Assessing basic/fundamental psychological need fulfillment: systematic mapping and review of existing scales to foster cumulative science
Tjaša Kermavnar,Andreja Avsec,Siyuan Huang,Pieter M A Desmet
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1427478
2024-09-30
Abstract:Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.