South African Journal of Psychology 1­–13 © The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0081246317728267 journals.sagepub.com/home/sap
https://doi.org/

Article
Validation of the Basic
Psychological Needs Scale in a
South African student group

Amanda Cromhout, Lusilda Schutte and

Marié P Wissing

Abstract
The aim of this study was to validate the English version of the Basic Psychological Needs Scale
with subscales Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in a South African student sample.
The participants were a nonprobability sample of 322 students from a South African univer-
sity. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the scale’s factorial validity. Neither a
one-factor nor a three-factor model fitted the original 21-item scale. After problematic items
were removed, a 17-item Basic Psychological Needs Scale with a negatively worded method
effect fitted the data best, but the fit was inadequate. Although the 17-item scale exhibited
good convergent and discriminant validity, the internal consistency reliability remained low. The
Basic Psychological Needs Scale had limited application in a South African student sample as a
domain-general measure of basic psychological need satisfaction. Questions are raised regarding
the extent to which the scale taps the construct under study in the current sample.

Keywords
Basic psychological needs, convergent and discriminant validity, factor structure, internal consis-
tency reliability, psychometric properties.

Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) is a subtheory of self-determination theory which pro-
poses that human beings have three basic psychological needs, namely, autonomy, competence,
and relatedness. Autonomy refers to the need to feel free to regulate one’s own behaviour, rather
than being controlled by external sources. Competence refers to the need to feel that one is capable

Africa Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research (AUTHeR), North-West University, South Africa
Corresponding author:
Amanda Cromhout, Africa Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research (AUTHeR), North-West University, Potchefst-
room Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.
Email: [email protected]
2 South African Journal of Psychology 0(0)

of performing tasks at various levels of difficulty. Relatedness refers to the need to feel connected
to and cared for by others (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
According to BPNT, all three psychological needs must be satisfied to attain psychological
well-being. When one or more of these needs are thwarted or neglected, it leads to nonoptimal
functioning and compensatory behaviour patterns (Deci & Ryan, 2000). BPNT postulates that the
needs are universal across cultures (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and that the outcomes associated with
need satisfaction and need thwarting will replicate across cultures (Chen et al., 2015; Deci & Ryan,
2000).
One measure of basic psychological need satisfaction is the Basic Psychological Needs Scale
(BPNS; SDT Research Network, n.d.) which Gagné (2003) adapted from a measure of basic need
satisfaction at work (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993) to be suitable to a general context.
Multiple studies used the BPNS since its development (e.g., Costa, Ntoumanis, & Bartholomew,
2015; Gagné, 2003). Although reliability coefficients and subscale correlations were reported for
the BPNS in the initial studies where it was used, its factor structure was not explored (Johnston
& Finney, 2010).
Johnston and Finney (2010) assessed the validity of the BPNS in three American student sam-
ples. After removing problematic items (items 16, 14, 11, 20, and 4), they found support for a
three-factor, 16-item model with a negatively worded method effect. The Relatedness subscale
had acceptable internal consistency reliability (between .78 and .82), while the Autonomy and
Competence subscales had low internal consistency reliability scores (between .60 and .68 and
between .55 and .62, respectively). Evidence was found for external validity.
As far as we could establish, the validity of the BPNS has not yet been studied in a South
African context. This study will address this gap. A student sample was used to determine if the
psychometric properties found by Johnston and Finney (2010) in their student samples will repli-
cate in a South African student sample.
The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the English version of
the BPNS in a South African student context, by examining the scale’s factorial validity, internal
consistency reliability, and its convergent and discriminant validity. We hypothesised that (a) the
three-factor, 21-item scale would not fit the data well. Instead, the three-factor 16-item scale (items
16, 14, 11, 20, and 4 removed) with a negatively worded method effect was expected to fit the
data well; (b) the BPNS and its subscales were expected to have insufficient internal consistency
reliability, with only the Relatedness subscale having sufficient reliability; and (c) the BPNS total
score and the subscale scores would have medium to high positive correlations with scores on
other measures of well-being and a negative correlation with scores on an indicator of ill-being.

Method
Participants
A convenience student sample (n = 322, male = 79, female = 240, gender unspecified = 3) from
multiple campuses of a South African university and from various fields of study completed a
battery of quantitative measurement scales in English. Three participants were excluded because
they completed less than half of the BPNS. The participants were between 18 and 54 years of
age (M = 21.04, SD = 4.12, three participants did not report age) and indicated different native
languages (English = 18%, Setswana = 18%, Afrikaans = 7%, Other = 55%, 1% did not answer).
According to the home language distribution statistics of the university where the data were gath-
ered, almost all students at the university spoke English, Setswana, Afrikaans, or another native
Cromhout et al. 3

African language at home. It is therefore reasonable to assume that most of the students who indi-
cated ‘Other’ as their home language had another African language as native language.

Instruments
Socio-demographic questionnaire. This questionnaire obtained data on variables such as gender, age,
and native language.
The BPNS. This 21-item questionnaire measures the satisfaction of basic psychological needs in
a general context (Gagné, 2003). The BPNS consists of three subscales measuring autonomy
(BPNS-A), competence (BPNS-C), and relatedness (BPNS-R) on a scale ranging from 1 (not true
at all) to 7 (very true). Nine items are negatively worded. Researchers have scored the measure by
either calculating a total score of need satisfaction (Meyer, Enström, Harstveit, Bowles, & Beevers,
2007) or calculating individual scores for each of the subscales (Johnston & Finney, 2010). Higher
scores indicate higher levels of need satisfaction. Gagné (2003) obtained Cronbach’s alpha values
of .69, .71, and .86 for Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness, respectively.
The Mental Health Continuum-SF. The Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF; Keyes,
2002; Keyes et al., 2008) consists of 14 items and measures positive mental health in terms of three
subscales, namely, Emotional Well-being (EWB), Social Well-being (SWB), and Psychological
Well-being (PWB) on a scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (every day). The subscale scores are
added together to form a total score between 0 and 70. Higher scores indicate higher levels of
positive mental health. In South Africa, Keyes et al. (2008) found support for the three-factor
model of the Setswana version of the MHC-SF, with Cronbach’s alpha values of .73 (EWB), .59
(SWB), and .67 (PWB). Cronbach’s alpha values for the MHC-SF in this study were .77 (EWB),
.72 (SWB), and .79 (PWB).
The Satisfaction with Life Scale. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen,
& Griffin, 1985) is a 5-item questionnaire that measures the cognitive component of subjective
well-being on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores between
5 and 35 are possible. Higher scores indicate higher levels of satisfaction with life. Diener et al.
(1985) reported a test–retest reliability score of .82 and sufficient internal consistency reliability (α
= .87). In South Africa, Wissing and Van Eeden (2002) found support for a unidimensional factor
structure and obtained Cronbach’s alpha values ranging between .70 and .85 in three age groups.
Cronbach’s alpha value for the SWLS in this study was .73.
The Meaning in Life Questionnaire. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger, Frazier, Oishi,
& Kaler, 2006) measures the respondent’s subjective experience of how meaningful his or her life
is in the Presence of Meaning subscale (MLQ-P), and a person’s motivation to find meaning or
to obtain a better understanding of meaning in his or her life in the Search for Meaning subscale
(MLQ-S). Each subscale contains five items ranging from 1 (absolutely untrue) to 7 (absolutely
true). Each subscale is independently scored. Higher scores indicate higher levels of presence of
and search for meaning. Steger et al. (2006) indicated a two-factor structure as well as conver-
gent and discriminant validity, with Cronbach’s alpha values between .82 and .86 (MLQ-P) and
between .86 and .87 (MLQ-S). In South Africa, Temane, Khumalo, and Wissing (2014) found
support for the two-factor structure of the MLQ, with α = .85 (MLQ-P) and α = .84 (MLQ-S).
Cronbach’s alpha values in this study were .85 (MLQ-P) and .85 (MLQ-S).
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke, Spitzer,
& Williams, 2001) is used to diagnose depressive disorders on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all)
4 South African Journal of Psychology 0(0)

to 3 (nearly every day). Scores between 0 and 27 are possible. Higher scores indicate higher levels
of depression. Kroenke et al. (2001) reported internal consistency reliability scores of α = .86 and
α = .89 in two samples and confirmed test–retest reliability, as well as criterion, construct, and
external validity. Botha (2011) showed the validity and reliability (α = .86) of the English version
of the PHQ-9 in a multicultural South African sample. Cronbach’s alpha value of the PHQ-9 in
this study was .82.

Procedure
This study implemented a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design. Lecturers who were not
involved as researchers in this study acted as mediators and invited their students to partici-
pate in the study. Trained fieldworkers collected the data under the supervision of the principal
investigator. The participants completed a battery of quantitative measurement scales in English.
Participants were expected to be sufficiently fluent in English to complete the questionnaires, since
English was the medium of tuition at the university.

Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Committee of the North-West University,
South Africa. Participation was voluntary and followed written informed consent. No incentives
were given for participation. Responses were handled anonymously. Debriefing was available.

Data analysis
The data were analysed in four stages. In stage 1, the descriptive statistics (means, standard devi-
ations, skewness, and kurtosis) of the individual items of the BPNS were generated using IBM
SPSS Statistics 22.
In stage 2, the factor structure of the BPNS was examined using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). Mplus Version 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2014) was used. The robust maximum
likelihood (MLR) estimator was used and missing data (1.09% of the responses to the BPNS)
was handled using full information maximum likelihood estimation. Various fit indices were
used to assess global model fit, namely, the χ2-statistic, the standardised root mean square
residual (SRMR), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Tucker–Lewis
index (TLI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). Improvement in model fit is indicated by the
extent to which the χ2-value of the hypothesised model is less than the χ2-value of the baseline
model. Since the χ2-value is highly dependent on sample size, our interpretation will focus on
the other fit indices (Byrne, 2012). SRMR and RMSEA values <0.05 are indicative of a good
model fit, while RMSEA values <0.08 are indicative of a reasonable model fit (Byrne, 2012).
For the TLI and the CFI, earlier recommendations were that values above 0.90 are indicative
of a good model fit, but lately a guideline value of 0.95 is more often used (Byrne, 2012; Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
Areas of local misfit were indicated by high modification indices (MI) and nonsignificant factor
loadings (Byrne, 2012). Further insight into the models’ functioning was obtained by considering
the items’ factor loadings (sign, size, and statistical significance) and the R2-values which indicate
the percentage of item variance explained by the model. Factor correlations were also examined
(Byrne, 2012).
In stage 3, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the BPNS and its subscales were calculated using
IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Cronbach’s alpha values higher than .70 are deemed acceptable (Moerdyk,
Cromhout et al. 5

2015). In stage 4, the correlational patterns between the BPNS and the MHC-SF, SWLS, MLQ,
and the PHQ-9 were calculated using SPSS to determine convergent and discriminant validity.

Results
Stage 1: descriptive statistics of individual items
The descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis) for the items of the
BPNS were calculated. Item-level mean scores ranged between 3.77 (SD = 2.03 for item 4) and
5.83 (SD = 1.40 for item 18). Skewness values ranged between −1.17 (item 12) and 0.14 (item 3).
Kurtosis values ranged between −1.14 (item 4) and 0.91 (item 12). These values fall within the
acceptable range of values (less than 2.00 in absolute value) for skewness and kurtosis, indicating
that the deviation from normality was not significant (Bandalos & Finney, 2010).

Stage 2A: CFA

The factor structure of the BPNS was examined using CFA (all models were overidentified,
which rendered it of scientific use, Byrne, 2012). In Stage 2A, four models were tested, namely,
a 21-item one-factor model (Model 1), a 21-item three-factor model without a negatively worded
method effect (Model 2), a 21-item three-factor model with a negatively worded method effect
(Model 3), and the 16-item three-factor model with a negatively worded method effect (Model
4; Johnston & Finney, 2010). A method effect occurs when the characteristics of the measure-
ment process or the measuring instrument accounts for variance in scores over and above that
accounted for by the construct that is measured (Maul, 2013). A negatively worded method effect
refers to the variance in scores that is explained by the effect of items’ negative wording (Johnston
& Finney, 2010).
Models 1, 2, and 3 are depicted in Figure 1. The fit indices of the CFA’s of Models 1 to 4 are
presented in Table 1.
Model 1 did not fit the data well. According to RMSEA and SRMR scores, Models 2, 3, and 4
revealed a reasonable fit to the data, but none of the models had a good fit according to CFI and
TLI scores. We next explored the areas of local misfit that contributed to the insufficient model fit.

Stage 2B: CFA from an investigative perspective

We used Model 3 as the basis from which to determine why the model did not fit our data. Model 3
enabled us to determine which of the 21 items of the BPNS were problematic in our sample, while
incorporating the negatively worded method effect as a latent factor. The global fit indices of all
the resulting models (Models 5, 6, 7, and 8) are displayed in Table 2.
Model 5. The first area of local misfit was a suggested high correlation (MI = 34.140) between
the residuals of item 7 (‘I pretty much keep to myself and don’t have a lot of social contacts’) and
item 16 (‘There are not many people that I am close to’). The content of item 7 and item 16 clearly
overlaps, making one of these relatedness items redundant. Item 7 explained more of the variance
(R2 = .27) than item 16 (R2 = .20) and had a higher factor loading (.39) on the Relatedness factor
than item 16 (.34), so we removed item 16.
Model 6. The second area of local misfit was item 14 (MI = 30.917; ‘People I interact with on
daily basis tend to take my feelings into consideration’). A better model fit would be obtained if
item 14 would also be allowed to load on the Relatedness factor. Item 14 was intended to measure
6 South African Journal of Psychology 0(0)

Table 1. Fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis of the BPNS (Models 1, 2, 3, and 4).
Latent χ2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI SRMR
model

Model 1 593.909 189 <.001 0.628 0.586 0.082 (0.074; 0.089) 0.083
Model 2 560.875 186 <.001 0.655 0.611 0.079 (0.072; 0.087) 0.080
Model 3 411.982 177 <.001 0.784 0.744 0.064 (0.056; 0.072) 0.065
Model 4 187.156 96 <.001 0.869 0.837 0.054 (0.043; 0.066) 0.065

Model 1: unidimensional, 21 items; Model 2: three factors, 21 items; Model 3: three factors, negatively worded method
effect, 21 items; Model 4: three factors, negatively worded method effect, 16 items (items 16, 14, 11, 20, and 4 removed);
χ2: χ2 test statistic; df: degrees of freedom of χ2 test statistic; p: probability value of χ2 test; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI:
Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square of approximation; 90% CI: 90% confidence interval of the RMSEA; SRMR:
standardised root mean square residual.

Figure 1. The factor structure of the 21-item BPNS represented by different models.
BPNS: Basic Psychological Needs Scale; A: Autonomy; C: Competence; R: Relatedness; NME: negatively worded method
effect; Model 1: single-factor model; Model 2: three-factor model, without NME; Model 3: three-factor model with NME.
For simplicity, measurement error associated with the observed variables and residual error associated with the latent
factors are not depicted in the figure.
Cromhout et al. 7

Table 2. Fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis of the BPNS (Models 5, 6, 7, and 8).
Latent χ2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI SRMR
model

Model 5 355.076 159 <.001 0.805 0.767 0.062 (0.053; 0.063

0.071)
Model 6 280.026 141 <.001 0.844 0.810 0.055 (0.046; 0.059
0.065)
Model 7 232.500 125 <.001 0.869 0.840 0.052 (0.041; 0.058
0.062)
Model 8 181.729 109 <.001 0.902 0.878 0.046 (0.034; 0.055
0.057)

Model 5: three factors, negatively worded method effect, item 16 removed; Model 6: three factors, negatively worded
method effect, items 16 and 14 removed; Model 7: three factors, negatively worded method effect, items 16, 14, and 4
removed; Model 8: three factors, negatively worded method effect, items 16, 14, 4, and 5 removed; χ2: χ2 test statistic; df:
degrees of freedom of χ2 test statistic; p: probability value of χ2 test; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index;
RMSEA: root mean square of approximation; 90% CI: 90% confidence interval of the RMSEA; SRMR: standardised root
mean square residual.

autonomy, but since the item also refers to human interaction, the item could theoretically also
measure relatedness, and we removed item 14 (cf., Johnston & Finney, 2010).
Model 7. Third, a suggested high correlation (MI = 25.475) between the residuals of item 4 (‘I feel
pressured in my life’) and item 18 (‘The people I interact with regularly do not seem to like me
much’) was found. Item 4 could potentially tap autonomy, competence, and relatedness. One could
feel pressured to comply with the standards set by others (autonomy), feel pressured to attain a
certain level of performance (competence), or feel pressured in one’s relationships (relatedness;
cf., Johnston & Finney, 2010). We therefore removed item 4.
Model 8. The fourth area of local misfit was a suggested high correlation (MI = 26.042) between
the residuals of the competence item 5 (‘People I know tell me I am good at what I do’) and the
relatedness item 6 (‘I get along with people I come into contact with’). Item 5 also refers to inter-
action with others and we removed item 5 as it theoretically appears to be associated with both
competence and relatedness (cf., Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012).
For models 5, 6, and 7, the RMSEA and SRMR revealed a reasonable fit, while the CFI and TLI
revealed an insufficient fit. For Model 8, the RMSEA revealed a good fit, while the SRMR, CFI,
and TLI revealed a reasonable fit.
We next considered whether all items had significant factor loadings on their intended factors.
Item 11 (‘In my daily life, I frequently have to do what I am told’) had a low factor loading and a
nonsignificant p value on the Autonomy factor, but since removing the item did not significantly
impact the global fit indices and we did not find sufficient substantive reason to remove the item,
we retained item 11.
A three-factor, 17-item model (items 16, 14, 4, and 5 removed) with a negatively worded
method effect (Model 8) best fitted our data. However, the fit was inadequate. Model 8 is depicted
in Figure 2. The standardised pattern coefficients of the 21-item model with negatively worded
method effect (Model 3) and the final 17-item model with negatively worded method effect (Model
8) are shown in Table 3. The factors were highly correlated, with r = .74 (BPNS-A with BPNS-C),
r = .67 (BPNS-A with BPNS-R), and r = .65 (BPNS-C with BPNS-R).
8 South African Journal of Psychology 0(0)

Figure 2. The factor structure of the 17-item BPNS.

BPNS: Basic Psychological Needs Scale; A: Autonomy; C: Competence; R: Relatedness; NME: negatively worded method
effect; Model 8: three-factor model with NME. For simplicity, measurement error associated with the observed variables
and residual error associated with the latent factors are not depicted in the figure.

Stage 3: reliability analysis

The 21-item BPNS (Model 2) showed low reliability with α = .64 (BPNS-A), α = .65 (BPNS-C),
and α = .68 (BPNS-R). The subscales of the 17-item BPNS (Model 8) also showed low reliabilities
with α = .61 (BPNS-A), α = .62 (BPNS-C), and α = .64 (BPNS-R).

Stage 4: convergent and discriminant validity

The total and subscale correlations between the 17-item BPNS and other measures of psycholog-
ical well-being and ill-being are presented in Table 4. Correlation coefficients can be considered
as effect sizes, where values of ±0.1 are regarded as a small effect, values of ±0.3 are regarded as
a medium effect, and values of ±0.5 are regarded as a large effect (Field, 2009). Convergent and
discriminant validity was confirmed. The BPNS and its subscales had medium to high positive
correlations with other measures of well-being, medium to high negative correlations with a mea-
sure of depression and negligible correlations with a measure of search for meaning.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the English version of the
BPNS in a South African student sample. The 21-item BPNS with a negatively worded method
effect had unsatisfactory psychometric properties with low reliabilities and inadequate model
fit. A three-factor, 17-item measure with a negatively worded method effect best fitted our data,
although the fit was inadequate and reliabilities were low. The BPNS and its subscales had satis-
factory convergent and discriminant validity.
Factors such as problematic item formulation, insufficient representation of the complexity
and dimensionality of the constructs, the meaning of constructs that may differ from one domain
to another, as well as cross-culturally, and the possibility that BPNT may not be applicable in the
current sample may have contributed to the scale’s psychometric properties. Each factor will now
be discussed.
Cromhout et al. 9

Table 3. Standardised pattern coefficients for Model 3 and Model 8.

Model 3a Model 8b
SF NME SF NME

Autonomy
(1) I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my life. 0.495 0.540
(4) I feel pressured in my life. (R) 0.153 0.350
(8) I generally feel free to express my ideas and opinions. 0.664 0.713
(11) In my daily life, I frequently have to do what I am told. (R) 0.090 0.478 0.103 0.481
(14) People I interact with on a daily basis tend to take my feelings into 0.532
consideration.
(17) I feel like I can pretty much be myself in my daily situations. 0.467 0.498
(20) There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to 0.388 0.431 0.380 0.451
do things in my daily life. (R)
Competence
(3) Often, I do not feel very competent. (R) 0.215 0.319 0.237 0.280
(5) People I know tell me I am good at what I do. 0.509
(10) I have been able to learn interesting new skills recently. 0.538 0.587
(13) Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do. 0.695 0.731
(15) In my life I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am. 0.351 0.461 0.367 0.452
(R)
(19) I often do not feel very capable. (R) 0.462 0.508 0.436 0.494
Relatedness
(2) I really like the people I interact with. 0.590 0.588
(6) I get along with people I come into contact with. 0.463 0.465
(7) I pretty much keep to myself and don’t have a lot of social contacts. 0.392 0.334 0.344 0.273
(R)
(9) I consider the people I regularly interact with to be my friends. 0.467 0.464
(12) People in my life care about me. 0.523 0.519
(16) There are not many people that I am close to. (R) 0.339 0.293
(18) The people I interact with regularly do not seem to like me much. 0.381 0.409 0.372 0.490
(R)
(21) People are generally pretty friendly towards me. 0.521 0.521

a. 3-factor, 21-item BPNS, with a NME.

b. 3-factor, 17-item BPNS (items 16, 14, 4, and 5 removed), with a NME.
BPNS: Basic Psychological Needs Scale; (R): reverse scored item; SF: substantive factor; NME: negatively worded method
effect.

Problematic item formulation

We found that many items do not tap the real meaning or the full extent of the construct they are
intended to measure, while other items seem to be duplications of each other or had ambiguous
meanings. With regard to the Autonomy subscale, Johnston and Finney (2010) indicated that item
20 (‘There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to do things in my daily life’)
was an inverse duplicate of item 1 (‘I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my live’).
We found that item 11 (‘In my daily life, I frequently have to do what I am told’) uses only different
wording than item 20 to suggest that one is not allowed to make one’s own decisions.
On closer inspection of the Competence subscale, we found that item 3 (‘Often, I do not feel
very competent’) is nearly a duplicate of item 19 (‘I often do not feel very capable’). Item 10 (‘I
10 South African Journal of Psychology 0(0)

Table 4. The total and subscale correlations between the 17-item BPNS and other measures of
psychological well-being and ill-being.
Criterion-scale BPNS-A BPNS-C BPNS-R BPNS-total

MHC-SF (EWB) .352* .456* .374* .492*

MHC-SF (SWB) .175* .346* .334* .361*
MHC-SF (PWB) .425* .519* .364* .542*
MHC-SF (Total) .373* .521* .423* .550*
SWLS (Total) .337* .441* .317* .453*
MLQ-P .424* .504* .290* .503*
MLQ-S –.053 –.103 –.009 –.063
PHQ-9 (Total) –.370* –.441* –.318* –.467*

BPNS: 17-item Basic Psychological Needs Scale; BPNS-A: BPNS (Autonomy); BPNS-C: BPNS (Competence); BPNS-R:
BPNS (Relatedness); MHC-SF: Mental Health Continuum–Short Form; MHC-SF (EWB): MHC-SF (emotional well-being);
MHC-SF (SWB): MHC-SF (social well-being); MHC-SF (PWB): MHC-SF (psychological well-being); SWLS: Satisfaction
with Life Scale; MLQ-P: Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Presence); MLQ-S: Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Search); PHQ-9:
Patient Health Questionnaire-9.
*. p < .01.

have been able to learn interesting new skills recently’) refers more to the process of becoming
(increasingly) competent (i.e., learning a new skill) than to feeling competent. Sheldon and Hilpert
(2012) commented that item 15 (‘In my life I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I
am’) is ambiguous in its meaning. While the item is intended to represent the absence of compe-
tence, the item actually implies that a person feels competent, but does not get the opportunity to
demonstrate this competence (Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012).
With regard to Relatedness subscale, Sheldon and Hilpert (2012) mentioned that item 6 (‘I get
along with people I come into contact with’) and item 21 (‘People are generally pretty friendly
towards me’) refer more to affiliation (i.e., pleasant social relations) than to intimacy (i.e., a deeper
sense of connectedness) which is actually what the need for relatedness refers to according to
BPNT. The items therefore do not tap the real meaning of the need for relatedness. This same
argument holds for item 2 (‘I really like the people I interact with’). Item 7 (‘I pretty much keep
to myself and don’t have a lot of social contacts’) is a double-barrelled item which may yield it
ambiguous. Not having many social contacts does not necessarily imply that one keeps to oneself.

Insufficient reflection of the complexity and dimensionality of basic

psychological needs
Costa et al. (2015) indicated that need satisfaction, need dissatisfaction, and need thwarting are
different concepts and that each of these concepts has different outcomes with regard to (rela-
tional) well-being. This means that, for example, ‘autonomy satisfaction’ is a different construct
than ‘autonomy dissatisfaction’ or ‘autonomy thwarting’ (cf., Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, &
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011; Sheldon & Gunz, 2009). This suggests that negatively worded items
are not merely opposites of positively worded items, but may tap a different dimension of the con-
struct. This implies that the postulated three-factor structure would not fit the data well.
Cromhout et al. 11

Issues when transferring theory or measurement scales from one domain

to another
Measures are often adapted for application in different domains of life (e.g., life in general, work,
and relationships). The fact that the psychometric properties of domain-specific measures like the
Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (Liu, Chung, & Duan, 2013) were good, as opposed
to the domain-general BPNS (Johnston & Finney, 2010; Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012) which was
adapted from the domain (work) specific measure by Ilardi et al. (1993), may point out that adapt-
ing scales for use in different life domains may pose problems.

Cultural differences
Constructs may differ in meaning cross-culturally or may be unknown to some cultures (De Kock,
Kanjee, & Foxcroft, 2013). Scale items should therefore reflect the cultural meaning of the con-
cept. If not, scale items may operate differentially across the groups, thus affecting the psychomet-
ric properties of the measure.
When comparing the results obtained in our mainly African sample with the results obtained by
Johnston and Finney (2010) in their mainly Caucasian samples, we found that some of the results
obtained by Johnston and Finney (2010) replicated in our sample, while others did not replicate.
Although the similarities found may suggest that the problematic psychometric properties are
rather due to problematic item wording and scale construction, the differences in our results may
be suggestive of cultural influences.

Problems with the underlying theory

The BPNS did not perform well in this study or the study of Johnston and Finney (2010) and may
point towards problems with the underlying theory. This could, for example, suggest that the three
needs that are delineated by the theory do not operationalise in practice, or at least not in student
samples. Countering this argument, some recent studies found support for BPNT (cf., Chen et al.,
2015; Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012). We therefore suggest that the issues related to scale construc-
tion are addressed first. If the problematic psychometric properties persist, the application of the
underlying theory in a South African student context should be questioned. The above-mentioned
factors emphasise the importance of proper conceptualisation of constructs and consideration of
the dimensionality and the contextual and cultural meaning of constructs when scale items are
developed.
A limitation of the study is the use of a student sample, and future research may investigate
whether the psychometric properties of the BPNS will replicate in different populations, as well
as cross-culturally. An emic approach to understanding basic psychological needs in an African
context is indicated. Future research may also focus on improving the BPNS as a domain-gen-
eral measure of basic psychological need satisfaction by removing or rewriting problematic scale
items, and/or by constructing new scale items.

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to validate the English version of the BPNS in a South African
student context. The scale exhibited good convergent and discriminant validity, although the three-
factor structure did not fit the data adequately. Internal consistency reliabilities remained low,
12 South African Journal of Psychology 0(0)

despite the removal of problematic scale items. The BPNS in its current form is of limited use in
the current context as a domain-general measure of basic psychological needs.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank I. P. Khumalo and L. Temane for their assistance with the gathering of the data. This study
formed part of the Master’s degree dissertation of the first author.

Funding
The research was financially supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (Grant
number: 106050). The Grantholder acknowledges that opinions, findings and conclusions or recommenda-
tions expressed in this article are that of the authors, and that the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this
regard.
Funding was also provided in the form of a Master’s degree scholarship by the North-West University,
South Africa, to the first author.

References
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In Hancock, G. R., &
Mueller, R. O. (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 93–114).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Psychological need
thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of athletic experience. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 33, 75–102.
Botha, M. N. (2011). Validation of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in an African context (Master’s
thesis). North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Retrieved from http://dspace.nwu.ac.za/
handle/10394/4647
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modelling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and program-
ming. New York, NY: Routledge.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., & Vander der Kaap-Deeder, J. Verstuyf, J.
(2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures.
Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236.
Costa, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Bartholomew, K. J. (2015). Predicting the brighter and darker sides of interper-
sonal relationships: Does psychological need thwarting matter? Motivation and Emotion, 39, 11–24.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determi-
nation of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
De Kock, F., Kanjee, A., & Foxcroft, C. (2013). Cross-cultural test adaptation, translation and tests in multi-
ple languages. In Foxcroft, C., & Roodt, G. (Eds.), Introduction to psychological assessment in the South
African context (pp. 83–106). Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engage-
ment. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motiva-
tion: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789–1805.
Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research
and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 280–296.
Cromhout et al. 13

Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Keyes, C. L. M., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J. P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., & van Rooy, S. (2008). Evaluation
of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Setswana-speaking South Africans. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15, 181–192.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity
measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613.
Liu, J. D., Chung, P. K., & Duan, Y. (2013). Validity and reliability of the Chinese translation of Basic
Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 51–57.
Maul, A. (2013). Method effects and the meaning of measurement. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 169.
Meyer, B., Enström, M. K., Harstveit, M., Bowles, D. P., & Beevers, C. G. (2007). Happiness and despair on
the catwalk: Need satisfaction, well-being, and personality adjustment among fashion models. Journal
of Positive Psychology, 2, 2–17.
Moerdyk, A. (2015). The principles and practice of psychological assessment. Hatfield, South Africa: Van
Schaik.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2014). Mplus (Version 7.3) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA:
Author.
SDT Research Network. (n.d.). Basic Psychological Needs Scales (Questionnaires available on website of
self-determination theory research network). Retrieved from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/
questionnaires.php
Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential requirements.
Journal of Personality, 77, 1467–1492.
Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs (BMPN) scale: An
alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 439–451.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the
presence of and the search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
Temane, L., Khumalo, I. P., & Wissing, M. P. (2014). Validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire in a
South African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24, 51–60.
Wissing, M. P., & Van Eeden, C. (2002). Empirical clarification of the nature of psychological well-being.
South African Journal of Psychology/Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Sielkunde, 32, 32–44.