 2.75 34.18 2.75 30.20
2.80 36.96 2.80 40.73 2.80 31.08 2.80 33.64 2.80 38.89 2.80 37.92 2.80 37.75 2.80 42.47 2.80 34.81 2.80 31.18
2.85 37.68 2.85 41.34 2.85 31.85 2.85 34.39 2.85 39.51 2.85 38.57 2.85 38.31 2.85 43.09 2.85 35.44 2.85 32.16
2.90 38.41 2.90 41.95 2.90 32.62 2.90 35.15 2.90 40.12 2.90 39.22 2.90 38.88 2.90 43.70 2.90 36.08 2.90 33.14
2.95 39.13 2.95 42.56 2.95 33.38 2.95 35.91 2.95 40.74 2.95 39.87 2.95 39.44 2.95 44.32 2.95 36.71 2.95 34.12

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 53
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY cont.

LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.56 M=4.03 M=3.88 M=3.70 M=3.73 M=3.89 M=3.41 M=4.00 M=3.76
SD=.69 SD=.82 SD=.65 SD=.66 SD=.81 SD=.77 SD=.89 SD=.81 SD=.79 SD=.51
3.00 39.86 3.00 43.17 3.00 34.15 3.00 36.67 3.00 41.36 3.00 40.52 3.00 40.00 3.00 44.94 3.00 37.34 3.00 35.10
3.05 40.58 3.05 43.78 3.05 34.92 3.05 37.42 3.05 41.98 3.05 41.17 3.05 40.56 3.05 45.56 3.05 37.97 3.05 36.08
3.10 41.30 3.10 44.39 3.10 35.69 3.10 38.18 3.10 42.59 3.10 41.82 3.10 41.12 3.10 46.17 3.10 38.61 3.10 37.06
3.15 42.03 3.15 45.00 3.15 36.46 3.15 38.94 3.15 43.21 3.15 42.47 3.15 41.69 3.15 46.79 3.15 39.24 3.15 38.04
3.20 42.75 3.20 45.61 3.20 37.23 3.20 39.70 3.20 43.83 3.20 43.12 3.20 42.25 3.20 47.41 3.20 39.87 3.20 39.02
3.25 43.48 3.25 46.22 3.25 38.00 3.25 40.45 3.25 44.44 3.25 43.77 3.25 42.81 3.25 48.02 3.25 40.51 3.25 40.00
3.30 44.20 3.30 46.83 3.30 38.77 3.30 41.21 3.30 45.06 3.30 44.42 3.30 43.37 3.30 48.64 3.30 41.14 3.30 40.98
3.35 44.93 3.35 47.44 3.35 39.54 3.35 41.97 3.35 45.68 3.35 45.06 3.35 43.93 3.35 49.26 3.35 41.77 3.35 41.96
3.40 45.65 3.40 48.05 3.40 40.31 3.40 42.73 3.40 46.30 3.40 45.71 3.40 44.49 3.40 49.88 3.40 42.41 3.40 42.94
3.45 46.38 3.45 48.66 3.45 41.08 3.45 43.48 3.45 46.91 3.45 46.36 3.45 45.06 3.45 50.49 3.45 43.04 3.45 43.92
3.50 47.10 3.50 49.27 3.50 41.85 3.50 44.24 3.50 47.53 3.50 47.01 3.50 45.62 3.50 51.11 3.50 43.67 3.50 44.90
3.55 47.83 3.55 49.88 3.55 42.62 3.55 45.00 3.55 48.15 3.55 47.66 3.55 46.18 3.55 51.73 3.55 44.30 3.55 45.88
3.60 48.55 3.60 50.49 3.60 43.38 3.60 45.76 3.60 48.77 3.60 48.31 3.60 46.74 3.60 52.35 3.60 44.94 3.60 46.86
3.65 49.28 3.65 51.10 3.65 44.15 3.65 46.52 3.65 49.38 3.65 48.96 3.65 47.30 3.65 52.96 3.65 45.57 3.65 47.84
3.70 50.00 3.70 51.71 3.70 44.92 3.70 47.27 3.70 50.00 3.70 49.61 3.70 47.87 3.70 53.58 3.70 46.20 3.70 48.82
3.75 50.72 3.75 52.32 3.75 45.69 3.75 48.03 3.75 50.62 3.75 50.26 3.75 48.43 3.75 54.20 3.75 46.84 3.75 49.80
3.80 51.45 3.80 52.93 3.80 46.46 3.80 48.79 3.80 51.23 3.80 50.91 3.80 48.99 3.80 54.81 3.80 47.47 3.80 50.78
3.85 52.17 3.85 53.54 3.85 47.23 3.85 49.55 3.85 51.85 3.85 51.56 3.85 49.55 3.85 55.43 3.85 48.10 3.85 51.76
3.90 52.90 3.90 54.15 3.90 48.00 3.90 50.30 3.90 52.47 3.90 52.21 3.90 50.11 3.90 56.05 3.90 48.73 3.90 52.75
3.95 53.62 3.95 54.76 3.95 48.77 3.95 51.06 3.95 53.09 3.95 52.86 3.95 50.67 3.95 56.67 3.95 49.37 3.95 53.73

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 54
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY cont.

LONG STATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.56 M=4.03 M=3.88 M=3.70 M=3.73 M=3.89 M=3.41 M=4.00 M=3.76
SD=.69 SD=.82 SD=.65 SD=.66 SD=.81 SD=.77 SD=.89 SD=.81 SD=.79 SD=.51
4.00 54.35 4.00 55.37 4.00 49.54 4.00 51.82 4.00 53.70 4.00 53.51 4.00 51.24 4.00 57.28 4.00 50.00 4.00 54.71
4.05 55.07 4.05 55.98 4.05 50.31 4.05 52.58 4.05 54.32 4.05 54.16 4.05 51.80 4.05 57.90 4.05 50.63 4.05 55.69
4.10 55.80 4.10 56.59 4.10 51.08 4.10 53.33 4.10 54.94 4.10 54.81 4.10 52.36 4.10 58.52 4.10 51.27 4.10 56.67
4.15 56.52 4.15 57.20 4.15 51.85 4.15 54.09 4.15 55.56 4.15 55.45 4.15 52.92 4.15 59.14 4.15 51.90 4.15 57.65
4.20 57.25 4.20 57.80 4.20 52.62 4.20 54.85 4.20 56.17 4.20 56.10 4.20 53.48 4.20 59.75 4.20 52.53 4.20 58.63
4.25 57.97 4.25 58.41 4.25 53.38 4.25 55.61 4.25 56.79 4.25 56.75 4.25 54.04 4.25 60.37 4.25 53.16 4.25 59.61
4.30 58.70 4.30 59.02 4.30 54.15 4.30 56.36 4.30 57.41 4.30 57.40 4.30 54.61 4.30 60.99 4.30 53.80 4.30 60.59
4.35 59.42 4.35 59.63 4.35 54.92 4.35 57.12 4.35 58.02 4.35 58.05 4.35 55.17 4.35 61.60 4.35 54.43 4.35 61.57
4.40 60.14 4.40 60.24 4.40 55.69 4.40 57.88 4.40 58.64 4.40 58.70 4.40 55.73 4.40 62.22 4.40 55.06 4.40 62.55
4.45 60.87 4.45 60.85 4.45 56.46 4.45 58.64 4.45 59.26 4.45 59.35 4.45 56.29 4.45 62.84 4.45 55.70 4.45 63.53
4.50 61.59 4.50 61.46 4.50 57.23 4.50 59.39 4.50 59.88 4.50 60.00 4.50 56.85 4.50 63.46 4.50 56.33 4.50 64.51
4.55 62.32 4.55 62.07 4.55 58.00 4.55 60.15 4.55 60.49 4.55 60.65 4.55 57.42 4.55 64.07 4.55 56.96 4.55 65.49
4.60 63.04 4.60 62.68 4.60 58.77 4.60 60.91 4.60 61.11 4.60 61.30 4.60 57.98 4.60 64.69 4.60 57.59 4.60 66.47
4.65 63.77 4.65 63.29 4.65 59.54 4.65 61.67 4.65 61.73 4.65 61.95 4.65 58.54 4.65 65.31 4.65 58.23 4.65 67.45
4.70 64.49 4.70 63.90 4.70 60.31 4.70 62.42 4.70 62.35 4.70 62.60 4.70 59.10 4.70 65.93 4.70 58.86 4.70 68.43
4.75 65.22 4.75 64.51 4.75 61.08 4.75 63.18 4.75 62.96 4.75 63.25 4.75 59.66 4.75 66.54 4.75 59.49 4.75 69.41
4.80 65.94 4.80 65.12 4.80 61.85 4.80 63.94 4.80 63.58 4.80 63.90 4.80 60.22 4.80 67.16 4.80 60.13 4.80 70.39
4.85 66.67 4.85 65.73 4.85 62.62 4.85 64.70 4.85 64.20 4.85 64.55 4.85 60.79 4.85 67.78 4.85 60.76 4.85 71.37
4.90 67.39 4.90 66.34 4.90 63.38 4.90 65.45 4.90 64.81 4.90 65.19 4.90 61.35 4.90 68.40 4.90 61.39 4.90 72.35
4.95 68.12 4.95 66.95 4.95 64.15 4.95 66.21 4.95 65.43 4.95 65.84 4.95 61.91 4.95 69.01 4.95 62.03 4.95 73.33
5.00 68.84 5.00 67.56 5.00 64.92 5.00 66.97 5.00 66.05 5.00 66.49 5.00 62.47 5.00 69.63 5.00 62.66 5.00 74.31

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 55
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA

LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.28 M=3.79 M=3.79 M=3.67 M=3.74 M=3.90 M=3.69 M=4.42 M=3.78
SD=.57 SD=.69 SD=.61 SD=.62 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.88 SD=.78 SD=.52 SD=.43
1.00 2.63 1.00 16.96 1.00 4.26 1.00 5.00 1.00 7.62 1.00 5.08 1.00 17.05 1.00 15.51 1.00 0 1.00 0
1.05 3.51 1.05 17.68 1.05 5.08 1.05 5.81 1.05 8.41 1.05 5.90 1.05 17.61 1.05 16.15 1.05 0 1.05 0
1.10 4.39 1.10 18.41 1.10 5.90 1.10 6.61 1.10 9.21 1.10 6.72 1.10 18.18 1.10 16.79 1.10 0 1.10 0
1.15 5.26 1.15 19.13 1.15 6.72 1.15 7.42 1.15 10.00 1.15 7.54 1.15 18.75 1.15 17.44 1.15 0 1.15 0
1.20 6.14 1.20 19.86 1.20 7.54 1.20 8.23 1.20 10.79 1.20 8.36 1.20 19.32 1.20 18.08 1.20 0 1.20 0
1.25 7.02 1.25 20.58 1.25 8.36 1.25 9.03 1.25 11.59 1.25 9.18 1.25 19.89 1.25 18.72 1.25 0 1.25 0
1.30 7.89 1.30 21.30 1.30 9.18 1.30 9.84 1.30 12.38 1.30 10.00 1.30 20.45 1.30 19.36 1.30 0 1.30 0
1.35 8.77 1.35 22.03 1.35 10.00 1.35 10.65 1.35 13.17 1.35 10.82 1.35 21.02 1.35 20.00 1.35 0 1.35 0
1.40 9.65 1.40 22.75 1.40 10.82 1.40 11.45 1.40 13.97 1.40 11.64 1.40 21.59 1.40 20.64 1.40 0 1.40 0
1.45 10.53 1.45 23.48 1.45 11.64 1.45 12.26 1.45 14.76 1.45 12.46 1.45 22.16 1.45 21.28 1.45 0 1.45 0
1.50 11.40 1.50 24.20 1.50 12.46 1.50 13.06 1.50 15.56 1.50 13.28 1.50 22.73 1.50 21.92 1.50 0 1.50 0
1.55 12.28 1.55 24.93 1.55 13.28 1.55 13.87 1.55 16.35 1.55 14.10 1.55 23.30 1.55 22.56 1.55 0 1.55 0
1.60 13.16 1.60 25.65 1.60 14.10 1.60 14.68 1.60 17.14 1.60 14.92 1.60 23.86 1.60 23.21 1.60 0 1.60 0
1.65 14.04 1.65 26.38 1.65 14.92 1.65 15.48 1.65 17.94 1.65 15.74 1.65 24.43 1.65 23.85 1.65 0 1.65 0.47
1.70 14.91 1.70 27.10 1.70 15.74 1.70 16.29 1.70 18.73 1.70 16.56 1.70 25.00 1.70 24.49 1.70 0 1.70 1.63
1.75 15.79 1.75 27.83 1.75 16.56 1.75 17.10 1.75 19.52 1.75 17.38 1.75 25.57 1.75 25.13 1.75 0 1.75 2.79
1.80 16.67 1.80 28.55 1.80 17.38 1.80 17.90 1.80 20.32 1.80 18.20 1.80 26.14 1.80 25.77 1.80 0 1.80 3.95
1.85 17.54 1.85 29.28 1.85 18.20 1.85 18.71 1.85 21.11 1.85 19.02 1.85 26.70 1.85 26.41 1.85 0.58 1.85 5.12
1.90 18.42 1.90 30.00 1.90 19.02 1.90 19.52 1.90 21.90 1.90 19.84 1.90 27.27 1.90 27.05 1.90 1.54 1.90 6.28
1.95 19.30 1.95 30.72 1.95 19.84 1.95 20.32 1.95 22.70 1.95 20.66 1.95 27.84 1.95 27.69 1.95 2.50 1.95 7.44
Note that negative T-scores have been fixed to zero

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 56
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA cont.

LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.28 M=3.79 M=3.79 M=3.67 M=3.74 M=3.90 M=3.69 M=4.42 M=3.78
SD=.57 SD=.69 SD=.61 SD=.62 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.88 SD=.78 SD=.52 SD=.43
2.00 20.18 2.00 31.45 2.00 20.66 2.00 21.13 2.00 23.49 2.00 21.48 2.00 28.41 2.00 28.33 2.00 3.46 2.00 8.60
2.05 21.05 2.05 32.17 2.05 21.48 2.05 21.94 2.05 24.29 2.05 22.30 2.05 28.98 2.05 28.97 2.05 4.42 2.05 9.77
2.10 21.93 2.10 32.90 2.10 22.30 2.10 22.74 2.10 25.08 2.10 23.11 2.10 29.55 2.10 29.62 2.10 5.38 2.10 10.93
2.15 22.81 2.15 33.62 2.15 23.11 2.15 23.55 2.15 25.87 2.15 23.93 2.15 30.11 2.15 30.26 2.15 6.35 2.15 12.09
2.20 23.68 2.20 34.35 2.20 23.93 2.20 24.35 2.20 26.67 2.20 24.75 2.20 30.68 2.20 30.90 2.20 7.31 2.20 13.26
2.25 24.56 2.25 35.07 2.25 24.75 2.25 25.16 2.25 27.46 2.25 25.57 2.25 31.25 2.25 31.54 2.25 8.27 2.25 14.42
2.30 25.44 2.30 35.80 2.30 25.57 2.30 25.97 2.30 28.25 2.30 26.39 2.30 31.82 2.30 32.18 2.30 9.23 2.30 15.58
2.35 26.32 2.35 36.52 2.35 26.39 2.35 26.77 2.35 29.05 2.35 27.21 2.35 32.39 2.35 32.82 2.35 10.19 2.35 16.74
2.40 27.19 2.40 37.25 2.40 27.21 2.40 27.58 2.40 29.84 2.40 28.03 2.40 32.95 2.40 33.46 2.40 11.15 2.40 17.91
2.45 28.07 2.45 37.97 2.45 28.03 2.45 28.39 2.45 30.63 2.45 28.85 2.45 33.52 2.45 34.10 2.45 12.12 2.45 19.07
2.50 28.95 2.50 38.70 2.50 28.85 2.50 29.19 2.50 31.43 2.50 29.67 2.50 34.09 2.50 34.74 2.50 13.08 2.50 20.23
2.55 29.82 2.55 39.42 2.55 29.67 2.55 30.00 2.55 32.22 2.55 30.49 2.55 34.66 2.55 35.38 2.55 14.04 2.55 21.40
2.60 30.70 2.60 40.14 2.60 30.49 2.60 30.81 2.60 33.02 2.60 31.31 2.60 35.23 2.60 36.03 2.60 15.00 2.60 22.56
2.65 31.58 2.65 40.87 2.65 31.31 2.65 31.61 2.65 33.81 2.65 32.13 2.65 35.80 2.65 36.67 2.65 15.96 2.65 23.72
2.70 32.46 2.70 41.59 2.70 32.13 2.70 32.42 2.70 34.60 2.70 32.95 2.70 36.36 2.70 37.31 2.70 16.92 2.70 24.88
2.75 33.33 2.75 42.32 2.75 32.95 2.75 33.23 2.75 35.40 2.75 33.77 2.75 36.93 2.75 37.95 2.75 17.88 2.75 26.05
2.80 34.21 2.80 43.04 2.80 33.77 2.80 34.03 2.80 36.19 2.80 34.59 2.80 37.50 2.80 38.59 2.80 18.85 2.80 27.21
2.85 35.09 2.85 43.77 2.85 34.59 2.85 34.84 2.85 36.98 2.85 35.41 2.85 38.07 2.85 39.23 2.85 19.81 2.85 28.37
2.90 35.96 2.90 44.49 2.90 35.41 2.90 35.65 2.90 37.78 2.90 36.23 2.90 38.64 2.90 39.87 2.90 20.77 2.90 29.53
2.95 36.84 2.95 45.22 2.95 36.23 2.95 36.45 2.95 38.57 2.95 37.05 2.95 39.20 2.95 40.51 2.95 21.73 2.95 30.70

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 57
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA cont.

LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.28 M=3.79 M=3.79 M=3.67 M=3.74 M=3.90 M=3.69 M=4.42 M=3.78
SD=.57 SD=.69 SD=.61 SD=.62 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.88 SD=.78 SD=.52 SD=.43
3.00 37.72 3.00 45.94 3.00 37.05 3.00 37.26 3.00 39.37 3.00 37.87 3.00 39.77 3.00 41.15 3.00 22.69 3.00 31.86
3.05 38.60 3.05 46.67 3.05 37.87 3.05 38.06 3.05 40.16 3.05 38.69 3.05 40.34 3.05 41.79 3.05 23.65 3.05 33.02
3.10 39.47 3.10 47.39 3.10 38.69 3.10 38.87 3.10 40.95 3.10 39.51 3.10 40.91 3.10 42.44 3.10 24.62 3.10 34.19
3.15 40.35 3.15 48.12 3.15 39.51 3.15 39.68 3.15 41.75 3.15 40.33 3.15 41.48 3.15 43.08 3.15 25.58 3.15 35.35
3.20 41.23 3.20 48.84 3.20 40.33 3.20 40.48 3.20 42.54 3.20 41.15 3.20 42.05 3.20 43.72 3.20 26.54 3.20 36.51
3.25 42.11 3.25 49.57 3.25 41.15 3.25 41.29 3.25 43.33 3.25 41.97 3.25 42.61 3.25 44.36 3.25 27.50 3.25 37.67
3.30 42.98 3.30 50.29 3.30 41.97 3.30 42.10 3.30 44.13 3.30 42.79 3.30 43.18 3.30 45.00 3.30 28.46 3.30 38.84
3.35 43.86 3.35 51.01 3.35 42.79 3.35 42.90 3.35 44.92 3.35 43.61 3.35 43.75 3.35 45.64 3.35 29.42 3.35 40.00
3.40 44.74 3.40 51.74 3.40 43.61 3.40 43.71 3.40 45.71 3.40 44.43 3.40 44.32 3.40 46.28 3.40 30.38 3.40 41.16
3.45 45.61 3.45 52.46 3.45 44.43 3.45 44.52 3.45 46.51 3.45 45.25 3.45 44.89 3.45 46.92 3.45 31.35 3.45 42.33
3.50 46.49 3.50 53.19 3.50 45.25 3.50 45.32 3.50 47.30 3.50 46.07 3.50 45.45 3.50 47.56 3.50 32.31 3.50 43.49
3.55 47.37 3.55 53.91 3.55 46.07 3.55 46.13 3.55 48.10 3.55 46.89 3.55 46.02 3.55 48.21 3.55 33.27 3.55 44.65
3.60 48.25 3.60 54.64 3.60 46.89 3.60 46.94 3.60 48.89 3.60 47.70 3.60 46.59 3.60 48.85 3.60 34.23 3.60 45.81
3.65 49.12 3.65 55.36 3.65 47.70 3.65 47.74 3.65 49.68 3.65 48.52 3.65 47.16 3.65 49.49 3.65 35.19 3.65 46.98
3.70 50.00 3.70 56.09 3.70 48.52 3.70 48.55 3.70 50.48 3.70 49.34 3.70 47.73 3.70 50.13 3.70 36.15 3.70 48.14
3.75 50.88 3.75 56.81 3.75 49.34 3.75 49.35 3.75 51.27 3.75 50.16 3.75 48.30 3.75 50.77 3.75 37.12 3.75 49.30
3.80 51.75 3.80 57.54 3.80 50.16 3.80 50.16 3.80 52.06 3.80 50.98 3.80 48.86 3.80 51.41 3.80 38.08 3.80 50.47
3.85 52.63 3.85 58.26 3.85 50.98 3.85 50.97 3.85 52.86 3.85 51.80 3.85 49.43 3.85 52.05 3.85 39.04 3.85 51.63
3.90 53.51 3.90 58.99 3.90 51.80 3.90 51.77 3.90 53.65 3.90 52.62 3.90 50.00 3.90 52.69 3.90 40.00 3.90 52.79
3.95 54.39 3.95 59.71 3.95 52.62 3.95 52.58 3.95 54.44 3.95 53.44 3.95 50.57 3.95 53.33 3.95 40.96 3.95 53.95

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 58
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA cont.

LONG DISPOSITIONAL YOGA

Challenge Merge Goal Unambiguous Concentrate Control Self-conscious Time Autotelic Flow
Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=3.70 M=3.28 M=3.79 M=3.79 M=3.67 M=3.74 M=3.90 M=3.69 M=4.42 M=3.78
SD=.57 SD=.69 SD=.61 SD=.62 SD=.63 SD=.61 SD=.88 SD=.78 SD=.52 SD=.43
4.00 55.26 4.00 60.43 4.00 53.44 4.00 53.39 4.00 55.24 4.00 54.26 4.00 51.14 4.00 53.97 4.00 41.92 4.00 55.12
4.05 56.14 4.05 61.16 4.05 54.26 4.05 54.19 4.05 56.03 4.05 55.08 4.05 51.70 4.05 54.62 4.05 42.88 4.05 56.28
4.10 57.02 4.10 61.88 4.10 55.08 4.10 55.00 4.10 56.83 4.10 55.90 4.10 52.27 4.10 55.26 4.10 43.85 4.10 57.44
4.15 57.89 4.15 62.61 4.15 55.90 4.15 55.81 4.15 57.62 4.15 56.72 4.15 52.84 4.15 55.90 4.15 44.81 4.15 58.60
4.20 58.77 4.20 63.33 4.20 56.72 4.20 56.61 4.20 58.41 4.20 57.54 4.20 53.41 4.20 56.54 4.20 45.77 4.20 59.77
4.25 59.65 4.25 64.06 4.25 57.54 4.25 57.42 4.25 59.21 4.25 58.36 4.25 53.98 4.25 57.18 4.25 46.73 4.25 60.93
4.30 60.53 4.30 64.78 4.30 58.36 4.30 58.23 4.30 60.00 4.30 59.18 4.30 54.55 4.30 57.82 4.30 47.69 4.30 62.09
4.35 61.40 4.35 65.51 4.35 59.18 4.35 59.03 4.35 60.79 4.35 60.00 4.35 55.11 4.35 58.46 4.35 48.65 4.35 63.26
4.40 62.28 4.40 66.23 4.40 60.00 4.40 59.84 4.40 61.59 4.40 60.82 4.40 55.68 4.40 59.10 4.40 49.62 4.40 64.42
4.45 63.16 4.45 66.96 4.45 60.82 4.45 60.65 4.45 62.38 4.45 61.64 4.45 56.25 4.45 59.74 4.45 50.58 4.45 65.58
4.50 64.04 4.50 67.68 4.50 61.64 4.50 61.45 4.50 63.17 4.50 62.46 4.50 56.82 4.50 60.38 4.50 51.54 4.50 66.74
4.55 64.91 4.55 68.41 4.55 62.46 4.55 62.26 4.55 63.97 4.55 63.28 4.55 57.39 4.55 61.03 4.55 52.50 4.55 67.91
4.60 65.79 4.60 69.13 4.60 63.28 4.60 63.06 4.60 64.76 4.60 64.10 4.60 57.95 4.60 61.67 4.60 53.46 4.60 69.07
4.65 66.67 4.65 69.86 4.65 64.10 4.65 63.87 4.65 65.56 4.65 64.92 4.65 58.52 4.65 62.31 4.65 54.42 4.65 70.23
4.70 67.54 4.70 70.58 4.70 64.92 4.70 64.68 4.70 66.35 4.70 65.74 4.70 59.09 4.70 62.95 4.70 55.38 4.70 71.40
4.75 68.42 4.75 71.30 4.75 65.74 4.75 65.48 4.75 67.14 4.75 66.56 4.75 59.66 4.75 63.59 4.75 56.35 4.75 72.56
4.80 69.30 4.80 72.03 4.80 66.56 4.80 66.29 4.80 67.94 4.80 67.38 4.80 60.23 4.80 64.23 4.80 57.31 4.80 73.72
4.85 70.18 4.85 72.75 4.85 67.38 4.85 67.10 4.85 68.73 4.85 68.20 4.85 60.80 4.85 64.87 4.85 58.27 4.85 74.88
4.90 71.05 4.90 73.48 4.90 68.20 4.90 67.90 4.90 69.52 4.90 69.02 4.90 61.36 4.90 65.51 4.90 59.23 4.90 76.05
4.95 71.93 4.95 74.20 4.95 69.02 4.95 68.71 4.95 70.32 4.95 69.84 4.95 61.93 4.95 66.15 4.95 60.19 4.95 77.21
5.00 72.81 5.00 74.93 5.00 69.84 5.00 69.52 5.00 71.11 5.00 70.66 5.00 62.50 5.00 66.79 5.00 61.15 5.00 78.37

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 59
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: CORE AND SHORT

Extracurricular CORE Physical SHORT DFS Physical SHORT FSS

Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=4.41 M=3.82 M=3.77
SD=.59 SD=.49 SD=.56
1.00 0 1.00 0 1.00 0.54
1.05 0 1.05 0 1.05 1.43
1.10 0 1.10 0 1.10 2.32
1.15 0 1.15 0 1.15 3.21
1.20 0 1.20 0 1.20 4.11
1.25 0 1.25 0 1.25 5.00
1.30 0 1.30 0 1.30 5.89
1.35 0 1.35 0 1.35 6.79
1.40 0 1.40 0.61 1.40 7.68
1.45 0 1.45 1.63 1.45 8.57
1.50 0.68 1.50 2.65 1.50 9.46
1.55 1.53 1.55 3.67 1.55 10.36
1.60 2.37 1.60 4.69 1.60 11.25
1.65 3.22 1.65 5.71 1.65 12.14
1.70 4.07 1.70 6.73 1.70 13.04
1.75 4.92 1.75 7.76 1.75 13.93
1.80 5.76 1.80 8.78 1.80 14.82
1.85 6.61 1.85 9.80 1.85 15.71
1.90 7.46 1.90 10.82 1.90 16.61
1.95 8.31 1.95 11.84 1.95 17.50
2.00 9.15 2.00 12.86 2.00 18.39
2.05 10.00 2.05 13.88 2.05 19.29
2.10 10.85 2.10 14.90 2.10 20.18
2.15 11.69 2.15 15.92 2.15 21.07
2.20 12.54 2.20 16.94 2.20 21.96
2.25 13.39 2.25 17.96 2.25 22.86
2.30 14.24 2.30 18.98 2.30 23.75
2.35 15.08 2.35 20.00 2.35 24.64
2.40 15.93 2.40 21.02 2.40 25.54
2.45 16.78 2.45 22.04 2.45 26.43
Note that negative T-scores have been fixed to zero

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 60
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: CORE AND SHORT
cont.

Extracurricular CORE Physical SHORT DFS Physical SHORT FSS

Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=4.41 M=3.82 M=3.77
SD=.59 SD=.49 SD=.56
2.50 17.63 2.50 23.06 2.50 27.32
2.55 18.47 2.55 24.08 2.55 28.21
2.60 19.32 2.60 25.10 2.60 29.11
2.65 20.17 2.65 26.12 2.65 30.00
2.70 21.02 2.70 27.14 2.70 30.89
2.75 21.86 2.75 28.16 2.75 31.79
2.80 22.71 2.80 29.18 2.80 32.68
2.85 23.56 2.85 30.20 2.85 33.57
2.90 24.41 2.90 31.22 2.90 34.46
2.95 25.25 2.95 32.24 2.95 35.36
3.00 26.10 3.00 33.27 3.00 36.25
3.05 26.95 3.05 34.29 3.05 37.14
3.10 27.80 3.10 35.31 3.10 38.04
3.15 28.64 3.15 36.33 3.15 38.93
3.20 29.49 3.20 37.35 3.20 39.82
3.25 30.34 3.25 38.37 3.25 40.71
3.30 31.19 3.30 39.39 3.30 41.61
3.35 32.03 3.35 40.41 3.35 42.50
3.40 32.88 3.40 41.43 3.40 43.39
3.45 33.73 3.45 42.45 3.45 44.29
3.50 34.58 3.50 43.47 3.50 45.18
3.55 35.42 3.55 44.49 3.55 46.07
3.60 36.27 3.60 45.51 3.60 46.96
3.65 37.12 3.65 46.53 3.65 47.86
3.70 37.97 3.70 47.55 3.70 48.75
3.75 38.81 3.75 48.57 3.75 49.64
3.80 39.66 3.80 49.59 3.80 50.54
3.85 40.51 3.85 50.61 3.85 51.43
3.90 41.36 3.90 51.63 3.90 52.32
3.95 42.20 3.95 52.65 3.95 53.21

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 61
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

b) Standardized scoring tables for selected flow scales: CORE AND SHORT
cont.

Extracurricular CORE Physical SHORT DFS Physical SHORT FSS

Raw T Raw T Raw T
M=4.41 M=3.82 M=3.77
SD=.59 SD=.49 SD=.56
4.00 43.05 4.00 53.67 4.00 54.11
4.05 43.90 4.05 54.69 4.05 55.00
4.10 44.75 4.10 55.71 4.10 55.89
4.15 45.59 4.15 56.73 4.15 56.79
4.20 46.44 4.20 57.76 4.20 57.68
4.25 47.29 4.25 58.78 4.25 58.57
4.30 48.14 4.30 59.80 4.30 59.46
4.35 48.98 4.35 60.82 4.35 60.36
4.40 49.83 4.40 61.84 4.40 61.25
4.45 50.68 4.45 62.86 4.45 62.14
4.50 51.53 4.50 63.88 4.50 63.04
4.55 52.37 4.55 64.90 4.55 63.93
4.60 53.22 4.60 65.92 4.60 64.82
4.65 54.07 4.65 66.94 4.65 65.71
4.70 54.92 4.70 67.96 4.70 66.61
4.75 55.76 4.75 68.98 4.75 67.50
4.80 56.61 4.80 70.00 4.80 68.39
4.85 57.46 4.85 71.02 4.85 69.29
4.90 58.31 4.90 72.04 4.90 70.18
4.95 59.15 4.95 73.06 4.95 71.07
5.00 60.00 5.00 74.08 5.00 71.96

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 62
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

References
BBC World-Click Online (2002).
http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonline_archive_30_2002.asp.pageid=666&
co_pageid=3 Retrieved July 25, 2002.
Begly, G. (1979). A self-report measure to assess flow in physical activities.
Unpublished masters thesis. Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen,
K.A. & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park.
California: Sage.
Chan, T.S., & Repman, J. (1999). Flow in web based instructional activity: An
exploratory research project. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 5, 225-237.
Cronbach, L.J. (1989). Construct validity after thirty years. In R.E. Linn. (Ed.).
Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy: Proceedings of a
symposium in honor of Lloyd G. Humphreys. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with
everyday life. New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (Eds.) (1988). Optimal experience:
Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M. & Rubin, D.B. (1977) Maximum likelihood estimation from
incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
Series B, 39, 1-38.
Fournier, J., Gaudreau, P., Demontrond-Behr, P., Visioli, J., Forrest, J., & Jackson, S.A.
(2007). French translation of the Flow State Scale-2: Factor structure, cross-
cultural invariance, and associations with goal attainment. Psychology of Sport &
Exercise, 8, 897-916.
Gauvin, L., & Rejeski, W.J. (1993). The Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory:
Development and initial validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15,
403-23.
Graham, J.W. & Hofer, S.M. (1995). Covariance estimation with missing values: An
application of the EM algorithm. [Online]. Available:
ftp://ftp.cac.psu.edu/pub/people/jwg4/dos/emcov.txt
Grove, J.R., Eklund, R.C., & Heard, N.P. (1997). Coping with performance slumps:
Factor analysis of the Ways of Coping in Sport Scale. Australian Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 29, 99-105.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 63
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the Situational Motivation Scale. Motivation and
Emotion, 24, 175-213.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Heppner, P.P., Kivlighan, D.M., Wampold, B.E. (1992). Research design in counseling.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Hoyle, R.H., & Panter, A.T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R.H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications
(pp.158-176). London: Sage Publications.
Jackson, S.A. (1992). Athletes in flow: A qualitative investigation of flow states in elite
figure skaters. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4, 161-180.
Jackson, S.A. (1993). Elite athletes in flow: The psychology of optimal sport experience.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina-Greensboro.
Jackson, S.A. (1995). Factors influencing the occurrence of flow states in elite athletes.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 135-163.
Jackson, S.A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite
athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 76-90.
Jackson, S.A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal
experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, S.A., & Eklund, R.C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The FSS-2
and DFS-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 133-150.
Jackson, S.A., & Eklund, R.C. (2004). The flow scales manual. West Virginia: Fitness
Information Technology.
Jackson, S.A., Kimiecik, J., Ford, S., & Marsh, H.W. (1998). Psychological
correlates of flow in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 358-378.
Jackson, S.A., & Marsh, H.W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to
measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 18, 17-35.
Jackson, S.A., Martin, A.J., & Eklund, R.C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow:
Examining construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 561-587.
Jackson S.A. & Roberts, G.C. (1992). Positive performance states of athletes: Toward a
conceptual understanding of peak performance. The Sport Psychologist, 6,156-
171.
Jackson, S.A., Thomas, P.R., Marsh, H.W., & Smethurst, C.J. (2001). Relationships
between flow, self-concept, psychological skills, and performance. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 154-178.
Karageorghis, C.I., Vlachopoulos, S.P., & Terry, P.C. (2000). Latent variable modelling
of the relationship between flow and exercise-induced feelings: An intuitive
appraisal perspective. European Physical Education, 6, 230-248.
Kawabata, M., Mallett, C., & Jackson, S.A. (2007). The Flow State Scale-2 and
Dispositional Flow Scale-2: Examination of factorial validity and reliability for
Japanese adults. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 465-485.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 64
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Kenny, D.A., & McCoach, D.B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of
fit in structural equation modelling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333-351.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from
self-determination theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 355-368.
Marsh, H. W. (1997). The measurement of physical self-concept: A construct validation
approach. In K. Fox (Ed.), The physical self-concept: From motivation to well-being (pp.
27-58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Marsh, H. W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept: A construct validity
approach to theory, measurement, and research. Psychology: The Journal of the
Hellenic Psychological Society, 9, 459-493.
Marsh, H.W., Hey, J., Johnson, S., & Perry, C. (1997). Elite Athlete Self-Description
Questionnaire: Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of responses by two
distinct groups of elite athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28,
237-258.
Marsh, H.W., & Jackson, S.A. (1999). Flow experiences in sport: Construct validation of
multidimensional hierarchical state and trait responses. Structural Equation
Modelling, 6, 343-71.
Martin, A.J., & Jackson, S.A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and
enhanced subjective experience: Examining ‘Short’ and ‘Core’ Flow in diverse
performance domains. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 141-157.
Martin, A.J., Tipler, D.V., Marsh, H.W., Richards, G.E., & Williams. M.R. (2006).
Assessing multidimensional physical activity motivation: A construct validity study
of high-school students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 171-192.
McAuley, E., & Courneya, K. S. (1994). The subjective exercise experience scale:
Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 16, 163-177.
Pelletier, L.G., Fortier, M.S., Vallerand, R.J., Tuson, K.M., Briere, 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, 25-53.
Privette, G., (1984). Experience questionnaire. Pensacola: University of West Florida.
Privette, G., & Bundrick, C.M. (1991). Peak experience, peak performance, and flow.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 169-188.
Seligman, M.E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz, R.W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-
specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The sport anxiety scale. Anxiety
Research, 2, 263-280.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983) Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stavrou, N.Α., & Zervas, Y. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of Flow State Scale in
sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 161-181.
Tenenbaum, G., Fogarty, G.J., & Jackson, S.A. (1999). The flow experience: A Rasch
analysis of Jackson’s Flow State Scale. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3,
278-294.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 65
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Thomas, P.R., Murphy, S.M., & Hardy, L. (1999). Test of performance strategies:
Development and preliminary validation of a comprehensive measure of athletes’
psychological skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 697-711.
Vlachopoulos, S.P., Karageorghis, C.I., & Terry, P.C. (2000). Hierarchical confirmatory
factor analysis of the Flow State Scale in exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences,
18, 815-823.
Wothke, W. (2000). Longitudinal and multigroup modeling with missing data. In T.D.
Little, K. Schnabel, J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data:
Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wrigley, W.J., (2005), An examination of ecological factors in music performance
assessment. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University, Brisbane.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 66
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

About the Authors

Susan A. Jackson (www.bodyandmindflow.com) is internationally recognized as
having made significant contributions to the development of flow research,
particularly in sport and performance settings. Having a strong interest in flow
since first researching the concept in the late 1980s, Sue has published widely
on the topic, including numerous scholarly articles and a book for lay audiences,
Flow in Sports: The Keys to Optimal Experiences and Performances, co-
authored with the founder of flow theory, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. This FLOW
manual represents the current stage of the research that Sue and colleagues
have undertaken on developing and validating self-report instruments to assess
flow. Sue is a registered psychologist, and consults in the sport and performance
psychology area. She is also a qualified yoga teacher, and freelance writer and
editor.
Robert C. Eklund (http://www.epls.fsu.edu/faculty_index.htm) was involved in the
development of the revised flow scales (Jackson & Eklund, 2002). He also
worked extensively on the evaluation of psychometric properties of other
inventories commonly employed in sport and exercise psychology including the
Athlete Burnout Inventory (e.g., Cresswell & Eklund, 2006), Social Physique
Anxiety Scale (e.g., Eklund, Mack, & Hart, 1996; Maïano, Morin, Eklund, R.C.,
Monthuy-Blanc, Garbarino, & Stephan, 2010), the Physical Self Perception
Profile (e.g., Eklund, Whitehead, & Welk, 1997), the Causal Dimension Scale-II
(Crocker, Eklund, & Graham, 2002), and inventories employed to evaluate
coping strategies (Eklund, Grove, & Heard, 1998; Grove, Eklund & Heard, 1997).
While widely published, Bob has also been active in editorial roles in the field. In
addition to being the current editor-in-chief of the Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, Bob is a past associate/section editor for Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, and the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. Bob currently
serves on the editorial boards of other sport and exercise psychology journals.
Andrew J. Martin (http://fdp.edsw.usyd.edu.au/users/amartin) is Professorial Research
Fellow and Australian Research Council Future Fellow (2010-2014) at the
University of Sydney specializing in motivation, engagement, achievement, and
quantitative research methods. He is also a Registered Psychologist. Andrew is
recognized for psychological and educational research in achievement motivation
and for the quantitative methods he brings to the study of applied phenomena
(including sport and exercise psychology). Based on International Rankings of
the Most Productive Educational Psychologists (2003-2008), Andrew is 9th most
published across all peer reviewed journals and the most highly published
researcher from an Australian university across all peer reviewed journals
(Source: Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology, in press). He is
Associate Editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology and Associate Editor
of the British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 67
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Appendices
The Flow Scales

a. LONG Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2)-Physical

b. LONG Flow State Scale (FSS-2)-Physical
c. LONG Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2)-General
d. LONG Flow State Scale (FSS-2)-General
e. SHORT Dispositional Flow Scale (S DFS-2)
f. SHORT Flow State Scale (S FSS-2)
g. CORE Dispositional Flow Scale (C DFS-2)
h. CORE Flow State Scale (C FSS-2)

Scoring the Flow Scales

i. Scoring LONG Flow Dispositional

j. Scoring LONG Flow State
k. Scoring SHORT Flow SDFS-2
l. Scoring SFSS-2
m. Scoring the CORE DFS-2 & CORE FSS-2

Flow Scales, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 68
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

LONG Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2)–Physical

Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in your chosen activity. These questions relate to the thoughts and
feelings you may experience during participation in your activity. You may experience these characteristics some of the time, all of the time,
or none of the time. There are no right or wrong answers. Think about how often you experience each characteristic during your activity, then
circle the number that best matches your experience.

When participating in: __________________________

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
(Name Event/Activity)

I am challenged, but I believe my skills will allow me to

1 1 2 3 4 5
meet the challenge
I make the correct movements without thinking about
2 trying to do so 1 2 3 4 5

3 I know clearly what I want to do 1 2 3 4 5

It is really clear to me how my performance is going
4 1 2 3 4 5

5 My attention is focused entirely on what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

6 I have a sense of control over what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

I am not concerned with what others may be thinking of

7 1 2 3 4 5
me
Time seems to alter
8 1 2 3 4 5
(either slows down or speeds up)

9 I really enjoy the experience 1 2 3 4 5

10 My abilities match the high challenge of the situation 1 2 3 4 5

11 Things just seem to happen automatically 1 2 3 4 5

12 I have a strong sense of what I want to do 1 2 3 4 5

I am aware of how well I am
13 performing 1 2 3 4 5

14 It is no effort to keep my mind on what is happening 1 2 3 4 5

15 I feel like I can control what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

I am not concerned with how others may be evaluating

16 1 2 3 4 5
me

(DFS-2) - Physical, © 1996, 2001 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 69
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

cont… Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

The way time passes seems to be different from

17 1 2 3 4 5
normal
I love the feeling of the performance and want to
18 1 2 3 4 5
capture it again
I feel I am competent enough to meet the high
19 1 2 3 4 5
demands of the situation
I perform automatically, without thinking too much
20 1 2 3 4 5

21 I know what I want to achieve 1 2 3 4 5

I have a good idea while I am performing about how
22 well I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

23 I have total concentration 1 2 3 4 5

24 I have a feeling of total control 1 2 3 4 5

25 I am not concerned with how I am presenting myself 1 2 3 4 5

26 It feels like time goes by quickly 1 2 3 4 5

27 The experience leaves me feeling great 1 2 3 4 5

28 The challenge and my skills are at an equally high level 1 2 3 4 5

I do things spontaneously and automatically without

29 1 2 3 4 5
having to think

30 My goals are clearly defined 1 2 3 4 5

I can tell by the way I am performing how well I am

31 1 2 3 4 5
doing
32 I am completely focused on the task at hand 1 2 3 4 5

33 I feel in total control of my body 1 2 3 4 5

I am not worried about what others may be thinking of

34 1 2 3 4 5
me
35 I lose my normal awareness of time 1 2 3 4 5

36 The experience is extremely rewarding 1 2 3 4 5

(DFS-2) - Physical, © 1996, 2001 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 70
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

LONG Flow State Scale (FSS-2)–Physical

Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in the event or activity you have just completed. These
questions relate to the thoughts and feelings you may have experienced while taking part. There are no right or wrong answers.
Think about how you felt during the event/activity, then answer the questions using the rating scale below. For each question, circle
the number that best matches your experience.

Neither
During the: __________________________ Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree nor Agree
(Name Event/Activity) Disagree Agree
Disagree

I was challenged, but I believed my skills would

1 1 2 3 4 5
allow me to meet the challenge
I made the correct movements without thinking
2 about trying to do so 1 2 3 4 5

3 I knew clearly what I wanted to do 1 2 3 4 5

It was really clear to me how my performance was
4 going 1 2 3 4 5

My attention was focused entirely on what I was

5 1 2 3 4 5
doing
6 I had a sense of control over what I was doing 1 2 3 4 5

I was not concerned with what others may have

7 1 2 3 4 5
been thinking of me
Time seemed to alter (either slowed down or
8 1 2 3 4 5
speeded up)
9 I really enjoyed the experience 1 2 3 4 5
My abilities matched the high challenge of the
10 1 2 3 4 5
situation
Things just seemed to be happening
11 1 2 3 4 5
automatically
12 I had a strong sense of what I wanted to do 1 2 3 4 5

I was aware of how well I was

13 1 2 3 4 5
performing
It was no effort to keep my mind on what was
14 1 2 3 4 5
happening
15 I felt like I could control what I was doing 1 2 3 4 5

I was not concerned with how others may have

16 1 2 3 4 5
been evaluating me

(FSS-2) - Physical, © 1996, 2001 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 71
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Neither
Strongly Strongly
cont… Disagree Agree nor Agree
Disagree Agree
Disagree
The way time passed seemed to be different from
17 1 2 3 4 5
normal
I loved the feeling of the performance and want to
18 1 2 3 4 5
capture it again
I felt I was competent enough to meet the high
19 1 2 3 4 5
demands of the situation
I performed automatically, without thinking too
20 1 2 3 4 5
much
21 I knew what I wanted to achieve 1 2 3 4 5

I had a good idea while I was performing about

22 1 2 3 4 5
how well I was doing
I had total concentration
23 1 2 3 4 5

24 I had a feeling of total control 1 2 3 4 5

I was not concerned with how I was presenting

25 1 2 3 4 5
myself
26 It felt like time went by quickly 1 2 3 4 5

27 The experience left me feeling great 1 2 3 4 5

The challenge and my skills were at an equally

28 1 2 3 4 5
high level
I did things spontaneously and automatically
29 1 2 3 4 5
without having to think
30 My goals were clearly defined 1 2 3 4 5

I could tell by the way I was performing how well I

31 1 2 3 4 5
was doing
32 I was completely focused on the task at hand 1 2 3 4 5

33 I felt in total control of my body 1 2 3 4 5

I was not worried about what others may have

34 1 2 3 4 5
been thinking of me
35 I lost my normal awareness of time 1 2 3 4 5

36 I found the experience extremely rewarding 1 2 3 4 5

(FSS-2) - Physical, © 1996, 2001 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 72
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

LONG Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2)–General

Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in your chosen activity. These questions relate to the thoughts and
feelings you may experience during participation in your activity. You may experience these characteristics some of the time, all of the
time, or none of the time. There are no right or wrong answers. Think about how often you experience each characteristic during your
activity, then circle the number that best matches your experience.

When participating in: __________________________

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
(Name Event/Activity)

I am challenged, but I believe my skills will allow

1 1 2 3 4 5
me to meet the challenge
I do things correctly without thinking about trying to
2 do so 1 2 3 4 5

3 I know clearly what I want to do 1 2 3 4 5

4 It is really clear to me how I am going 1 2 3 4 5

5 My attention is focused entirely on what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

6 I have a sense of control over what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

I am not concerned with what others may be

7 1 2 3 4 5
thinking of me
Time seems to alter
8 1 2 3 4 5
(either slows down or speeds up)
9 I really enjoy the experience of what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

10 My abilities match the challenge of what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

11 Things just seem to happen automatically 1 2 3 4 5

12 I have a strong sense of what I want to do 1 2 3 4 5

I am aware of how well I am

13 1 2 3 4 5
doing
It is no effort to keep my mind on what is
14 1 2 3 4 5
happening
15 I feel like I can control what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

I am not concerned with how others may be

16 1 2 3 4 5
evaluating me

(DFS-2) - General, © 2009 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 73
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

cont… Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

The way time passes seems to be different from

17 1 2 3 4 5
normal
I love the feeling of what I am doing and want to
18 1 2 3 4 5
capture this feeling again
I feel I am competent enough to meet the demands
19 1 2 3 4 5
of the situation
20 I do things automatically, without thinking too much 1 2 3 4 5
I know what I want to achieve
21 1 2 3 4 5
I have a good idea about how well I am doing
22 while I am involved in the task/activity 1 2 3 4 5

23 I have total concentration 1 2 3 4 5

I have a feeling of total control over what I am

24 1 2 3 4 5
doing
I am not concerned with how I am presenting
25 1 2 3 4 5
myself
26 It feels like time goes by quickly 1 2 3 4 5

27 The experience leaves me feeling great 1 2 3 4 5

The challenge and my skills are at an equally high

28 1 2 3 4 5
level
I do things spontaneously and automatically
29 1 2 3 4 5
without having to think
30 My goals are clearly defined 1 2 3 4 5

I can tell by the way things are progressing how

31 1 2 3 4 5
well I am doing
32 I am completely focused on the task at hand 1 2 3 4 5

33 I feel in total control of my actions 1 2 3 4 5

I am not worried about what others may be thinking

34 1 2 3 4 5
of me
35 I lose my normal awareness of time 1 2 3 4 5

36 The experience is extremely rewarding 1 2 3 4 5

(DFS-2) - General, © 2009 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 74
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

LONG Flow State Scale (FSS-2)–General

Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in the event or activity you have just completed. These questions
relate to the thoughts and feelings you may have experienced while taking part. There are no right or wrong answers. Think about how you
felt during the event/activity, then answer the questions using the rating scale below. For each question, circle the number that best
matches your experience.

Neither
During the: __________________________ Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree nor Agree
(Name Event/Activity) Disagree Agree
Disagree

I was challenged, but I believed my skills would

1 1 2 3 4 5
allow me to meet the challenge
I did things correctly without thinking about trying to
2 1 2 3 4 5
do so
I knew clearly what I wanted to do
3 1 2 3 4 5

4 It was really clear to me how I was going 1 2 3 4 5

My attention was focused entirely on what I was

5 1 2 3 4 5
doing

6 I had a sense of control over what I was doing 1 2 3 4 5

I was not concerned with what others may have

7 1 2 3 4 5
been thinking of me
Time seemed to alter (either slowed down or
8 1 2 3 4 5
speeded up)
9 I really enjoyed the experience of what I was doing 1 2 3 4 5

My abilities matched the challenge of what I was

10 1 2 3 4 5
doing

11 Things just seemed to be happening automatically 1 2 3 4 5

12 I had a strong sense of what I wanted to do 1 2 3 4 5

13 I was aware of how well I was doing 1 2 3 4 5

It was no effort to keep my mind on what was

14 1 2 3 4 5
happening
15 I felt like I could control what I was doing 1 2 3 4 5

I was not concerned with how others may have

16 1 2 3 4 5
been evaluating me

(FSS-2) - General, © 2009 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 75
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Neither
Strongly Strongly
cont… Disagree
Disagree Agree nor Agree
Agree
Disagree
The way time passed seemed to be different from
17 1 2 3 4 5
normal
I loved the feeling of what I was doing, and want
18 1 2 3 4 5
to capture this feeling again
I felt I was competent enough to meet the
19 1 2 3 4 5
demands of the situation
I did things automatically, without thinking too
20 much 1 2 3 4 5

21 I knew what I wanted to achieve 1 2 3 4 5

I had a good idea about how well I was doing

22 1 2 3 4 5
while I was involved in the task/activity
23 I had total concentration 1 2 3 4 5

I had a feeling of total control over what I was

24 1 2 3 4 5
doing
I was not concerned with how I was presenting
25 1 2 3 4 5
myself
26 It felt like time went by quickly 1 2 3 4 5

27 The experience left me feeling great 1 2 3 4 5

The challenge and my skills were at an equally

28 1 2 3 4 5
high level
I did things spontaneously and automatically
29 1 2 3 4 5
without having to think
30 My goals were clearly defined 1 2 3 4 5

I could tell by the way things were progressing

31 1 2 3 4 5
how well I was doing
32 I was completely focused on the task at hand 1 2 3 4 5

33 I felt in total control of my actions 1 2 3 4 5

I was not worried about what others may have

34 1 2 3 4 5
been thinking of me
35 I lost my normal awareness of time 1 2 3 4 5

36 I found the experience extremely rewarding 1 2 3 4 5

(FSS-2) - General, © 2009 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 76
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

SHORT Dispositional Flow Scale (S DFS)

Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in your chosen activity. These
questions relate to the thoughts and feelings you may experience during participation in your activity.
You may experience these characteristics some of the time, all of the time, or none of the time. There
are no right or wrong answers. Think about how often you experience each characteristic during your
activity, then circle the number that best matches your experience.

In general, when I take part in (name your main activity):_______________________________________

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

I feel I am competent enough to meet the

1 1 2 3 4 5
demands of the situation

I do things spontaneously and automatically

2 1 2 3 4 5
without having to think

3 I have a strong sense of what I want to do 1 2 3 4 5

I have a good idea about how well I am

4 1 2 3 4 5
doing while I am involved in the task/activity

I am completely focused on the task at

5 1 2 3 4 5
hand

I have a feeling of total control over what I

6 1 2 3 4 5
am doing

I am not worried about what others may be

7 1 2 3 4 5
thinking of me

The way time passes seems to be different

8 1 2 3 4 5
from normal

9 The experience is extremely rewarding 1 2 3 4 5

(S DFS-2) © 2002, 2009 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 77
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

SHORT Flow State Scale (S FSS)

Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in the event or activity you have
just completed. These questions relate to the thoughts and feelings you may have experienced while
taking part. There are no right or wrong answers. Think about how you felt during the event/activity,
then answer the questions using the rating scale below. For each question, circle the number that best
matches your experience.

During the event of (name event):_______________________________________________

Neither
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree nor Agree
Disagree Agree
Disagree

1 I felt I was competent enough to meet

1 2 3 4 5
the demands of the situation

2 I did things spontaneously and

1 2 3 4 5
automatically without having to think

3 I had a strong sense of what I wanted

1 2 3 4 5
to do
I had a good idea about how well I
4 was doing while I was involved in the 1 2 3 4 5
task/activity
5 I was completely focused on the task
1 2 3 4 5
at hand

6 I had a feeling of total control over

1 2 3 4 5
what I was doing

7 I was not worried about what others

1 2 3 4 5
may have been thinking of me

8 The way time passed seemed to be

1 2 3 4 5
different from normal

9 I found the experience extremely

1 2 3 4 5
rewarding

(S FSS-2) © 2002, 2009 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 78
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

CORE Dispositional Flow Scale (C DFS)

These questions relate to the thoughts and feelings you may experience during participation in your
main activity. You may experience these characteristics some of the time, all of the time, or none of
the time. There are no right or wrong answers. Think about how often you experience each
characteristic during your activity and circle the number that best matches your experience.

In general, when I take part in (name your main activity):___________________________________________

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

1 I am ‘totally involved’ 1 2 3 4 5

2 It feels like ‘everything clicks’ 1 2 3 4 5

3 I am ‘tuned in’ to what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

4 I am ‘in the zone’ 1 2 3 4 5

5 I feel ‘in control’ 1 2 3 4 5

6 I am ‘switched on’ 1 2 3 4 5

7 It feels like I am ‘in the flow’ of things 1 2 3 4 5

8 It feels like ‘nothing else matters’ 1 2 3 4 5

9 I am ‘in the groove’ 1 2 3 4 5

10 I am ‘totally focused’ on what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

(C DFS-2) © 2006, 2009 Susan A. Jackson and A. J. Martin. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden,
Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 79
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

CORE Flow State Scale (C FSS)

Please answer the following questions in relation to your experience in the event or activity you have
just completed. These questions relate to the thoughts and feelings you may have experienced while
taking part. There are no right or wrong answers. Think about how you felt during the event/activity,
then answer the questions using the rating scale below. For each question, circle the number that best
matches your experience.

During the event of (name event):_______________________________________________

Neither
Strongly Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Disagree nor Agree
Disagree

1 I was ‘totally involved’ 1 2 3 4 5

2 It felt like ‘everything clicked’’ 1 2 3 4 5

3 I was ‘tuned in’ to what I was doing 1 2 3 4 5

4 I was ‘in the zone’ 1 2 3 4 5

5 I felt ‘in control’ 1 2 3 4 5

6 I was ‘switched on’ 1 2 3 4 5

7 It felt like I was ‘in the flow’ of things 1 2 3 4 5

8 It felt like ‘nothing else mattered’’ 1 2 3 4 5

9 I was ‘in the groove’ 1 2 3 4 5

I was ‘totally focused’ on what I was

10 1 2 3 4 5
doing

(C FSS-2) © 2006, 2009 Susan A. Jackson and A. J. Martin. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden,
Inc., www.mindgarden.com
Page 80
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Appendix I: Scoring LONG Flow (Dispositional)

LONG Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2) - Physical

S.A. Jackson, 2001

LONG Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2) - General

S.A. Jackson, 2009

The LONG Dispositional Flow Scales (DFS-2) are designed to be used as a dispositional flow
assessment, with responses indicating the frequency with which flow is experienced in the target activity in
general. Therefore, responses should be given at a time that is not directly associated with taking part in the
activity being assessed.
The title on the questionnaire is “LONG Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2) (Physical or General)”.
Respondents should be directed to answer the scale in relation to their experience in their chosen activity in
general. Instructions for respondents are provided on the first page of the questionnaire.
Scoring of DFS-2 Dimensions
The table below can be used to score the DFS-2. As shown in the Table, there are four items for each of nine
flow dimensions (A) represented in this scale. The item numbers for each dimension are given below (B). Total
the item scores for each dimension (C), and then divide by four, to obtain flow dimension item-average scores
(D). If there are non-responses, average for the number of responses available. A total scale score can also be
obtained by summing the item-average dimension scores. It is recommended that dimension scores be used
where possible, as more detailed information about flow is available via the dimension profile.

A B C D
DFS-2 Dimensions Items Dimension Item- Average
Total Scores
1. Challenge-Skill Balance Q1+Q10+Q19+Q28

2. Merging of Action and Awareness Q2+Q11+Q20+Q29

3. Clear Goals Q3+Q12+Q21+Q30

4. Unambiguous Feedback Q4+Q13+Q22+Q31
5. Concentration on the Task at Hand Q5+Q14+Q23+Q32
6. Sense of Control Q6+Q15+Q24+Q33
7. Loss of Self-Consciousness Q7+Q16+Q25+Q34
8. Transformation of Time Q8+Q17+Q26+Q35
9. Autotelic Experience Q9+Q18+Q27+Q36
Total Scale Score (sum column D)

Flow Scale, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 81
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Appendix J: Scoring LONG Flow (State)

LONG Flow State Scale-2 (FSS-2) - Physical

S.A. Jackson, 2001

LONG Flow State Scale-2 (FSS-2) - General

S.A. Jackson, 2009

The LONG Flow State Scales (FSS-2) are designed to be used as a post-event flow assessment. Therefore,
responses should be given as soon as possible after performance in the activity being assessed.

The title on the questionnaire is “LONG State Flow Scale (FSS-2) (Physical or General)”. Respondents should
be directed to answer the scale in relation to their experience in the activity they have just completed.
Instructions for respondents are provided on the first page of the questionnaire.

Scoring of FSS-2 Dimensions

The table below can be used to score the FSS-2. As shown in the Table, there are four items for each of nine
flow dimensions (A) represented in this scale. The item numbers for each dimension are given below (B). Total
the item scores for each dimension (C), and then divide by four, to obtain flow dimension item-average scores
(D). If there are non-responses, average for the number of responses available. A total scale score can also be
obtained by summing the item-average dimension scores. It is recommended that dimension scores be used
where possible, as more detailed information about flow is available via the dimension profile.

A B C D
FSS-2 Dimensions Items Dimension Item- Average
Total Scores
1. Challenge-Skill Balance Q1+Q10+Q19+Q28

2. Merging of Action and Awareness Q2+Q11+Q20+Q29

3. Clear Goals Q3+Q12+Q21+Q30

4. Unambiguous Feedback Q4+Q13+Q22+Q31
5. Concentration on the Task at Hand Q5+Q14+Q23+Q32
6. Sense of Control Q6+Q15+Q24+Q33
7. Loss of Self-Consciousness Q7+Q16+Q25+Q34
8. Transformation of Time Q8+Q17+Q26+Q35
9. Autotelic Experience Q9+Q18+Q27+Q36
Total Scale Score (sum column D)
Flow Scale, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 82
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Appendix K: Scoring SHORT Flow (Dispositional)

SHORT Dispositional Flow Scale (S DFS)

S.A. Jackson, 2002, 2009

The SHORT Dispositional Flow Scale (S DFS) is designed to be used as a dispositional flow assessment,
with responses indicating the frequency with which flow is experienced in the target activity in general.
Therefore, responses should be given at a time that is not directly associated with taking part in the activity
being assessed.

The title on the questionnaire is “SHORT Dispositional Flow Scale (S DFS)”. Respondents should be
directed to answer the scale in relation to their experience in their chosen activity in general. Instructions for
respondents are provided on the first page of the questionnaire.

Scoring of SHORT DFS Scale

There is one item for each of nine flow dimensions represented in this scale. The item number for each
dimension is given below. The item scores can be used to represent each flow dimension—although the LONG
Flow Scales are much better suited to providing dimension profiles than the SHORT scales. The generally
recommended procedure for scoring the short DFS is to sum the 9 items together, and then divide by 9 to
obtain a SHORT Flow score. If an item score is missing, take the average of the items with responses.

S DFS DIMENSIONS ITEMS SCORE

1. Challenge-Skill Balance Q1

2. Merging of Action and Awareness Q2

3. Clear Goals Q3
4. Unambiguous Feedback Q4
5. Concentration on the Task at Hand Q5
6. Sense of Control Q6
7. Loss of Self-Consciousness Q7
8. Transformation of Time Q8
9. Autotelic Experience Q9
Total :
Divide Total by 9 to obtain SHORT
SCORE:
FLOW SCORE:

Flow Scale, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 83
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Appendix L: Scoring SHORT Flow (State)

SHORT Flow State Scale (S FSS)

S.A. Jackson, 2002, 2009

The SHORT Flow State Scale (S FSS) is designed to be used as a post-event flow assessment. Therefore,
responses should be given as soon as possible after performance in the activity being assessed.

The title on the questionnaire is “SHORT Flow State Scale (S FSS)”. Respondents should be directed to
answer the scale in relation to their experience in the activity they have just completed. Instructions for
respondents are provided on the first page of the questionnaire.

Scoring of SHORT FSS Scale

There is one item for each of nine flow dimensions represented in this scale. The item number for each
dimension is given below. The item scores can be used to represent each flow dimension—although the LONG
Flow Scales are much better suited to providing dimension profiles than the SHORT scales. The generally
recommended procedure for scoring the short FSS is to sum the 9 items together, and then divide by 9 to
obtain a SHORT Flow score. If an item score is missing, take the average of the items with responses.

S FSS DIMENSIONS ITEMS SCORE

1. Challenge-Skill Balance Q1

2. Merging of Action and Awareness Q2

3. Clear Goals Q3
4. Unambiguous Feedback Q4
5. Concentration on the Task at Hand Q5
6. Sense of Control Q6
7. Loss of Self-Consciousness Q7
8. Transformation of Time Q8
9. Autotelic Experience Q9
Total :
Divide Total by 9 to obtain SHORT
SCORE:
FLOW SCORE:

Flow Scale, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 84
 For use by Netta Efroni only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on November 5, 2012

Appendix M: Scoring CORE Flow (Dispositional & State)

CORE Dispositional Flow Scale (C DFS)

S.A. Jackson & A.J. Martin, 2006

The CORE Dispositional Flow Scale (C DFS) is designed to be used as a dispositional flow assessment, with
responses indicating the frequency with which flow is experienced in the target activity in general. Therefore,
responses should be given at a time that is not directly associated with taking part in the activity being
assessed. Use this version when you want to assess the tendency to experience flow in a (target) activity.

The title on the questionnaire is “CORE Dispositional Flow Scale (C DFS)”. Respondents should be
directed to answer the scale in relation to their experience in their chosen activity in general. Instructions for
respondents are provided on the first page of the questionnaire. If an item score is missing, take the average of
the items with responses.

Scoring of CORE DISPOSITIONAL FLOW

Simply sum the 10 items together, and then divide by 10, to obtain a CORE Flow score.

Sum of 10 items = ____; divide by 10 to give CORE Flow Score: ____

CORE Flow State Scale (C FSS)

S.A. Jackson & A.J. Martin, 2006

The CORE Flow State Scale (C FSS) is designed to be used as a post-event flow assessment. Therefore,
responses should be given as soon as possible after performance in the activity being assessed. Use this
version when you want to assess flow in a specific activity or event.

The title on the questionnaire is “CORE Flow State Scale (C FSS)”. Respondents should be directed to
answer the scale in relation to their experience in the activity they have just completed. Instructions for
respondents are provided on the first page of the questionnaire. If an item score is missing, take the average of
the items with responses.

Scoring of CORE STATE FLOW

Simply sum the 10 items together, and then divide by 10, to obtain a CORE Flow score.

Sum of 10 items = ____; divide by 10 to give CORE Flow Score: ____

Flow Scale, © 2010 Susan A. Jackson. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,
www.mindgarden.com
Page 85