Cited by 36Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Psychometric Properties of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale – Intellectual Disability (BPNSFS-ID)

Open access
Frielink, Noud, Schuengel, Carlo, Embregts, Petri J. C. M.·2019·European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Abstract

Abstract. The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale – Intellectual Disability (BPNSFS-ID), an adapted version of the original BPNSFS ( Chen, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2015 ), operationalizes satisfaction and frustration with the three basic psychological needs according to self-determination theory (SDT): autonomy, relatedness, and competence. The current study examined the psychometric properties of the BPNSFS-ID in a group of 186 adults with mild to borderline intellectual disability (MBID). The results indicated an adequate factorial structure of the BPNSFS-ID, comprising the satisfaction and frustration of each of the three needs. The associations between BPNSFS-ID subscales autonomy, relatedness, and competence and the self-determination subscale of the Personal Outcome Scale (POS), the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, and the General Self-Efficacy Scale – 12 (GSES-12), supported the construct validity. In addition, the BPNSFS-ID demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .92) and 2-week test-retest reliability ( r = .81 for the composite subscale autonomy, r = .69 for the composite subscale relatedness, and r = .85 for the composite subscale competence). Overall, the BPNSFS-ID proved to be a valid and reliable measure of basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration among people with MBID.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1015-5759/a000366

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frielink, N., Schuengel, C., & Embregts, P. J. C. M.
Affiliations
  • Tilburg University (NL)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
Venue
European Journal of Psychological Assessment
Published
2019-01
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
37-45
ISSN
  • 1015-5759 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2426
OpenAlex
W2529203136
Cited by
36
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • European Journal of Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
intellectual disability, basic psychological needs, autonomy, relatedness, competence, need frustration, self-determination theory, psychometric properties, construct validity, test-retest reliability, loneliness, self-efficacy, adults with intellectual disabilities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review