Observational analysis established the SBPNFSS as a reliable measure of basic psychological needs frustration in students, highlighting its significance for school engagement.
Basic psychological needs frustration varies across life domains, highlighting the need for domain‐specific assessment instruments. However, a psychometrically sound scale to measure students' basic psychological needs frustration within the school context has not yet been established. This study therefore aimed to develop and validate the Students' Basic Psychological Needs Frustration at School Scale (SBPNFSS). Data were collected from a large convenience sample of Chinese students aged 7–19 years, and the scale's psychometric properties were systematically evaluated through a three‐study procedure. In Study 1 ( N = 1,186), the scale was developed and its underlying structure was explored; exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and exploratory graph analysis (EGA) revealed a correlated three‐factor structure comprising autonomy frustration, relatedness frustration, and competence frustration. In Study 2 ( N = 1,614), this three‐factor structure was cross‐validated in an independent sample using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), showing very good model fit. Evidence was provided for the scale's convergent and discriminant validity and internal consistency. Criterion‐related validity was supported by significant associations with depression and anxiety symptoms and self‐esteem; full scalar measurement invariance was also established across gender, age, and socioeconomic status. In Study 3, the 1‐month longitudinal follow‐up ( N = 1,441) supported the scale's test‐retest reliability and longitudinal measurement invariance, and demonstrated its predictive validity through significant associations with future student engagement and school affect. Overall, the findings provide strong preliminary support for the SBPNFSS as a reliable and valid tool for assessing students' basic psychological needs frustration at school.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: