Kermavnar Tjaša, Avsec Andreja, Huang Siyuan, Desmet Pieter M A
Department of Human-Centered Design, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Front Psychol. 2024 Sep 30;15:1427478. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1427478. eCollection 2024.
Because the fulfillment of basic/fundamental psychological needs affects people's motivation and well-being, measuring the degree to which these needs are met is of interest to researchers across various domains. Although numerous self-assessment tools have been developed, no recent comprehensive reviews exist, hindering cumulative scientific progress. The present systematic review aimed to identify and analyze the main approaches to developing self-report scales for assessing basic/fundamental psychological need fulfillment. The objective is to inform readers interested in selecting instruments for their studies and those intending to develop new scales.
Following PRISMA, we conducted a search of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest in August 2023. The following information was extracted from eligible studies: Scale name, abbreviation, theoretical basis, application domain, final scale construction, scale development and validation methodology, and citation count.
Our search identified 32 primary studies, in which 31 original scales were developed and validated, and 89 secondary studies that aimed to modify these original scales. The predominant theoretical basis was Self-Determination Theory, although eight scales were based on alternative need typologies. The scales were either domain-general or specific to contexts such as work, education, or exercise/sports contexts. While most were designed to measure need satisfaction, some also addressed need support, frustration, and thwarting.
Despite significant efforts in developing, adapting, and applying scales to measure need fulfillment, we found several issues resulting from diverse perspectives on conceptualizing psychological needs and need typologies, discordant approaches in developing and validating measures, and other inconsistencies that should be acknowledged and addressed in future research.
由于基本心理需求的满足会影响人们的动机和幸福感，因此衡量这些需求的满足程度受到各个领域研究人员的关注。尽管已经开发了许多自我评估工具，但最近没有全面的综述，这阻碍了科学的累积进步。本系统综述旨在识别和分析用于开发自我报告量表以评估基本心理需求满足情况的主要方法。目的是为有兴趣为其研究选择工具的读者以及打算开发新量表的人提供信息。
按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA），我们于2023年8月在Scopus、科学网、PubMed和ProQuest上进行了检索。从符合条件的研究中提取了以下信息：量表名称、缩写、理论基础、应用领域、最终量表构建、量表开发和验证方法以及引用次数。
我们的检索确定了32项主要研究，其中开发并验证了31个原始量表，还有89项次要研究旨在修改这些原始量表。主要的理论基础是自我决定理论，尽管有8个量表基于其他需求类型。这些量表要么是领域通用的，要么特定于工作、教育或运动/体育等背景。虽然大多数量表旨在测量需求满意度，但有些量表也涉及需求支持、挫折和阻碍。
尽管在开发、改编和应用量表以测量需求满足方面付出了巨大努力，但我们发现了几个问题，这些问题源于对心理需求和需求类型概念化的不同观点、开发和验证测量方法的不一致方法以及其他不一致之处，这些问题应在未来的研究中得到承认和解决。
