Translation and Validation of the Spanish Version of the Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins...

1010

The aim of the present research was to translate and to analyze the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Satisfaction of Psychological Needs Scale, using a sample of 284 athletes (204 male and 78 female). Results of the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the correlated three-factor structure of the scale. Furthermore, the results showed evidence of convergence validity with the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. The predictive validity was tested using a structural equation model in which task orientation climate predicted the three basic psychological needs and these, in turn, intrinsic motivation. Likewise, we documented evidence of reliability, analyzed as internal consistency and temporal stability. Results partially support the use of the Spanish version of the scale in sports.Keywords: basic psychological needs, self-determination, psychometric properties, sport.

El propósito de esta investigación fue traducir y analizar las propiedades psicométricas de la versión

española de la Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins Psychologiques en una muestra de 284 deportistas

(204 hombres y 78 mujeres). Los resultados del análisis factorial confirmatorio confirmaron la estructura

de tres factores correlacionados de la escala. Asimismo, se obtuvieron resultados que evidenciaron

validez convergente con el Basic Psycological Needs in Exercise Scale y validez predictiva mediante un

análisis de ecuaciones estructurales en el que el clima tarea predecía las tres necesidades psicológicas

básicas y éstas, a su vez, la motivación intrínseca. Asimismo, se documentan evidencias de fiabilidad,

analizada como consistencia interna y estabilidad temporal. Los resultados apoyan preliminarmente el

uso de la versión española en el contexto deportivo.

Palabras clave: necesidades psicológicas básicas, autodeterminación, propiedades psicométricas,

deporte.

Translation and Validation of the Spanish Version of the “Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins Psychologiques”

in the Sports Context

Evelia Domínguez1, Patricia Martín1, José Martín-Albo2, Juan L. Núñez1, and Jaime León1

1Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain) 2Universidad de Zaragoza (Spain)

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan L. Núñez. Departamento de Psicología y Sociología. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. C/. Santa Juana de Arco, 1. 35004 Las Palmas. (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2010 by The Spanish Journal of PsychologyISSN 1138-7416

The Spanish Journal of Psychology 2010, Vol. 13 No. 2, 1010-1020

SATISFACTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS SCALE 1011

The self-determination theory (SDT) is one of the theories of human motivation that deals with fundamental issues such as the development of personality, self-regulation, basic psychological needs, life goals and aspirations, energy and vitality, in addition to the impact of social environments, affect, behavior, and well-being on motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The SDT analyzes the degree to which people perform actions voluntarily, by their own choice. According to this theory, people can participate in activities for different reasons. People are intrinsically motivated when they carry out an activity for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from the activity itself. In contrast, extrinsic motivation describes behaviors performed to achieve material or social rewards, whereas when people are amotivated, they perceive no relation between their actions and the results derived thereof (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

One of the subtheories of the SDT is that human behavior is motivated by three psychological primary and universal needs: the perception of autonomy, the perception of competence, and the perception of social relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2000). This subtheory defines needs as innate psychological elements that are essential for prolonged development, adequate integrity, and psychological well-being. Perception of autonomy refers to people’s efforts to be the agent, to feel themselves to be the origin of their actions, and to be strong enough to determine their own behavior; in other words, to experience internal locus of causality. Perception of competence is based on attempts to control results and to experience efficacy. Perception of social relatedness refers to the effort to relate to and be concerned about others, as well as to feel that others have an authentic relationship with oneself and to experience satisfaction with the social world (Deci & Ryan, 1991).

Within the SDT framework, Deci and Ryan (2000b) developed the Basic Psychological Needs Scales (BPNS) to assess the main psychological needs. This scale is made up of three subscales: One of them refers to the satisfaction of these needs in general and the other two refer to the satisfaction of needs in specific spheres (work setting and sphere of interpersonal relations). In its original version, this instrument has 21 items to measure each one of the three needs by means of Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

In the sphere of physical-sport activity, numerous attempts have been made to assess the basic psychological needs using isolated items or adapting items designed a priori for other settings (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002).

In this sense, Wilson, Rogers, Rodgers, and Wild (2006) developed a scale to measure these needs in physical exercise called the Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Exercise Scale (PNSE), using a sample of 426 Canadian university students. The scale revealed acceptable internal

consistency of the subscales, measured with Cronbach’s alpha (.90 in Perception of autonomy and Perception of competence and .91 in Perception of relatedness), as well as evidence of construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with adequate fit indexes: the comparative fit index (CFI) = .94, the incremental fit index (IFI) = .94, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .09, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .07. The PNSE has 18 items (6 items for each one of the basic psychological needs) rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Likewise, Vlachopoulos and Michailidou (2006) developed a Greek version to measure the three basic psychological needs in physical exercise with 508 subjects for the calibration sample and 504 subjects for the validation sample, all of them practitioners of physical activity. This scale was named the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES). This version has 12 items divided into three subscales that represent the factors of Perception of autonomy, Perception of competence, and Perception of social relatedness, with 4 items in each subscale, rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The results showed acceptable internal consistency of the factors with values of Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .81 (Perception of competence) and .92 (Perception of social relatedness). The results also showed adequate fit of the model in the calibration sample: NNFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06 (LO 90 = .05, HI 90 = .07), SRMR = .04, as well as in the validation sample: NNFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05 (LO 90 = .04, HI 90 = .06), SRMR = .03.

Subsequently, the BPNES has been validated in diverse cultural contexts: in the Greek context by Vlachopoulos (2007) with values of Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .84 for Perception of autonomy and .92 for Perception of social relatedness, showing adequate fit of the model: NNFI

= .97, CFI = .97, and RMSEA = .06 (LO 90 = .05, HI 90 = .07). In the Spanish context, within the sphere of physical exercise, Sánchez and Núñez (2007) obtained values of Cronbach’s alpha between .74 (Perception of autonomy) and .87 (Perception of competence) and an adequate fit of the model, establishing four correlations between errors, as recommended due to the modification indexes (CFI = .95, IFI = .95, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .05). Moreno, González-Cutre, Chillón, and Parra (2008) carried out a validation in physical education classes, where they found Cronbach’s alpha values of .81 for Autonomy, .78 for Competence, and .84 for Social relatedness, and an adequate fit of the model (χ2/df = 3.29, CFI = .94, IFI = .94; TLI = .92, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .07).

Recently, Gillet, Rosnet, and Vallerand (2008) developed the “Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins Psychologiques” (Satisfaction of Psychological Needs Scale) in French, with a sample of 222 students and 204 competition athletes to

DOMÍNGUEZ, MARTÍN, MARTÍN-ALBO, NÚÑEZ, AND LEÓN1012

measure the three basic psychological needs in sport, using for this purpose 15 items, 5 items for each one of these needs. These authors provided evidence of factor structure obtaining an adequate fit of the model (χ2/df = 1.95; GFI = .92; NNFI = .93; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .07). The correlations between the three latent factors were positive and significant. Specifically, the following correlations were obtained: .40 for Perception of autonomy-Perception of competence, .39 for Perception of autonomy-Perception of relatedness, and .45 for Perception of competence-Perception of social relatedness. The internal consistency of this instrument yielded satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha values: .71 for Perception of competence, .82 for Perception of autonomy, and .81 for Perception of relatedness.

Diverse studies have analyzed the basic psychological needs with regard to gender invariance, finding that, independently of the instrument, the structure of the three basic needs is similar in men and women (Adie, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2008; Moreno, Conte, Borges, & González-Cutre, 2008; Sánchez & Núñez, 2007; Vlachopoulos, 2008).

According to the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation proposed by Vallerand (1997), the basic psychological needs are the psychological mediators between social factors and motivation, which, in turn, leads to a series of cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences. Therefore, satisfaction of basic psychological needs tends to increase self-determined motivation (Moreno, Conte, et al., 2008; Moreno, González-Cutre, et al., 2008). Moreover, studies conducted in the sports context (Adie et al., 2008; Reinboth & Duda, 2006; Smith, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2007) have corroborated this prediction.

In this sense and within the sports context, Blanchard and Vallerand (1996) and Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) found that the perception of the three basic psychological needs mediated the effect of coach behavior and team cohesion on motivation. In addition, in a study by Reinboth et al., (2004), they found that perception of competence was the best psychological mediator in this process. Likewise, in studies by Vlachopoulos (2007) and Vlachopoulos and Michailidou (2006) with subjects who practiced physical activity, the need for competence played a more important role in the prediction of the motivated results of concentration, attitude, and intention, and only fun/interest was significantly predicted by the three needs.

However, various studies argue that a motivational climate of task engagement could satisfy the needs of competence, autonomy, and social relatedness and enhance self-determination, whereas a motivational climate of ego involvement could decrease such needs, thus fomenting extrinsic motivation and amotivation (Moreno, Parra, & González-Cutre, 2008; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999; Sarrazin et al., 2002).

As perception of the basic psychological needs is important in the explanation of motivation within the

SDT, and there is no instrument in Spanish to measure the basic psychological needs in the sports context, our goal is to translate the “Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins Psychologiques” (Satisfaction of Psychological Needs Scale) of Gillet et al. (2008) to Spanish and to analyze its psychometric properties in a sample of athletes. For this purpose, we will analyze the evidence of reliability by means of internal consistency and temporal stability, construct validity by means of CFA, concurrent validity by means of analysis of correlations with the BPNES scale, and lastly, predictive validity using the analysis of structural equations.

Method

Participants

A total of 282 federated Spanish athletes (204 men and 78 women), who practiced diverse sports (soccer, handball, volleyball, indoor soccer, karate, water polo, swimming, tennis, and hockey), took part in this study. All the athletes were federated and competed at least at the regional level. Age ranged between 14 and 35 years, mean age 20.24 years (SD = 4.97).

To assess the temporal stability of the scale, a second sample of 54 athletes (34 men and 20 women) was employed. Their mean age of was 21.11 years (SD = 4.83), and they completed the scale twice with a 10-week interval. We chose this long interval to eliminate the influence of the results and so the participants would coincide in the same competition stage of the season. Moreover, there were no changes in the coach or in the incorporation of new players that could affect the perception of the basic psychological needs.

Instruments

To measure the basic psychological needs we used the “Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins Psychologiques” of Gillet et al. (2008). We used the backward translation strategy to translate this scale into Spanish (Hambleton, 1996). The items were translated to Spanish and later, another group of translators retranslated them to French, comparing them with the original items. Subsequently, the items were assessed by three experts in sport motivation and SDT (Lynn, 1986) who assessed the adequacy of the items to the corresponding constructs. We were also careful about the correct drafting of the items; three originally negative items were changed to a positive formulation, eliminating denial as recommended by diverse authors (Green, Goldman, & Salovey, 1993; Marsh, 1986, 1996) in Items 3 (“…souvent, je ne me sens pas très compétent” was changed to “…I often feel very competent,”), 12 (“… je n’ai pas beaucoup de possibilités de montrer ce dont je suis


cazable” to “...I have many possibilities of demonstrating my capacity”) and 15 (“…souvent, je ne me sens pas très performant” to “...I often feel I can do it well”). The translated scale, called the “Escala de Satisfacción de las Necesidades Psicológicas en el Deporte” (ESNPD; in English, the Satisfaction of Psychological Needs in Sports Scale) has 15 items to measure the three dimensions: Perception of autonomy, Perception of competence, and Perception of social relatedness. Responses are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

In order to analyze the evidence of convergent validity, we used the Spanish version (Sánchez & Núñez, 2007) of the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES) of Vlachopoulos and Michailidou (2006). This version has 4 items for each subscale, which are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

To measure perceived task-oriented motivational climate, we used the subscale of Task-oriented motivational climate of the Spanish version (Balaguer, Mayo, Atienza, & Duda, 1997) of the Perceived Motivacional Scale in Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2) of Newton and Duda (1993). This scale has 29 items, of which 15 assess task-oriented motivational climate, which includes three aspects: cooperation, effort, and role importance (Balaguer et al., 1997). Responses are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

To measure intrinsic motivation, we used the three subscales of Intrinsic motivation of the Spanish version of the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) of Núñez, Martín-Albo, Navarro, and González (2006). The three subscales (Intrinsic motivation towards achievement, towards knowledge, and towards stimulating experiences) are made up of four items. Each subscale is rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly).

Procedure

Once the sports teams had been selected, we contacted all the club coordinators or presidents and explained the goals of the study. For the minor athletes, we requested the corresponding authorization from their parents or tutors. Once on the playgrounds, we explained the purpose of the study to the athletes and informed them that their participation was voluntary and anonymous. We then requested their collaboration and they were asked to complete the instruments with the greatest honesty and sincerity. The instruments were administered to the athletes collectively and before a training session, providing them with the necessary help to complete them correctly. The order of administration of the instruments was as follows: PMCSQ-2, ESNPD, BPNES, and SMS. In the case of the sample for the analysis of temporal stability, to identify the questionnaires, we used the last three numbers of the acreditative document of the corresponding sports federation.

Data Analysis

To analyze the evidence of construct validity of the scale, we conducted CFA. To determine the evidence of reliability, we used analysis of internal consistency and temporal stability. Evidence of convergent validity was analyzed by means of an analysis of correlations between this scale and the BPNES, because the ESNPD measures basic psychological needs in the sports context and the BPNES measures basic psychological needs in the context of physical activity, so we expect a positive and significant correlation. Lastly, to analyze the evidence of predictive validity, we used structural equations analysis, in which we hypothesized that task-oriented climate would positively affect the three basic psychological needs and these needs in turn would positively predict self-determined motivation. We used a two-step procedure, as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), first analyzing the measurement model, which provides construct validity to the instruments, and subsequently performing the structural model to analyze the predictive relations among the variables. Both for the CFA and for the structural equations analysis, we used the following fit indexes: IFI and CFI to assess the model as recommended by Hoyle (1995) and whose values should be equal to or higher than .90 to consider the fit of the model minimally acceptable (Shumacker & Lomax, 1996); and RMSEA as an index that provides a measure of discrepancy per degree of freedom, considering a fit acceptable when it is lower than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). To carry out these analyses, we used the statistical programs AMOS 7.0 and SPSS 15.

Results

Descriptive analyses

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) of the items used in this study. It can be observed that all the skewness and kurtosis values approach the value zero, which indicates similarity to the normal curve, as suggested by Bollen and Long (1993).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the scale was assessed with CFA, using maximum likelihood estimation and the item covariance matrix as input for data analysis. As Mardia’s coefficient was 63.30, which indicates noncompliance with the assumption of multivariate normality, we also conducted a standard bootstrapping procedure with a resampling of 500 samples. This procedure allows one to compare the values estimated without bootstrapping with the set of estimated values in the bootstrap, indicating the level of bias. The confidence intervals (differences between the highest and lowest estimated values in the diverse


bootstrap samples) should not include the value zero in order to reject the null hypothesis that the factor loadings are equal to zero in the population (Byrne, 2001).

Table 2 presents the results of the bootstrapping, which shows that the standard errors of the factor loadings ranged

between .01 and .12, and were similar to those obtained in the original sample. Moreover, the levels of bias were low. Lastly, the adjusted confidence intervals did not include the value zero, so we can state that the estimated parameters are different from zero in the population.

Table 1Descriptive Statistics of the ESNPD Items

Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis

1. Me siento libre en mis decisiones 4.78 1.66 -.31 -.722. Siento mucha simpatía por las personas con las que me relaciono 5.80 1.33 -1.07 .663. A menudo me siento muy competente 4.89 1.55 -.53 -.384. Generalmente me siento libre para expresar mis opiniones 5.06 1.64 -.53 -.625. Me siento bien con las personas con las que me relaciono 5.80 1.30 -1.10 .806. Tengo la sensación de hacer las cosas bien 5.17 1.28 -.53 .067. Tengo la posibilidad de tomar decisiones sobre mi programa de

entrenamiento 3.15 1.85 .52 -.78

8. Las personas que me rodean me valoran y me aprecian 5.32 1.41 -.65 -.119. Creo que puedo responder a las exigencias de mi programa de

entrenamiento 5.48 1.45 -1.00 .72

10. Participo en la elaboración de mi programa de entrenamiento 3.54 2.06 .31 -1.2011. Considero mis amigos a las personas con las que me relaciono

normalmente 5.18 1.69 -.65 -.56

12. Tengo muchas posibilidades de demostrar mi capacidad 5.56 1.34 -.88 .4013. Puedo opinar sobre la elaboración de mi programa de

entrenamiento 3.49 1.94 .33 -1.03

14. Me siento a gusto con los demás 5.83 1.34 -1.10 .6315. A menudo siento que puedo hacerlo bien 5.60 1.31 -.92 .65

[Translator’s note: the items have not been translated because it is the Spanish version of the scale.]

Table 2Standard Errors of the Bootstrap Factors, Mean of the Estimated Nonstandard Parameters, and Adjusted Confidence Intervals of the Parameters

Parameters SE SE-SE Mean Bias SE-Bias LL HL p

Item1 Autonomy .09 .01 .46 .01 .01 .33 .64 .003Item7 Autonomy .10 .01 .95 .01 .01 .80 1.15 .003Item10 Autonomy .01 .01 1.00 .01 .01 1.01 1.01 ...Item13 Autonomy .08 .01 1.04 -.01 .01 .92 1.19 .003Item6 Competence .01 .01 1.00 .01 .01 1.01 1.01 ...Item9 Competence .12 .01 .79 .01 .01 .58 1.01 .004Item3 Competence .12 .01 1.10 -.01 .01 .90 1.29 .005Item12 Competence .12 .01 1.22 -.01 .01 1.01 1.44 .004Item15 Competence .12 .01 1.03 -.01 .01 .84 1.24 .003Item2 Relations .01 .01 1.00 .01 .01 1.01 1.01 ...Item5 Relations .07 .01 .90 .01 .01 .78 1.02 .005Item8 Relations .08 .01 .89 .01 .01 .74 1.02 .006Item11 Relations .09 .01 .87 .01 .01 .71 1.01 .005Item14 Relations .07 .01 1.00 .01 .01 .88 1.14 .004Item4 Autonomy .08 .01 .42 .01 .01 .31 .58 .002

Note. SE = standard error; LL = lower limit; HL = higher limit.


The fit indexes were not satisfactory, as they did not meet the cut-off values recommended by various authors (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Shumacker & Lomax, 1996), specifically, the values were: IFI = .87, CFI = .87, and RMSEA = .09 (LO 90 = .08, HI 90 = .10). Due to the inadequate fit of the model, we proceeded to respecify it. Firstly, we analyzed the modification indexes of the program that recommended the correlation of the measurement errors of Items 1 and 4 from the subscale of Perception of autonomy. These items presented the lowest factor loading on the factor. Therefore, we decided to respecity the model, correlating the measurement errors with these two items. We subsequently performed a new CFA with the new respecified model, the results of which revealed a better fit of the data, with the following values: IFI = .91, CFI = .91, and RMSEA = .07 (LO 90 = .06; HI 90 = .09). The values of

the modification indexes proposed by the program did not significantly improve the fit of the model.

As shown in Table 3, the estimated parameters were significant (p < .01). The standard errors ranged between .06 and .13, with the items corresponding to the factor Perceived competence presenting higher values. Figure 1 shows that the correlations between the three latent factors were positive and significant (p < .01). Specifically, the following correlations were obtained: .43 for Perception of autonomy-Perception of competence, .40 for Perception of autonomy-Perception of relatedness, and .65 for Perception of competence-Perception of social relatedness.

Convergent Validity

We analyzed the relation between the subscales of the ESNPD and the subscales of the BPNES (Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006) with Pearson correlations. According to the results, the correlations between the scales were positive and significant (p < .01). As can be seen in Table 4, the highest correlation was between the two subscales of Perception of social relatedness (r = .71), and the lowest was between the Perception of social relatedness subscale of the BPNES and the Perception of autonomy subscale of the ESNPD (r = .32).

Reliability Analysis

To analyze reliability, firstly, we analyzed the internal consistency of the scale with Cronbach’s alpha. The results yielded values of .76 for Perception of autonomy, .77 for Perception of competence, and .85 for Perception of social relatedness. Secondly, we analyzed the temporal stability of the scale in a new sample of 54 athletes who completed the scale twice, with a 10-week interval.

As can be seen in Table 5, the pretest alphas ranged between .78 for the subscale Perception of competence and .88 for the subscale Perception of social relatedness. The posttest alphas ranged between .83 for the subscale Perception of competence and .88 for the subscale Perception of autonomy. In addition, the test-retest correlations ranged

Table 3Estimated Parameters of the Respecified Model

Parameters Estimated value SE CR

Item1 Autonomy .46* .08 5.83Item7 Autonomy .95* .09 10.37Item10 Autonomy 1.00Item13 Autonomy 1.04* .09 11.01Item6 Competence 1.00Item9 Competence .78* .12 6.71Item3 Competence 1.10* .13 8.72Item12 Competence 1.22* .12 10.22Item15 Competence 1.04* .11 9.76Item2 Relations 1.00Item5 Relations .90* .06 15.21Item8 Relations .88* .07 12.75Item11 Relations .87* .09 10.08Item14 Relations 1.01* .06 16.51Item4 Autonomy .42* .08 5.51

Note. SE = standard error; CR = critical ratio. * p < .01.

Table 4Correlations among the Subscales of the ESNPD and the Subscales of the BPNES

ESNPD subscales BPNESP. autonomy

BPNESP. competence

BPNESP. social relatedness

Perception of autonomy .41* .35* .32*

Perception of competence .42* .61* .36*

Perception of social relatedness .37* .41* .71*

* p < .01.


Perception of autonomy

Item 1 e1 .40

.16

e3 .75 .57

e4

.71 .51

e5

.79

.62

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

.67 .45

.47 .22

.61 .37

.78 .61

.68

.46

e11

e12

e13

e14

e15

.85

.71

.78 .61

.71 .50

.58 .33

.84 .71

.43*

.65*

.40*

e2 .14

.38 .49

Perception of competence

Perception of social

relatedness

Item 4

Item 7

Item 10

Item 13

Item 3

Item 6

Item 9

Item 12

Item 15

Item 2

Item 5

Item 8

Item 11

Item 14

Figure 1. CFA model of the ESNPD scale. The parameters shown are standard. * p < .01


between .68 for the subscale Perception of social relatedness and .71 for the subscale Perception of competence.

In the present study, the rest of the instruments used obtained the following values of internal consistency measured by means of Cronbach’s alpha. In the BPNES scale, the values were .60 for Perception of autonomy, .73 for Perception of competence, and .87 for Perception of social relatedness. Internal consistency of the Task-oriented climate subscale of the PMCSQ-2 was .88. Lastly, internal consistency of the Intrinsic motivation subscales of the SMS were .84 for Intrinsic motivation toward knowledge, .88 for Intrinsic motivation toward achievement, and .80 for Intrinsic motivation toward stimulating experiences.

Predictive Validity

With regard to the variables used in the model, multivariate normality was 33.64, so we proceeded to use the standard bootstrapping technique with 500 resamplings, both in the measurement model and in the structural equation model.

Step 1. Measurement modelTo test the measurement model, we conducted

CFA considering an oblique model including all the latent variables that make up the theoretical structural model. The items of each latent variable—Perception of autonomy, Perception of competence, and Perception of social relatedness—were grouped homogeneously into two indicators in order to maintain reasonable degrees of freedom. The fit of the model was tested with the maximum likelihood method, using the bootstrapping procedure. The model was identified because each latent variable had at least two indicators (McDonald & Ho, 2002). The results were as follows: IFI = .97, CFI = .97, and RMSEA = .06 (LO 90 = .04, HI 90 = .08).

Step 2. Structural equation modelThe results revealed adequate fit indexes (IFI = .96,

CFI = .96, RMSEA =.07 [LO 90 =.05, HI 90 =.08]) and all the parameters were significant (p < .01). Analysis of the bootstrap confidence intervals showed that they did not include the value zero, so we can assume that the estimators in the population are different from zero (Byrne, 2001). As shown in Figure 2, the relations between Task-

oriented climate and basic psychological needs (Perception of autonomy, Perception of competence Perception of social relatedness) were positive (β = .70, β = .80 and β

= .73, respectively) and significant (p < .01). Likewise, the relations of Perception of autonomy and Perception of competence with Intrinsic motivation were also positive (β = .21 and β = .30, respectively) and significant (p < .01). However, the relation between Perception of social relatedness and Intrinsic motivation was nonsignificant (β = .08; p > .05). Lastly, the model explained 26% of the variance of the variable Intrinsic motivation, and the power of the model was .99 (ε = .01).

Discussion

The goal of the present study was to translate into Spanish the ESNPD in the sport context and to analyze its psychometric properties. With regard to the translation of the scale, in the definitive version, we changed the items that were originally stated negatively, substituting them with an affirmative version.

With regard to the evidence of construct validity, firstly, we analyzed the factor structure of the ESNPD by means of CFA. The results indicated an initial poor fit. The modification indexes of the program suggested a strong relation between the measurement errors of two items of Perception of autonomy, so we respecified the model, correlating the measurement errors of the Items 1 and 4. This time the fit of the model was satisfactory. This result coincides with the findings using the original scale, in which eight relations were established among the measurement errors, among which was the correlation between these two items (Gillet et al., 2008). The relation of these two items can be explained because they both refer very generally to the possibility of making decisions, not specifying any situation. However, the other three items of Perception of autonomy clearly refer to the possibility of making decisions in the training program. That is, there could be two ways of understanding autonomy: a general way and a specific one linked to training. Moreover, the correlations among the three latent factors were positive and significant, in a similar line as the findings with the original scale and in other studies that measured the three basic psychological needs (Moreno, González-Cutre, et al., 2008; Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006).

Table 5Internal Consistency and Test-retest Correlation of the ESNPD Scale

ESNPD subscales Pretest alpha Posttest alpha Test-retest

Perception of autonomy .87 .88 .70Perception of competence .78 .83 .71Perception of social relatedness .88 .84 .68


Regarding convergent validity between the ESNPD and the BPNES, the results indicate high, positive, and significant correlations between the subscales that measure the same factor. This provides evidence that both scales assess the same constructs, although we note that the ESNPD is more specific to the sports context, whereas the BPNES is specific to physical exercise so that, on the one hand, this justifies the values of moderate internal consistency in some of the subscales and, on the other, it could distort the results

of convergent validity. In this sense, Perception of social relatedness obtains a higher correlation because this aspect may be similar in the sports context and in physical exercise. However, Perception of competence and Perception of autonomy may be affected by the differences between the sports context and that of physical exercise. For example, the existence of competitions can be more relevant in the sports context, as they allow a more objective comparison through the achievement of externally assessed results.

.62 .76 .78

Task climate

Cooperation Effort Role

.39 .42 .62

.39 .45

.80

.74 .78

.30

P. competence

.37

compet. 1 compet. 2

.35 .25

.87 .80

P. autonomy

.21 .50

autonomy 1

autonomy 2

.70

.24 .28

.85 .87

P. social relatedness

sociales

.08

.47

relations 1 relations 2

.73

.85 .83 .91

Intrinsic motivation

Achievement Knowledge Stimulating Experiences

.32 .28 .16

.74

Figure 2. Structural equation analysis with estimated standard parameters.


Thus, the evidence of convergent validity should be studied in more detail with instruments developed and validated for the same context.

Regarding the evidence of reliability of the scale, firstly, internal consistency revealed acceptable levels in the three subscales, similar to those found in the original version (Gillet et al., 2008) and in a later study (Gillet & Rosnet, 2008). Secondly, the stability of the scale also presented acceptable values, providing evidence of the reliability of the scale. In this sense, as it was a long interval (10 weeks), the results could have been affected by variables not contemplated or controlled in the study.

With regard to predictive validity, we tested the structural model, in which we hypothesized that a task-oriented climate positively predicted the three basic psychological needs and these, in turn, predicted self-determined motivation, acting as mediators. This hypothesis is consistent with the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Vallerand, 1997), which establishes that the basic psychological needs are psychological mediators between social factors and motivation. The results of the structural equation model revealed that task-oriented climate positively and significantly predicted the three psychological needs, in accordance with previous studies (Moreno, Parra, et al., 2008; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999; Sarrazin et al., 2002). Regarding the predictive relations between the three basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation, the hypothesis is fulfilled regarding Perception of autonomy and Perception of competence. This result is in accordance with other studies (Moreno, Conte, et al., 2008; Moreno, González-Cutre, et al., 2008) and, as also suggested by Reinboth et al. (2004), Perception of competence presents the strongest relation with intrinsic motivation. However, as stated by Deci and Ryan (2000a), Perception of social relatedness presents the weakest relation with intrinsic motivation. This factor was not significant, which partially coincides with the study of Gillet et al. (2008), in which the relation between Perception of social relatedness and intrinsic motivation toward knowledge was nonsignificant. This result should be studied in more detail in future works that analyze the effects on the three types of intrinsic motivation separately.

Nevertheless, we must point out some limitations in the present study. Firstly, the evidence of validity and reliability should be considered provisional, as the sample size, especially the sample of women, was small. Future studies should verify gender effects in a larger sample, in which an analysis of the invariance of the factor structure of the scale could be included. Secondly, due to the lack of specific instruments to measure the perception of psychological needs in sports in Spanish population, the results of convergent validity should be taken with precaution. Thirdly, we did not control the influence of relevant aspects in the sport context, such as autonomy support, during the interval of collecting data of temporal stability. This aspect is particularly relevant if we consider

that in a 10-week interval, a change in the coach’s strategies or in the demands of competition could affect the needs and, thus, affect our data. Future studies should control these variables and study the effect on the validity of the instrument.

To conclude, in general, the results showed that the ESNPD presents preliminary evidence of reliability and validity, in a similar vein as those obtained in the original version (Gillet et al., 2008), and has acceptable psychometric properties that allow its use to assess the perception of the basic psychological needs in the sport context within the theoretical framework of the SDT.

References

Adie, J., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). Autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the optimal functioning of adult male and female sport participants: A test of basic needs theory. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 189-199.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Balaguer, I., Mayo, C., Atienza, F., & Duda, J. L. (1997). Factorial validity of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in the case of Spanish elite female handball teams [abstract]. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 27.

Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Perceptions of competence, autonomy and relatedness as psychological mediators of the social factors-contextual motivation relationship. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada.

Bollen, K., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Longs (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38 pp.237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000a). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000b). Questionnaires: Basic Psychological Needs Scales. Retrieved September 11, 2001, from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/needs.html

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182-185.


Gillet, N., & Rosnet, E. (2008). Basic need satisfaction and motivation in sport. The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 10(3).

Gillet, N., Rosnet, E., & Vallerand, R. J. (2008). Développement d’une échelle de satisfaction des besoins fondamentaux en contexte sportif. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 230-237.

Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1024-1041.

Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Adaptación de test para su uso en diferentes idiomas y culturas [Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures]. In J. Muñiz (Ed.), Psicometría (pp. 67-89). Madrid: Universitas.

Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviours and college athletes’ intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 20-36.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lynn, M. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382-85.

Marsh, H. W. (1986). Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22, 37-49.

Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810-819.

McDonald, R. P., & Ho, R. M. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.

Moreno, J. A., Conte, L., Borges, F., & González-Cutre, D. (2008). Necesidades psicológicas básicas, motivación intrínseca y propensión a la experiencia autotélica en el ejercicio físico [Basic psychological needs, intrinsic motivation, and autotelic experience propensity in physical exercise]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 25, 305-312.

Moreno, J. A., González-Cutre, D., Chillón, M., & Parra, N. (2008). Adaptación a la educación física de la Escala de las Necesidades Psicológicas Básicas en el Ejercicio [Adaptation of the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale to physical education]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 25, 295-303.

Moreno, J. A., Parra, N., & González-Cutre, D. (2008). Influencia del apoyo a la autonomía, las metas sociales y la relación con los demás sobre la desmotivación en educación física [Influence of autonomy support, social goals and relatedness on amotivation in physical education classes]. Psicothema, 20, 636-641.

Newton, M. L., & Duda, J. L. (1993). The Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2: Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 5-56.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. (1999). A review of motivational climate in physical activity. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 643-665.

Núñez, J. L., Martín-Albo, J., Navarro, J. G., & González, V. (2006). Preliminary validation of a Spanish version of The

Sport Motivation Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 919-930.

Reinboth, M., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 269-286.

Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 297-313.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Sánchez, J., & Núñez, J. L. (2007). Análisis preliminar de las propiedades psicométricas de la versión española de la Escala de Necesidades Psicológicas Básicas en el Ejercicio Físico. [Preliminar analysis of the psychometric properties of the Spanish versión of the Basic Psychological Needs Scale in physical exercise]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 2, 83-92.

Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.

Shumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smith, A. L., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2007). Goal striving, goal attainment and well-being: An adaptation and testing of the self-concordance model in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 763-782.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271-360). New York: Academic Press.

Vlachopoulos, S. P. (2007). Psychometric evaluation of the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale in community exercise programs: A cross validation approach. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 14, 52-64.

Vlachopoulos, S. P. (2008). The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale: Measurement invariance over gender. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 114-135.

Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 103, 179-201.

Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. T., Rodgers, W. M., & Wild, C. (2006). The Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 231-251.

Received July 26, 2009Revision received February 13, 2010

Accepted March 24, 2010

Translation and Validation of the Spanish Version of the Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins...

Documents

Transcript of Translation and Validation of the Spanish Version of the Échelle de Satisfaction des Besoins...