CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsInnovative Human-Technology InteractionSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Development and Validation of a Basic Psychological Needs Scale for Technology Use

Open access
Moradbakhti, Laura, Leichtmann, Benedikt, Mara, Martina·2024·Psychological Test Adaptation and Development
DOI 10.1027/2698-1866/a000062
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this work was to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction for Technology Use (BPN-TU). According to the self-determination theory, satisfaction of the Basic Psychological Needs (BPNs) for Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness is crucial to well-being and autonomous motivation. Research into the role of BPN Satisfaction in technology use is scarce, partly due to a lack of appropriate measuring tools. To develop a pool of original BPN-TU scale items, we held 10 interviews. Based on these items, we conducted four validation studies with four independent samples (total N = 821), collecting user responses to different technologies: digital voice assistant, exoskeleton, chatbot, and social robot. Good model fit was supported by confirmatory factor analyses for a twelve-item scale, containing three items each for satisfaction of users’ Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness to Others, and Relatedness to Technology. The scale was validated in English and German.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper develops and validates the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction for Technology Use (BPN-TU) scale, a 12-item measure covering autonomy, competence, relatedness to others, and relatedness to technology. Across four studies (total N = 821) with a chatbot, exoskeleton, voice assistant, and care robot, confirmatory factor analyses supported a four-factor structure, with metric invariance across technologies and German/English versions.

Key findings

  • The final 12-item scale (3 items per need) showed good CFA fit across studies: Study 1 4 × 3 model χ² = 25.36, df = 48, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.01, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .04; Study 2 χ² = 15.65, df = 24, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.05, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .06; Study 3 χ² = 12.39, df = 24, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.02, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .05; Study 4 English version χ² = 22.34, df = 48, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.01, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .04.
  • Reliability was generally good: Study 1 McDonald’s ω = .90 Autonomy, .87 Competence, .84 Relatedness to Others, .84 Relatedness to Technology; Study 4 English ω = .87, .91, .78, .88. Study 2 had lower values: Autonomy ω = .66, Competence ω = .76, Relatedness to Others ω = .60; Study 3: Autonomy ω = .86, Competence ω = .76, Relatedness to Technology ω = .68.
  • Predictive validity: BPN factors correlated with intention to use in Study 1 at rs = .53–.68 and in Study 4 at rs = .57–.73. The long and short scales correlated at rs = .974, n = 355, p < .001.
  • Invariance testing supported metric invariance, and therefore configural invariance, across Studies 1–3 for Autonomy and Competence, and between the German and English versions for all four factors; scalar and strict invariance were not supported.

Methods

  • Item generation began with 85 German items based on existing BPN scales and technology-context additions; these were evaluated in 10 thinking-aloud interviews with 5 experts and 5 laypeople and reduced to 24 items.
  • Four validation studies with independent samples (total N = 821): Study 1 online banking chatbot, N = 355; Study 2 laboratory exoskeleton, N = 120; Study 3 VR AI voice assistant, N = 124; Study 4 online English care robot, N = 222.
  • Main analyses were confirmatory factor analyses using the DWLS estimator (with ML comparisons), model comparisons, McDonald’s ω, Spearman correlations for convergent/discriminant/predictive validity, and measurement invariance testing across Studies 1–3 and across the German and English versions.

Limitations

  • Stated: the authors found unexpected moderate-to-high correlations with other constructs, so discriminant and convergent validity need further testing, including with personality and technology-related constructs.
  • Stated: only four technologies were tested; more technologies are needed. Only intention to use was used as an outcome; future work should test motivation, well-being, and actual use duration/frequency. Construct validity also requires multimethod testing with three independent measures of the same construct, which was not done.
  • Evident from the text: Study 2’s Relatedness to Others reliability was ω = .60, below the desired .70 threshold, and its item 3 loading was lower, attributed to the artificial laboratory setting; Study 3’s Relatedness to Technology reliability was ω = .68. Invariance testing supported only metric/configural invariance, not scalar or strict invariance. Study 4 reused data from a study under review, and the study was not preregistered.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/2698-1866/a000062

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

18 of 48 cited sources checked · 12 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisenone given

    No proper Basic Psychological Need scale adapted to the technology context has to date been rigorously developed and validated.

    “Since no proper BPN scale that is adapted to the technology context has to date been rigorously developed and validated, studies have used individually adapted versions of existing BPN scales (e.g., B. Chen et al., 2015;Moradbakhti et al., 2022;Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012), thereby impeding comparability of results across studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites B. Chen et al., 2015 source
    • cites Moradbakhti et al., 2022 source

      The Materials and Methods section says the authors adapted an existing BPN scale for their technology study. In Discussion > Limitations and Outlook, they report poor reliability for some adapted items and call for a context-specific scale, but they do not establish the broader claim that no rigorously developed and validated technology-specific BPN scale existed. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    Inconsistent use of measures is problematic for comparability between studies and their replicability.

    “Even though the studies have confirmed the significance and influence of BPN Satisfaction for HCI research, the inconsistent use of measures is problematic in terms of comparability between studies and their replicability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Scheel et al. (2021) source
  • Premisereasoning

    In technology interaction, the Need for Relatedness comprises two aspects: Relatedness to Others and Relatedness to Technology.

    “In comparison to other domains such as education, physical exercise, or work, the Need for Relatedness comprises two aspects in the context of technology interaction: On the one hand, technologies can mediate people's Need for Relatedness to Others (e.g., communication technology), and on the other, people can also feel relatedness to the technology itself (e.g., companion robot).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Johannes et al., 2021 source

      The Method > Measures section assesses relatedness through fulfilling relationships formed with other players, supporting the ‘Relatedness to Others’ aspect in video games. The paper does not describe relatedness to the technology itself or define a two-aspect framework for technology interaction. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Leichtmann & Nitsch, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nass & Moon, 2000 source
  • Premisecitation

    Sheldon et al. found that the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were always amongst the top four needs when determining the most fundamental human needs across three studies.

    “Interestingly, the original study by Sheldon et al. (2001) pointed out that the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (in line with the SDT) were always amongst the top four needs when determining the most fundamental needs for humans across three studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sheldon et al. (2001) source
  • Premisecitation

    If a study fails to apply a valid measure, theoretical inferences cannot be made because the findings could equally measure random noise or a related but distinct construct.

    “If a study fails to apply a valid measure, theoretical inferences cannot be made as the findings could equally measure random noise or a related but nevertheless distinct construct (Scheel et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Scheel et al., 2021 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 38
  • May combine two claims. 32
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 6

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Virtual Reality had a positive impact on users' Competence and Autonomy Need Satisfaction and game enjoyment compared to the same game without VR.

    “A study by Reer et al. (2022) showed that Virtual Reality (VR) had a positive impact on users' Competence and Autonomy Need Satisfaction as well as game enjoyment, in comparison to the same game without VR.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reer et al. (2022) source

      The Results (section 3.1) report greater enjoyment for the VR version of Skyrim, and the path model (section 3.1.1) supports a positive effect on autonomy need satisfaction. The claim overstates the competence finding: VR was linked to competence through greater natural mapping, but its direct effect on competence was negative after controlling for natural mapping and playing skill. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    To ensure sound methodology, the authors followed best practice guidelines for scale development, which typically include item generation, scale construction, and scale evaluation.

    “To ensure sound methodology, we followed best practice guidelines for the scale development (see e.g., Boateng et al., 2018;Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) which typically include steps of item generation, scale construction, and scale evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Boateng et al., 2018 source
    • cites Cronbach & Meehl, 1955 source

      In “The Logic of Construct Validation” (p. 186), Cronbach and Meehl describe evaluating whether an instrument measures its proposed construct, supporting the scale-evaluation aspect. The passages from our copy do not set out item generation, scale construction, and scale evaluation as a three-step scale-development guideline. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A review of 110 CHI and CHI PLAY papers confirmed growing interest from online game design and player experience studies in self-determination theory and the concepts of intrinsic motivation and need satisfaction.

    “Furthermore, a review of 110 CHI and CHI PLAY papers confirmed the growing interest from online game design and player experience studies in the SDT and the theoretical concepts of intrinsic motivation and need satisfaction (Tyack & Mekler, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tyack & Mekler, 2020 source

      The Abstract says the authors reviewed 110 CHI and CHI PLAY papers citing SDT and found that intrinsic motivation and need satisfaction were widely applied to player-experience analysis and game design. It describes increasing interest in HCI research on games and play, but does not specifically establish the claim about online games. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using the diagonally weighted least squares estimator because the variables for the need scale were originally categorical.

    “CFA was performed using the diagonally weighted least squares estimator (DWLS), as the variables for the need scale were originally categorical variables (Mindrila, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mindrila, 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A variety of Basic Psychological Need scales have been adapted to specific contexts, such as exercise, school, and work.

    “Further, a variety of scales were adapted to specific contexts, such as the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (Vlachopoulos et al., 2010), the Basic Psychological Needs at School Scale (Tian, Han, & Huebner, 2014), and the Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale (Brien et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Vlachopoulos et al., 2010 source
    • cites Tian, Han, & Huebner, 2014 source
    • cites Brien et al., 2012 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The METUX model was formed to provide a framework for designers and developers to consider Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction at six stages or spheres of technology use and interaction.

    “In support of this, the METUX (Motivation, Engagement, and Thriving in User Experience) model was formed to provide a framework for designers and developers to consider BPN Satisfaction at six different stages, or spheres, of technology use and interaction (technology adoption, interface interaction, technology enabled task, technology supported behavior, life impact, and societal impact; Peters”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Peters et al., 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction has been measured with various tools, including the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale, the Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs, and the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale.

    “BPN Satisfaction has to date been measured with various tools, such as the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS; B. Chen et al., 2015), the Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs (BMPNs; Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012), and the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (BPNS; Ilardi et al., 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites B. Chen et al., 2015 source
    • cites Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012 source
    • cites Ilardi et al., 1993 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hassenzahl et al. analyzed over 500 positive experiences with interactive technologies and found that fulfillment of the Competence and Relatedness Needs, among other factors, are key drivers for positive affect in technology interaction.

    “Pioneering the idea of involving psychological need assessment in user experience, Hassenzahl et al. (2010) analyzed over 500 positive experiences with interactive technologies while assessing user's fulfillment of 10 psychological needs based on Sheldon et al. (2001).The results revealed that specifically the fulfillment of the Competence and Relatedness Need, amongst other factors such as stim”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hassenzahl et al. (2010) source
    • cites Sheldon et al. (2001) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Scales should be tested for invariance across different groups to avoid hidden invalidity.

    “To avoid hidden invalidity, scales should also be tested for invariance across different groups (Hussey & Hughes, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hussey & Hughes, 2020 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Perceived Competence of a conversational chatbot correlated with anthropomorphism to a similarly high amount as Perceived Warmth.

    “Christoforakos et al. (2021) further found evidence that Perceived Competence of a conversational chatbot correlated with anthropomorphism to a similarly high amount as Perceived Warmth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christoforakos et al. (2021) source

      Study 1 Results (page unavailable) report higher perceived competence when robot anthropomorphism was manipulated to be high. But the paper studies a robot, not a conversational chatbot, and the cited passages do not establish that competence and warmth had similarly strong correlations with anthropomorphism; Study 2 Results instead report no significant effect of manipulated anthropomorphism on perceived warmth. (LLM, conf=0.80)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The resulting factor model had four Autonomy items (1, 2, 3, 5); four Competence items (2, 3, 5, 6); five Relatedness to Others items (1, 3, 4, 5, 6); and five Relatedness to Technology items (1, 2, 3, 5, 6).

    “This resulted in a factor model with the following items: four Autonomy items (1, 2, 3, 5); four Competence items (2, 3, 5, 6); five Relatedness to Others items (1, 3, 4, 5, 6); and five Relatedness to Technology items (1, 2, 3, 5, 6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The BPN-TU scale was developed to fit and be easily adaptable to various different technologies and contexts.

    “The scale does not only follow a strong validation procedure, it was also developed to fit and be easily adaptable to various different technologies and contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The four technologies chosen (digital voice assistant, exoskeleton, chatbot, and social robot) cover diverse fields of application and technologies sufficiently to demonstrate the BPN-TU scale's applicability.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Three reverse-coded items (Autonomy 4, Relatedness to Others 2, and Relatedness to Technology 4), Competence 1, and Competence 4 did not have good factor loadings (λ < .60) and were excluded.

    “Specifically, three reverse-coded items (Autonomy 4, Relatedness to Others 2, and Relatedness to Technology 4), Competence 1, and Competence 4 did not have good factor loadings as the other items (λ < .60)and were therefore excluded.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    After excluding those items and discarding Autonomy 6 based on modification indices with a cutoff of 15, no further items needed to be excluded.

    “After removal of these six items, no further items needed to be excluded based on the modification indices.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    A 12-item version (4 × 3 factor model) resulted in a similarly good fit compared with the other models.

    “Therefore, we sought to further reduce the item number and tested a 12-item version (see Figure 2) which resulted in a similarly good fit when compared with the other models (see Figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    McDonald's ω suggests good reliability for all four Basic Psychological Needs: Autonomy ω = .90; Competence ω = .87; Relatedness to Others ω = .84; Relatedness to Technology ω = .84.

    “Moreover, McDonald's ω suggests good reliability for all four BPN: Autonomy ω = .90;Competence ω = .87;Relatedness to Others ω = .84;Relatedness to Technology ω = .84.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the BPN-TU scale had discriminant validity from UTAUT performance expectancy, UTAUT social influence, self-identity, behavioral control, competence, warmth, and anthropomorphism, as indicated by good model fit (CFI ≥ 1.00, TLI ≥ 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR ≤ .04).

    “| UTAUT_PE & BPN | 40.12 (109) | 1.000 | 1.00 | 1.01 | .00 | .03 |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| SELF_ID & BPN | 27.41 (67) | 1.000 | 1.00 | 1.01 | .00 | .03 |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| Anthropomorphism & BPN | 37.03 (94) | 1.000 | 1.00 | 1.01 | .00 | .03 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The final German BPN-TU scale consists of 12 items, with three items each for Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness to Others, and Relatedness to Technology.

    “Autonomy Wenn ich __ nutze, kann ich selbst ändig handeln. 1 2 3 4 5”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “Competence Wenn ich __ nutze, fühle ich mich kompetent.1 2 3 4 5”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “Relatedness to Others Wenn ich __ nutze, fühle ich mich weniger allein. 1 2 3 4 5”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, the factor loading for the Relatedness to Others item 3 was lower than other factor loadings, and its McDonald's ω was below .70.

    “The factor loading for the Relatedness to Others item 3 (”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The BPN subscales (Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness to Others, Relatedness to Technology) correlated positively with each other and with other constructs (Performance Expectancy, Social Influence, Self-Identity, Behavioral Control, Warmth, Competence, Anthropomorphism, Intention to Use), with correlations ranging from .37 to .78.

    “| Behavioral Control | 3.41 | 0.91 | .59** | .55** | .44** | .49** | .61** | .37** | .51** | - | | | |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| Intention to Use | 2.33 | 1.18 | .64** | .68** | .53** | .57** | .78** | .52** | .70** | .54** | .56** | .58** | .51** |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| Competence | 2.46 | 0.99 | .65** | - | | | | | | | | | |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The BPN-TU scale uses a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 'Stimme gar nicht zu' to 'Stimme voll zu'.

    “Autonomy Wenn ich __ nutze, kann ich selbst ändig handeln. 1 2 3 4 5”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 3, McDonald's ω indicated good reliability for Autonomy (ω = .86) and Competence (ω = .76), and moderate reliability for Relatedness to Technology (ω = .68).

    “McDonald's ω suggests good reliability for Autonomy ω = .86and Competence ω = .76and moderate reliability for Relatedness to Technology ω = .68.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, McDonald's ω indicated acceptable reliability for Autonomy (ω = .66), Competence (ω = .76), and Relatedness to Others (ω = .60).

    “McDonald's ω suggests acceptable good reliability for all three BPN: Autonomy ω = .66;Competence ω = .76;Relatedness to Others ω = .60.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In invariance testing between German and English scales, the results showed metric invariance and therefore also configural invariance.

    “Our results showed metric invariance and therefore also configural invariance for the comparison between the German and English version of the BPN-TU scale.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In invariance testing across Studies 1-3, the results showed metric invariance and therefore also configural invariance.

    “Our results showed metric invariance and therefore also configural invariance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The fit of the Relatedness Satisfaction items depends on the technology type and is expected to vary depending on the technology by theory.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The BPN-TU scale demonstrated configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance between the German and English versions, with CFI ≥ .92, TLI ≥ .91, RMSEA ≤ .10, and SRMR ≤ .09.

    “| Configural invariance | 250.21 (96) | <.001 | .97 | .95 | .08 | .04 | 17,143.57 |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| Metric invariance | 275.31 (104) | <.001 | .96 | .95 | .08 | .06 | 17,117.80 |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| Scalar invariance | 436.07 (112) | <.001 | .93 | .92 | .10 | .08 | 17,227.69 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The BPN-TU scale demonstrated configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance across groups, with CFI ≥ .93, TLI ≥ .94, RMSEA ≤ .11, and SRMR ≤ .07.

    “| Configural invariance | 54.47 (24) | <.001 | .98 | .97 | .08 | .03 | 9,370.15 |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| Metric invariance | 67.27 (32) | <.001 | .98 | .97 | .07 | .05 | 9,331.79 |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “| Scalar invariance | 115.37 (40) | <.001 | .96 | .96 | .10 | .06 | 9,328.72 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 4, McDonald's ω indicated good reliability for all four BPN factors: Autonomy ω = .87, Competence ω = .91, Relatedness to Others ω = .78, Relatedness to Technology ω = .88.

    “McDonald's ω suggests good reliability for all four BPN factors: Autonomy ω = .87;Competence ω = .91;Relatedness to Others ω = .78;Relatedness to Technology ω = .88.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The authors also ran analyses with the maximum likelihood estimator for comparison, and the results confirmed good fit.

    “Moreover, we also ran the analyses with the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator for comparison, the results of which confirmed good fit and can be found in the supplementary materials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In online games, leaderboard and performance graphs satisfied users' Competence and Autonomy needs more strongly.

    “Specifically, the needs for Competence and Autonomy were satisfied more strongly by leaderboard and performance graphs while Relatedness was supported by avatars and teammates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sailer et al. (2017) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The authors measured the predictive validity of the BPN scale by testing its relationship with intention to use the technologies in Studies 1 and 4.

    “Lastly, we also measure the predictive validity of the BPN scale by testing its relationship with the intention to use the technologies in Studies 1 and 4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The BPN-TU scale is applicable to areas of Engineering Psychology, User Experience research, and related fields in both empirical research and practice.

    “This makes the BPN-TU scale not only a valuable contribution to the HCI community, it is also applicable to areas of Engineering Psychology, User Experience research, and related fields in both empirical research and practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The four technologies chosen (digital voice assistant, exoskeleton, chatbot, and social robot) cover diverse fields of application and technologies sufficiently to demonstrate the BPN-TU scale's applicability.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to one of four video conditions.

    “They first provided their demographic information and were then randomly assigned to one of four video conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    To integrate Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in technology design and HCI research, appropriate and validated measures for Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in the technology context are needed.

    “However, to integrate BPN Satisfaction in technology design and HCI research, appropriate and validated measures, for BPN Satisfaction in the technology context, are needed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The short BPN-TU scale is preferable for HCI studies because lengthy questionnaires are impractical and go beyond acceptable time frames for user studies.

    “Due to the nature of HCI studies that often involve either lab-based or video-based (in online studies) interaction with a technology, lengthy questionnaires are impractical and go beyond the scope of acceptable time frames for user studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Lengthy questionnaires are impractical and go beyond acceptable time frames for HCI user studies.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The items were evaluated by five lay people via the thinking-aloud method to ensure understandability to a wider audience.

    “Finally, the items were also evaluated by five lay people (no background in human-technology interaction research and no tertiary education) via the thinking-aloud method to ensure understandability of the items to a wider audience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Integrating Basic Psychological Needs in design practices would benefit developers because Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction fosters user engagement, and would benefit users because of positive effects on well-being.

    “Integrating the BPN in design practices would benefit both, the developers, as BPN Satisfaction fosters user engagement, as well as the users, due to the positive effects on their well-being.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Many studies in education, physical exercise, and work contexts have referenced the importance of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction to people's motivation and well-being.

    “Many studies from education (Tian, Chen, & Huebner, 2014;Wang et al., 2019), physical exercise (Balaguer et al., 2012;Gunnell et al., 2014;Li et al., 2013), and work (Deci & Ryan, 2014;Ilies et al., 2017;Williams et al., 2014) contexts have referenced the importance of BPN Satisfaction to people's motivation and well-being.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Tian, Chen, & Huebner, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wang et al., 2019 source
    • cites Balaguer et al., 2012 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The authors ran correlation analyses with the BPN items and other existing constructs to assess the discriminant and convergent validity of the new BPN-TU scale in Study 1.

    “Furthermore, we run correlation analyses with the BPN items and other existing constructs, to assess the discriminant and convergent validity of the new BPN-TU scale (Study 1) for which the BPN scale should be different or similar according to theory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    To ensure construct validity, the authors conducted four separate studies and analyzed the structure of the BPN-TU scale using confirmatory factor analyses to test whether the theoretical constructs according to basic psychological needs theory are reflected.

    “To ensure construct validity, we conducted four separate studies and analyzed the structure of the BPN-TU scale using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), to test if the theoretical constructs according to the BPN theory are reflected (see Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The BPN-TU factors are distinct from the other constructs, confirming discriminant validity.

    “This suggests that the BPN-TU factors are distinct from the other constructs confirming the assumption of discriminant validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In online games, avatars and teammates supported users' Relatedness.

    “Specifically, the needs for Competence and Autonomy were satisfied more strongly by leaderboard and performance graphs while Relatedness was supported by avatars and teammates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sailer et al. (2017) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The BPN scale measures different constructs from the other scales included in Study 1, confirming discriminant validity.

    “this means that the BPN scale measures in fact different constructs compared to scales aiming to measure other constructs because one would expect high correlation coefficients if the same constructs were being measured.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Basic psychological needs theory is one of six mini theories forming self-determination theory and established three universal Basic Psychological Needs: Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness.

    “The basic psychological needs theory (BPNT; Deci & Ryan, 2000;Ryan & Deci, 2000b) is one of six so called mini theories forming the self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) that established three universal Basic Psychological Needs (BPNs):”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Deci & Ryan, 2000 source
    • cites Ryan & Deci, 2000b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Deci & Ryan, 1985 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The short BPN-TU scale can replace the long scale for predictive validity because its correlation with Intention to Use is only marginally smaller and it correlates highly with the long scale.

    “The correlation between Intention to Use and the short scale also yielded a positive significant correlation with a correlation coefficient that is only marginally smaller in comparison to the long scale: rs = .725,n = 355, p < .001.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
      “The long scale and short scale also positively and significantly correlated with a very high correlation coefficient: rs = .974,n = 355, p < .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Lengthy questionnaires are impractical and go beyond acceptable time frames for HCI user studies.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because users' well-being is the outcome of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction according to self-determination theory and basic psychological needs theory, integrating Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in technology design would facilitate conformity with ethical standards.

    “Since, according to SDT and BPNT, users' well-being is the outcome of BPN Satisfaction, their integration in technology design would facilitate the conformity with ethical standards.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The item pool was evaluated in individual interviews with five experts using the thinking-aloud method.

    “These items were evaluated in individual interviews with five experts using the thinking-aloud method (Ericsson & Simon, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ericsson & Simon, 1993 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Based on 10 interviews, the original item pool was reviewed, adapted, and reduced to 24 items.

    “Based on these 10 interviews, the original item pool was reviewed by the authors, adapted, and reduced to 24 items.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    To date, no study has addressed the potential two-fold nature of the Need for Relatedness in technology use, and proper exploration of it is impossible with existing Basic Psychological Need scales.

    “Further, to date, no study has addressed the potential two-fold nature of the Need for Relatedness in technology use, proper exploration of which is impossible with existing BPN scales.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Specific online game design factors can support users' Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and subsequently motivation.

    “In the domain of gamification, Sailer et al. (2017) indicated that specific online game design factors would be able to support users' BPN Satisfaction and subsequently motivation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sailer et al. (2017) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

    “Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The BPN-TU items can be distinguished from other scales, indicated by moderately but not perfect correlation coefficients and by a model test including other constructs modeled as separate factors showing good model fit.

    “Yet, we were able to provide evidence that the BPN-TU items can be distinguished from the other scales indicated by moderately, but not perfect correlation coefficients, as well as by a model test including other constructs modeled as separate factors showing good model fit (see Study 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The paper demonstrated construct, discriminant, and predictive validity of a scale applicable across different technologies and contexts.

    “As demonstrated, we were able to demonstrate construct, discriminant, and predictive validity of a scale that is applicable across different technologies and contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The BPN-TU scale is applicable to a variety of technologies and contexts, as confirmed by invariance testing for Autonomy and Competence Need Satisfaction.

    “As confirmed by invariance testing for the Autonomy and Competence Need Satisfaction, the BPN-TU scale is applicable to a variety of technologies and contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was not preregistered.

    “The study was not preregistered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Robotic Social Attributes Scale includes warmth, competence, and discomfort as measures of the social perception of robots.

    “such as the Robotic Social Attributes Scale (Carpinella et al., 2017) which includes warmth, competence, and discomfort as measures of the social perception of robots.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carpinella et al., 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The lower factor loading and reliability of the Relatedness to Others item 3 may be due to the artificiality of the laboratory environment.

    “This may be the case due to the artificiality of the laboratory environment, which only to a certain extent simulates an actual workplace with otherwise strong social embedding, as participants worked alone in the laboratory and were simply asked to imagine themselves working with others in the factory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 3, participants were randomly assigned to one of four voice conditions.

    “There were four different voices overall (male-synthetic; male-human-like; female-synthetic; female-human-like), and participants were randomly assigned to one of these four conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The scales can be used to derive practical implications of need satisfaction in human-technology interaction studies.

    “The scales can thus be used to derive practical implications of need satisfaction in human-technology interaction studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The scale validation facilitates processes of replicability and comparability across studies and disciplines.

    “This scale validation facilitates processes of replicability and comparability across studies and disciplines.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The confirmatory factor models in Studies 1-3 separately revealed good fit to the theoretical structure for different samples and technologies (chatbot, exoskeleton, voice assistant) in online, lab, and VR settings.

    “The confirmatory factor models reported in the studies separately revealed good fit to the theoretical structure for different samples and different technologies including a chatbot, an exoskeleton, and a voice assistant in different settings of online, lab, and VR studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The translated English items were discussed with and checked by a native speaker with a background in human-computer interaction research.

    “The translated items were discussed with and checked by a native speaker with a background in human-computer interaction research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
63 of 63

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The four technologies chosen (digital voice assistant, exoskeleton, chatbot, and social robot) cover diverse fields of application and technologies sufficiently to demonstrate the BPN-TU scale's applicability.

    “Taken together, we believe that we cover diverse fields of application and technologies and highly encourage other studies to expand on the current examples.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Lengthy questionnaires are impractical and go beyond acceptable time frames for HCI user studies.

    “Due to the nature of HCI studies that often involve either lab-based or video-based (in online studies) interaction with a technology, lengthy questionnaires are impractical and go beyond the scope of acceptable time frames for user studies.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Participants who perceived the Banking Bot as more competent would not only anthropomorphize the Banking Bot more but simultaneously feel their Competence Need more fulfilled.

    “This would lead to the assumption that participants who perceived the Banking Bot as more competent, would not only anthropomorphize the Banking Bot more but simultaneously feel their Competence Need more fulfilled.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Perceived Competence mediates the relationship between Anthropomorphism and Competence Need Satisfaction.

    “Perceived Competence could thus be seen as a mediator between the two variables.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Exoskeletons can influence how workers are perceived by other coworkers.

    “However, as exoskeletons can have influence on how workers are perceived by other coworkers, we assessed the Satisfaction of the Need for Relatedness to Others.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The fit of the Relatedness Satisfaction items depends on the technology type and is expected to vary depending on the technology by theory.

    “As the fit of the Relatedness Satisfaction items depends on the technology type and is thus expected to vary depending on the technology by theory, we excluded the items in our measurement invariance test.”
6 of 6

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(118) = -1.62reported p = .109 · recomputed p = .108

    “t(118) = À1.62,p = .109”

1 of 1

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Final scale's factor model is reversed in the discussion

    Minor

    The discussion calls the final model a 3 × 4 factor model, but Table 3 identifies the 12-item model as 4 × 3: four factors with three items each.

  • Four-factor fit is claimed for studies that tested three factors

    Minor

    Studies 2 and 3 each omitted one relatedness factor, so their reported analyses cannot establish that a four-factor structure fit the data in all four studies.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Attuquayefio S., 2014, European Scientific Journal, 10, 1857
  2. Fishbein M., 1975, Intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research
  3. Ikonen V., 2009, Intelligent environments (Workshops), 261
  4. Lee Y., 2001, ICIS 2001 Proceedings, 59

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moradbakhti, L., Leichtmann, B., & Mara, M.
Affiliations
Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Test Adaptation and Development
Publisher
Hogrefe Publishing Group
Published
2024-01-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
26-45
ISSN
2698-1866 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1027/2698-1866/a000062
OpenAlex
W4391135103
Cited by
41
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3
FWCI
18.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychological Test Adaptation and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University Library Linz repository (Johannes Kepler Universitat Linz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
basic psychological needs, technology use, self-determination theory, autonomy, competence, relatedness, scale development, scale validation, voice assistants, exoskeleton, chatbots, social robots, autonomous motivation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-02.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-02.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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