Brett A Murphy, Ashley L Watts, Zachary G Baker, Brian P Don, Tatum A Jolink, Sara B Algoe
{"title":"基本心理需求满意度量表和挫折感量表可能无法有效测量需求挫折感。","authors":"Brett A Murphy, Ashley L Watts, Zachary G Baker, Brian P Don, Tatum A Jolink, Sara B Algoe","doi":"10.1037/pas0001193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), the separable constructs of need satisfaction and need frustration are theorized as pivotally related to psychopathology and broader aspects of well-being. The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scales (BPNSFS; Chen et al., 2015) have rapidly emerged as the dominant self-report measure in the BPNT domain, with translated versions available in a wide range of languages and a plethora of versions adapted for specific populations and life contexts. Through (a) an extended conceptual discussion of the BPNSFS and (b) a collection of complementary data analyses in eight samples, we demonstrate that the BPNSFS probably does not validly measure need frustration. Most importantly, we conclude that the ostensible distinction between need frustration and need satisfaction in the BPNSFS is likely primarily a method artifact caused by different item keying directions, given the way the measure currently assesses the intended constructs. If so, then the use of the BPNSFS may be generating misleading conclusions, obstructing sound investigation of current BPNT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"35 2","pages":"127-139"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11554446/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scales probably do not validly measure need frustration.\",\"authors\":\"Brett A Murphy, Ashley L Watts, Zachary G Baker, Brian P Don, Tatum A Jolink, Sara B Algoe\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), the separable constructs of need satisfaction and need frustration are theorized as pivotally related to psychopathology and broader aspects of well-being. The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scales (BPNSFS; Chen et al., 2015) have rapidly emerged as the dominant self-report measure in the BPNT domain, with translated versions available in a wide range of languages and a plethora of versions adapted for specific populations and life contexts. Through (a) an extended conceptual discussion of the BPNSFS and (b) a collection of complementary data analyses in eight samples, we demonstrate that the BPNSFS probably does not validly measure need frustration. Most importantly, we conclude that the ostensible distinction between need frustration and need satisfaction in the BPNSFS is likely primarily a method artifact caused by different item keying directions, given the way the measure currently assesses the intended constructs. If so, then the use of the BPNSFS may be generating misleading conclusions, obstructing sound investigation of current BPNT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"127-139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11554446/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001193\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/11/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001193","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scales probably do not validly measure need frustration.
In basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), the separable constructs of need satisfaction and need frustration are theorized as pivotally related to psychopathology and broader aspects of well-being. The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scales (BPNSFS; Chen et al., 2015) have rapidly emerged as the dominant self-report measure in the BPNT domain, with translated versions available in a wide range of languages and a plethora of versions adapted for specific populations and life contexts. Through (a) an extended conceptual discussion of the BPNSFS and (b) a collection of complementary data analyses in eight samples, we demonstrate that the BPNSFS probably does not validly measure need frustration. Most importantly, we conclude that the ostensible distinction between need frustration and need satisfaction in the BPNSFS is likely primarily a method artifact caused by different item keying directions, given the way the measure currently assesses the intended constructs. If so, then the use of the BPNSFS may be generating misleading conclusions, obstructing sound investigation of current BPNT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews