Work Needs Satisfaction Scale- Spanish Version: Psychometric Properties and Validity Evidence

Abstract

With a growing Latinx workforce in the U.S., many of whom are Spanish-speaking, there is a pressing need to examine key constructs related to vocational well-being in this population. The aim of the current study was to validate a Spanish language version of the Work Needs Satisfaction Scales (WNSS; Autin et al., 2019). The WNSS comprises a set of scales developed to measure satisfaction of survival, social contribution, autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, all of which are theorized to be key mediators in the link from decent work to well-being and work fulfillment. Using cross-sectional data across two samples of Latinx workers, we tested the reliability and validity of a Spanish language version of the WNSS (WNSS-SV). In Study 1 we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a sample of 195 participants. This resulted in a 19-item scale with five factors mirroring those of the English language scale. In Study 2 (N = 377), we examined factor structure and model fit using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); measurement invariance across gender, language, and social class group; and concurrent validity. Results from Study 2 demonstrated the model was a good fit to the data; showed concurrent validity; and provided support for measurement invariance. Thus, overall results indicated that the WNSS-SV may serve as a useful tool for future research on work-related need satisfaction among Latinx workers. A discussion regarding the importance of these findings and implications for practice and research are provided.

Keywords

need satisfaction psychology of working theory latinx workers

In recent decades, vocational scholars have emphasized the role of working in satisfying basic physical and psychological needs (Blustein, 2001). The Psychology of Working Theory (PWT; Duffy et al., 2016) positions basic need satisfaction as a pivotal mediator in the link between access to decent work and optimal human functioning. The last several years has seen a burgeoning in PWT research, particularly in the domain of instrument development and validation (e.g. Duffy et al., 2017; 2019), including the development of the Work Needs Satisfaction Scale (WNSS; Autin et al., 2019). The WNSS measures the extent to which one’s work provides satisfaction of three basic needs that are positioned as mediators within PWT: survival, social contribution, and self-determination needs. The development of the WNSS and other PWT instruments has vastly increased the potential for testing theoretical links between decent work, basic need satisfaction, and well-being outcomes. Since its development, the WNSS has been used to find support for the PWT hypothesis that decent work leads to positive vocational and well-being outcomes via satisfaction of basic needs (Duffy et al., 2019, 2021).

A pivotal aim of PWT is to capture the vocational experiences of all who work and want to work (Duffy et al., 2016), and a critical piece of achieving this aim is developing instruments for use with broad and diverse populations. Notably, workers who belong to racially and ethnically minoritized groups, in the U.S. and globally, have historically encountered systemic barriers to their career development, and have been largely overlooked by scholarship in vocational psychology (Flores et al., 2019). Thus, adaptation of instruments for administration in specific languages and cultural groups, beyond the dominant class of English-speaking white workers, is integral to the scientific and social justice missions of PWT research. In the current study, we aimed to translate and validate a version of the WNSS to be used with one of the largest and fastest-growing populations of workers in the world: Spanish-speaking Latinx workers. Given the rich diversity within Latinx populations, it is important not to conflate Latinx identity with Spanish language use. However, national statistics show that 73% of U.S. Latinxs speak Spanish at home (Krogstad & Lopez, 2017), and 72% of U.S. Latinxs are bilingual or Spanish dominant. Globally, Spanish ranks second as the most spoken language, with about 480 million native speakers worldwide (Lopez et al., 2017). Thus, it is of pivotal importance that vocational researchers develop of Spanish-language instruments for use in career research and practice.

Psychology of Working Theory

Predictors of Decent Work

The central goal of PWT is to understand predictors and outcomes of decent work. Decent work is defined by access to adequate health care, sufficient compensation, adequate rest, safe working conditions, and values consistent with family and community values (Blustein et al., 2016; Duffy et al., 2016). Notably, decent work is not available to a large segment of Latinxs in the U.S. workforce. Furthermore, the global COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally impacted Latinxs in the workplace, who are overrepresented in essential work positions without options to work form home, and who have had greater job losses, unemployment, and poverty than non-Latinx white workers during the pandemic, resulting in larger wage gaps between Latinxs and whites (Gould et al., 2020).

PWT scholars argue that contextual influences (i.e., economic constraints and experiences of marginalization) are the primary predictors of a person’s capacity to secure decent work. These contextual factors are thought to influence access to decent work both directly and indirectly via work volition (i.e., perceived freedom of work choice) and career adaptability (i.e., ability to adapt in the face of work-related stressors).

Outcomes of Decent Work

PWT posits that securement of decent work results in satisfaction of three sets of basic human needs-survival, social contribution, and self-determination needs-that in turn lead to increased work fulfillment and overall well-being. Survival needs reflect both basic biological needs (e.g., food, housing) and access to power structures (e.g., education). According to PWT decent work is likely to satisfy a person’s survival needs since it offers physical and psychological safety as well as adequate compensation. Social contribution needs reflect the basic human desire to connect to and feel a sense of belonging within one’s community (Duffy et al., 2016). Social contribution focuses on societal-level connections to the community (rather than individual-level relationships). PWT scholars theorize that decent work helps people meet social contribution needs when they feel they are doing something important for their community through their jobs (Autin et al., 2019; Duffy et al., 2016). They also note that working connects people to the broader social and economic fabric, thus allowing for a sense of contribution to a healthy society (Autin et al., 2019; Duffy et al., 2016).

Finally, self-determination needs reflect those described in Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000), which theorizes that three basic psychological needs are vital for autonomous, self-directed behavior. The need for autonomy reflects the basic drive to feel a sense of agency. Competence reflects the need to feel a sense of mastery over one’s environment. Relatedness, reflects the need to engage in caring and supportive relationships with others. Together, autonomy, competence, and relatedness are theorized to be critical antecedents to self-regulation, psychological growth, and overall sense of well-being (Duffy et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2017). PWT scholars extend this to suggest that decent work acts as a pathway to accessing these three self-determination needs, which in turn allow for optimal functioning in and outside of work.

Empirical studies on outcomes of decent work within PWT have been limited. However, emerging evidence has mostly supported the mediating role of need satisfaction in the relation from decent work to well-being. For example, Duffy and colleagues (2019, 2021) examined the mediating role of need satisfaction in the link between decent work and health outcomes. In their 2019 study, they found that decent work had moderate to strong relations with satisfaction of all three hypothesized needs. In turn, satisfaction of all three needs predicted better mental health, and survival needs predicted better physical health. In a follow-up study (Duffy et al., 2021), the researchers found survival needs mediated the relation from decent work to positive health behaviors. Given the lack of adequate Spanish-language measures, no known studies have examined the outcome portion of the PWT model among a Latinx sample; we aim to fill this gap in the current study.

Need Satisfaction in Cultural Context

There are important considerations for contextualizing need satisfaction in Latinx communities. First, despite the pre-COVID yearly decreases in poverty, Latinx communities continue to have disproportionately high rates of poverty compared to non-Hispanic White communities. The latest Census report states 15.7% of Latinxs live in poverty compared to 9.1% of White Americans (Semega et al., 2020). In a 16-year study examining food insecurity, investigators found that Latinx households are two times more likely to experience food insecurity than non-Latinx White households (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2017). According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2019), Latinxs also experience significantly higher rates of homelessness compared to whites. In particular, these disparities may be indicative of systemic factors that push Latinxs out of decent work and into precarious work, which may play a role in how Latinxs conceptualize the needs for survival and power.

Additional cultural constructs are important for understanding work needs in context. Although spanish-speaking populations include those who have migrated to the U.S. from various geographic regions as well as those who are indigenous to the Americas, investigators agree that collectivism is central to Latinx societies (Segal et al., 2011; Rinderle & Montoya, 2008). Collectivistic values and intragroup cohesion continue to persist among Latinx populations in the U.S. where individualism is dominant (Rinderle & Montoya, 2008). This collectivist orientation and specific cultural constructs within this may have implications for survival, social contribution, autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs.

For example, familismo, a cultural value that taps into preservation of strong family ties, often manifests in viewing resources (e.g., finances) as shared among a family rather than belonging to an individual (Falicov, 2001). Thus, survival needs of the individual are strongly connected with the survival needs of immediate and extended family members. Familismo involves dedication, dependability, and shared responsibility for the family unit (Arevalo et al., 2016; Schwartz et al., 2010). Familismo may also extend beyond biological relatives to include friends and acquaintances within one’s ethnic community, potentially providing opportunity for fulfillment of social contribution needs (Falicov, 2001). Given the centrality of familismo and other collectivist values common among Latinx communities, frustration of needs that are oriented toward social connection (i.e., social contribution and relatedness) may have a unique impact on Latinx workers.

Although SDT has been critiqued for privileging individualistic values (e.g., Cross & Markus, 1999), SDT theorists suggest that these all three needs are universal regardless of cultural orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 1991). Research testing SDT in collectivist cultures supports this notion (Chirkov et al., 2003; 2005; Church et al., 2012). Church et al., (2012), for example, compared the applicability of SDT among eight cultures, including two Latin American countries (i.e., Mexico and Venezuela). They found that autonomy (as well as competence and relatedness) were equally important for wellbeing across all cultures. However, the focus of these cross-cultural studies has been on general need satisfaction, while cultural research on work need satisfaction remains understudied.

Present Study

In the present study, we examined validity and reliability of a Spanish translation of the WNSS across two samples of Latinx workers. Although we have conceptual assumptions about the factor structure based on the original version, it is important to not assume the factor structure is equivalent in new populations (Ægisdóttir et al., 2008). Therefore, in Sample 1, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Spanish-language WNSS items and examined internal consistency reliabilities for emergent factors. In sample 2, we examined factor structure and model fit using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); examined measurement invariance across gender, language, and social class group; and examined concurrent validity.

Sample 1

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 195 employed adults ranging in age from 19 to 63 years (mean age = 31.85 years, SD = 9.01). All participants self-identified their ethnicity as “Hispanic” on the online platform we used to recruit participants. Participants self-identified as women (n = 109, 55.9%), men (n = 86, 44.1%), and genderqueer/non-binary (n = 1, 0.5%). Participants’ highest level of education completed was as follows: some high school (n = 1, 0.5%), high school graduate (n = 14, 7.2%), trade/vocational school (n = 20, 10.3%), some college (n = 53, 27.2%), bachelor’s degree (n = 80, 41.0%), and professional degree (n = 25, 12.8%). Participants reported current social class was as follows: lower class (n =14, 7.2%), working class (n = 57, 29.2%), middle class (n = 108, 55.4%), upper middle class (n = 15, 7.7%), and upper class (n = 1, 0.5%). Regarding native languages, 35 (17.9%) participants reported having one native language and 150 (76.9%) participants reported having more than one native language (e.g., grew up speaking one language in the home and another outside the home). One hundred seventy-three (88.7%) participants reported Spanish as a primary native language, 116 (59.5%) participants reported English as a primary native language, and 3 (1.5%) participants reported a primary native language besides English and Spanish. One hundred thirty-nine (71.3%) of participants were full-time workers and 54 (27.7%) were part-time workers. Participants reported a wide range of occupations representing service, manufacturing, healthcare, education, and construction industries. One hundred 16 participants were removed for failing validity checks or only completing demographic questions.

Procedure

The first step was to translate the English-language WNSS into Spanish. Four of the five authors were fluent in both English and Spanish and served as translators and auditors. These authors spoke with differing dialects of Spanish from geographic regions within North America, South America, and the Caribbean, and they were located in different regions of the U.S. We used a consensus procedure to mitigate dialect effects (Hill, 2012). All four translators were counseling psychologists or counseling psychologists-in-training. They ranged in their familiarity with constructs. Throughout the translation process, we prioritized retaining the meaning of the original items, readability, and cultural appropriateness of items.

Following procedures recommended by Ægisdóttir et al. (2008), all items were initially translated by one author and back translated by another. The back-translated version was then compared to the English language scales and assessed for distortions in meaning. The translator and back-translator discussed items in which meaning had changed until they agreed on appropriate wording. This resulted in a draft that was given to the remaining Spanish-speaking authors to be reviewed for cross-dialect readability, clarity, and fidelity to the original constructs. This revision process continued until all four Spanish-speaking authors came to consensus on the appropriateness and quality of the Spanish translations.

After obtaining institutional review board approval, we used Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to recruit Spanish-speaking workers. We launched our MTurk Human Intelligence Task (HIT) containing a link to an online questionnaire via a companion platform, CloudResearch. CloudResearch allows researchers to advertise HITs to panels of workers with specific characteristics. We chose CloudResearch filters that made our HIT only visible to workers on the platform who chose “Hispanic” as their ethnicity on the platform. The questionnaire was administered in Spanish. We embedded validity checks throughout the survey. Ninety four cases were removed because of failed validity checks or only completing demographic questions.

Instruments

WNSS-SV

Participants were provided with a Spanish-language translation of the Work Needs Satisfaction Scale (WNSS), which was developed by Autin and colleagues (2019) to measure basic needs as conceptualized within the PWT. The WNSS has a total of 20-items, with five 4-item subscales for each of the self-preservation factors: survival, social contribution, competence, relatedness, and autonomy. This instrument includes the prompt “My work allows me to,” followed by the 20 items. Example items include “have the resources to provide nutritious food for myself and my family” (survival), “make a contribution to the greater social good” (social contribution needs), “feel like I am good at what I do” (SDN: competence), “feel like I fit in” (SDN: relatedness), “feel free to do things my own way” (SDN: autonomy). Items were answered on a 7-point Likert scale spanning from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The instrument development study reported strong internal consistency reliability scores for each subscale: survival (α = .95), social connection (α = .94), competence (α = .93), relatedness (α = .93), and autonomy (α = .82). The instrument also positively correlated with similar instruments such as Maslow’s need satisfaction scale.

Results

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the 20 items from the Spanish WNSS to examine its factor structure in a Spanish-speaking Latinx sample. Nine participants were missing one item and one participant was missing two items. Given the small percentage of missing data (0.26%), we proceeded using the simplest method, listwise deletion (Parent, 2013). Our final sample of 186 participants was within the recommended 150 to 200 participants for EFAs with moderate number of factors and high communalities (≥.50) (MacCallum et al., 1999) and had an adequate ratio of participants to items (5:1 to 10:1; Gorsuch, 1983). For the current dataset, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test of sampling adequacy was .93, which is higher than the recommended threshold of .60 (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).

In order to determine the factor structure, we conducted a parallel analysis with syntax developed by O’Connor (2000). Parallel analysis involves comparing eigenvalues form the original dataset to average eigenvalues of randomly generated correlation matrices. Factors are retained when the original eigenvalue is larger than the eigenvalue from the random data. This method offers more accurate information on factor retention than the eigenvalue >1 rule or the scree test (Hayton et al., 2004; Velicer et al., 2000). Results of the parallel analysis indicated that original data eigenvalues for the first five factors of the common factor analysis (10.54, 1.54, 1.09, 0.94, 0.56) were larger than the random data eigenvalues from a principal-axis factoring analysis (0.75, 0.62, 0.52, 0.44, 0.37). Eigenvalues for the remaining factors were smaller for the original data (e.g., 0.26 for sixth factor) than for random data (e.g., 0.31 for the sixth factor), suggesting that a five-factor solution is optimal.

The EFA was conducted using principal-axis factoring with a promax rotation. We selected promax rotation since we expected the factors to be correlated and constrained the data to 5 factors (Autin et al., 2019). Factors 1 through 5 accounted for 74.0% of the shared variance in the items (eigenvalues of 10.81, 1.88, 1.33, 0.96, 0.60, respectively). Factor loadings on the rotated matrix for were examined using cutoff values of |.50| on the expected factor and low loadings on the other factor (with a difference of ≥ |.15|). All items loaded on their expected factor. However, item 5 had a factor loading of .45 (below the cut-off) and cross-loaded onto factor 2 with a loading of .39. A second EFA was conducted without item 5 and indicated that Factors 1 through 5 accounted for 74.87% of the variance in the items (eigenvalues of 10.14, 1.53, 1.08, 0.90, and 0.58, respectively). Although only the first three factors had eigenvalues >1, all factor loadings were greater than .50 and no cross-loadings were found (see Table 1), indicating a clear 5-factor structure with 19 of the original 20 items. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates (α = .88–.94), and zero-order correlations (r = .44–.74) are presented in Table 2. Higher correlations between competence, relatedness, and autonomy needs (r = .65–.74) suggest these factors may be more closely related.

Table 1.

Final Factor Patern Matirx Loadings – Study 1.

Factor Name and English Items	Spanish Translation	Factor Loadings
My work allows me to	Mi trabajo me permite	Factor Loadings
Factor 1: Survival needs
1. Have the resources to provide nutritious food for myself and my family.	1. Tener los recursos para proporcionar alimentos nutritivos para mí y para mi familia.	.79	−.02	.24	−.09	−.12
2. Have the resources to pay for adequate housing for my family.	2. Tener los recursos para pagar una vivienda adecuada para mi familia.	.85	−.01	−.18	.03	.10
3. Have the resources to pay for utilities, such as water, heating, and electric, on time.	3. Tener los recursos para pagar los servicios públicos (por ej. agua, calefacción y electricidad) puntualmente.	.85	−.06	.11	−.06	.04
4. Have the resources to maintain the health of myself and my family	4. Tener los recursos para mantener mi salud y la de mi familia.	.70	.13	−.14	.16	−.02
Factor 2: Social contribution needs
6. Feel like I am doing something important for my community.	6. Sentir que estoy haciendo algo importante para mi comunidad.	.02	.85	.03	−.01	.05
7. Feel a part of something greater by helping to sustain our world.	7. Sentirme como una parte de algo más grande al apoyar nuestro mundo.	.04	.95	−.03	.04	−.07
8. Feel like I am making a difference	8. Sentir que estoy haciendo una diferencia.	−.05	.76	.09	.05	.06
Factor 3: SDT competence needs
9. Feel like I am good at my job.	9. Sentir que soy bueno en mi profesión.	.03	.13	.79	−.12	.13
10. Feel like I am good at what I do.	10. Sentir que soy bueno en lo que hago.	−.02	.08	.88	−.01	−.01
11. Feel like I know what I’m doing.	11. Sentir que sé lo que estoy haciendo.	−.05	−.04	.92	.05	.04
12. Feel competent.	12. Sentirme competente.	.06	−.08	.74	.27	−.07
Factor 4: SDT relatedness needs
13. Feel like I fit in.	13. Sentir que encajo con los demás.	−.03	−.02	.21	.76	−.08
14. Feel like I belong.	14. Sentir que pertenezco.	.02	.05	.18	.76	−.02
15. Feel understood by others.	15. Sentirme comprendido por los demás.	.03	.05	.00	.69	.09
16. Feel supported by others.	16. Sentirme apoyado por los demás.	−.01	.05	−.13	.82	.16
Factor 5: SDT autonomy needs
17. Do tasks the way I want.	17. Hacer los deberes laborales como yo quiero.	.07	−.16	.03	.26	.70
18. Feel free to do things my own way.	18. Sentirme libre para hacer las cosas a mi manera.	.03	.05	.07	−.16	.91
19. Take actions that promote my real needs.	19. Tomar acciones que promueven mis necesidades de la vida cotidiana.	−.04	.04	.20	.07	.66
20. Choose whether or not I have to do certain tasks.	20. Elegir si tengo que hacer ciertos deberes laborales o no.	−.04	.08	−.12	.19	.67

Table 2.

Correlations Descriptive Information on Five Need Satisfaction Subscales – Study 1.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Survival needs	—
2. Social contribution needs	.44	—
3. Competence needs	.51	.63	—
4. Relatedness needs	.51	.66	.70	—
5. Autonomy needs	.50	.64	.65	.74	—
M	5.18	4.71	5.41	4.89	4.80
SD	1.22	1.60	1.28	1.29	1.32
α	.88	.93	.94	.91	.89

Note. All correlations significant at the p < .01 level.

Sample 2

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 377 employed adults ranging in age from 18 to 63 years (mean age = 31.58 years, SD = 8.21). All participants self-identified their ethnicity as “Hispanic” on the online platform we used to recruit participants. Participants self-identified as women (n = 202, 53.6%), men (n = 172, 45.6%), and genderqueer/non-binary (n = 1, 0.3%). Participants’ highest level of education completed was as follows: some high school (n = 2, 0.5%), high school graduate (n = 43, 11.4%), trade/vocational school (n = 26, 6.9%), some college (n = 88, 23.3%), bachelor’s degree (n = 164, 43.5%), and professional degree (n = 50, 13.3%). Participants reported current social class was as follows: lower class (n =20, 5.3%), working class (n = 101, 26.8%), middle class (n = 212, 56.2%), upper middle class (n = 34, 9.0%), and upper class (n = 6, 1.6%). Regarding native languages, 94 (24.9%) participants reported having one native language and 274 (72.7%) participants reported having more than one native language (e.g., grew up speaking one language in the home and another outside the home). Three hundred forty-five (91.5%) participants reported Spanish as a primary native language, two hundred forty (63.7%) participants reported English as a primary native language, and 5 (1.3%) participant reported a primary native language besides English and Spanish. Two hundred seventy-nine (74.0%) participants were full-time workers and 90 (23.9%) were part-time workers. Participants reported a wide range of occupations representing service, manufacturing, healthcare, education, and construction industries.94 cases were removed because of failed validity checks or only completing demographic questions.

Procedure

Our procedure for participant recruitment mirrored that of Study 1. We did not translate additional measures for Study 2 because the additional variables we examined had existing Spanish-language instruments.

Instruments

WNSS-SV

We used the Spanish-language WNSS (WNSS-SV) that emerged from the EFA in Study 1. The EFA resulted in the same organization of subscales as the English-language scale. Whereas the English-language scale has five subscales with four items each (20 total items), our EFA resulted in four subscales with four items each and one subscale with three items (19 total items). Internal consistency reliability estimates for the subscales in the current sample were as follows: survival (α = .90), social connection (α = .91), autonomy (α = .92), relatedness (α = .90), and competence (α = .90).

Job Satisfaction

The level to which respondents felt satisfied with their jobs was measured by a previously translated version (Rigotti et al., 2003) of the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS; Price, 1997). The JSS is a 4-item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An example item includes “Most days I am enthusiastic about my job.” After applying the scale among a Spaniard sample, Rigotti et al. (2003) reported an acceptable internal consistency reliability score of .72. The scale demonstrated invariance when tested in four different countries (Rigotti et al., 2003) and positively correlated with occupational self-efficacy in a sample of Spaniard workers. The current study estimated an internal consistency score of α = .80.

Life Satisfaction

The degree to which participants felt satisfied with their lives was measured by a previously validated Spanish version (Vázquez et al., 2013) of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985). SWLS is a 5-item questionnaire with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Participants answered items such as “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.” In their Spanish validation study, Vázquez et al. (2013) found support for a unifactorial structure and reported the Spanish SWLS correlates in the expected direction with similar constructs (SWLS, subjective happiness, and social support). The Spanish validation study also evidenced adequate internal consistency reliability (α =.88). The current analysis estimated an internal consistency score of α = .89.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

An examination of skewness and kurtosis values as well as histogram charts suggested normality for all variables (i.e., no values > |3| for skewness or > |10| for kurtosis; Weston & Gore, 2006). We addressed missing data using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation. The dataset was 97% complete.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test whether the measurement model provides acceptable fit using the Lavaan package in R [Lavaan version 0.6–6]. Model fit was examined using a number of fit indexes recommended by statisticians (Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Although threshold values are useful as general guidelines, it is more important to compare the model to the covariance matrix across multiple fit indexes. Using a stringent threshold value in one index (i.e., perfect fit) may result in poorer fit on others (Kline, 2015). We report the χ² statistic and degrees of freedom. In addition, we used the comparative fit index (CFI), which uses the same covariance matrix to evaluate whether the model tested is better than an alternative model and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which is a badness-of-fit index and accounts for number of model parameters. Criteria for the CFI and RMSEA have ranged from less conservative (CFI ≥.90; RMSEA ≤.10) to more conservative (CFI ≥.95; RMSEA ≤.08; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

In the validation study of the English version WNSS, Autin et al. (2019) tested three models with conceptually plausible factor structures. The first was a correlational model with five correlated latent factors, each corresponding to one of the WNSS-SV subscales. The second was a higher order model, in which all five latent factors loaded onto a higher order factor. The third was a model with autonomy, competence, and relatedness latent factors loading on to a higher-order self-determination factor, which was allowed to correlate with factors for survival needs and social contribution needs (higher order SDN model; see Figure 1). We followed this procedure, testing all three models. As with Autin et al. (2019), we found that each initial model demonstrated similar fit, and modification indexes indicated the same modifications to each model. Thus, for the sake of brevity, we will detail only the results of only the higher order SDN model (results for all three models are listed in Table 3). We selected the higher order SDN model to illustrate results and conduct further validity analyses because Autin et al. (2019) argued that it was the most conceptually aligned with original PWT scholars’ theoretical articulation of needs (Duffy et al., 2016) and because we were unable to identify a culturally based rationale for aligning with a different conceptual model.

Figure 1.

Higher order SDN model with factor loadings- Study 2.

Table 3.

Fit indexes for all models- Study 2.

Model	df	χ²	CFI	RMSEA
Correlational	142	549.39 (p < .001)	.93	.09
Correlational with MI	141	471.81 (p < .001)	.94	.08
Higher order	147	565.45 (p < .001)	.92	.09
Higher order with MI	146	485.70 (p < .001)	.94	.08
SDN higher order	146	555.03 (p < .001)	.93	.09
SDN higher order with MI	145	474.49 (p < .001)	.94	.08

Note: MI = Modification Indexes, SDN = Self-Determination Needs.

Results from the initial CFA revealed mixed findings, χ² (146, N = 347) = 555.03, p < .001; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .09 (90% CI .08, .10). Factor loadings ranged from .76 to .92 and all were statistically significant (p < .001). Inspection of modification indices revealed that adding a covariance between the error terms of items 15 and 16 would improve model fit (MI = 79.65). This change is theoretically sound since they both load onto the relatedness latent variable. Results from the model including this modification revealed a significant improvement in fit (Δχ²(1) = 77.58, p < .001), and acceptable fit indexes: χ² (145, N = 347) = 474.49, p < .001; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .08 (90% CI .07, .09). Factor loadings of items ranged from .75 to .92 and all were statistically significant (p < .001). Factor loadings of the three latent variables onto the higher order self-determination needs latent construct were as follows: autonomy (r = .79), competence (r = .85), and relatedness (r = .94).

Concurrent Validity

Finally, we tested concurrent validity in a latent structural equation model with the WNSS-SV predicting two theoretically related constructs: job and life satisfaction. Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations from the subscales are included in Table 4. Indicators for the WNSS-SV were the same as stated above in the description of model specifications for the higher order SDN CFA. The five items of the Life Satisfaction Scale loaded onto the latent variable for life satisfaction and the four items of the Job Satisfaction Scale loaded onto a latent variable for job satisfaction. We first tested a measurement model in which all latent variables were correlated. The measurement model was an adequate fit to the data, χ² (336, N = 377) = 975.061, p < .001; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .07 (90% CI .07, .08). Further, all WNSS-SV factors correlated moderately with both job and life satisfaction (See Table 3). The structural model demonstrated similarly good fit to the data, χ² (337, N = 377) = 1010.928, p < .001; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .07 (90% CI .07, .08). With the exception of the path from survival needs to job satisfaction, all direct paths were significant. All items loaded onto their corresponding factors at .64 or above. Finally, the WNSS accounted for 44% of the variance in job satisfaction and 50% of the variance in life satisfaction (Table 5).

Table 4.

Latent correlations, means, and standard deviations- Study 2.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Survival needs	—
2. Social contribution needs	.54	—
3. Self-determination needs	.56	.71	—
4. Life satisfaction	.54	.61	.63	—
5. Job satisfaction	.38	.59	.61	.66	—
M	5.15	4.79	5.50	5.00	4.94
SD	1.28	1.56	1.27	1.32	1.34

Note. All correlations significant at the p < .01 level.

Table 5.

Standardized Estimates of Structural Model Paths.

Path	β	SE	p
1. SURV -> JS	−0.02	.08	.80
2. SURV -> LS	0.20	.07	<.001
3. SOC -> JS	0.31	.07	<.001
4. SOC -> LS	0.27	.07	<.001
5. SDN -> JS	0.42	.12	<.001
6. SDN-> LS	0.35	.10	<.001

Note. LS = life satisfaction; JS = job satisfaction; SURV = survival needs; SOC = social contribution needs; SDN = self-determination needs.

Discussion

The aim of the current paper was to validate a Spanish-language tool for testing work needs satisfaction as conceptualized in the Psychology of Working Theory. In Study 1, we translated the English version of the WNSS and conducted an EFA using all original scale items. Although only three factors met the threshold of eigenvalues >1, the parallel analysis and the factor loadings offer stronger support for a 5-factor structure. The EFA with 19 items resulted in five factors that mirrored those from the English-version scale (i.e., survival, social contribution, autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs). Correlations between competence, relatedness, and autonomy needs were higher than those of the English-speaking sample (rs = .44–.52, Autin et al., 2019), but similar to a Chinese sample (rs = .67–.72; Xu et al., 2022), and are consistent with the SDN higher order model. In Study 2, we used CFA to further test validity of the five latent factors, finding that a five-factor model was indeed a good fit to the data. Study 2 also demonstrated concurrent validity and provided support for measurement invariance.

Consistent with Autin et al., (2019), a correlational, higher order, and SDN higher order model had equally good fit to the data. The SDN higher order model, which conceptualizes self-determination as an overarching latent construct, is most consistent with PWT conceptualizations of basic needs (Autin, et al., 2019). As such, this is the model we recommend for future PWT research. However, because each model had acceptable fit to the data, we encourage researchers use the factor structure that most closely aligns with their theoretical framework and best answers their research questions. The overall model fit for the WNSS was acceptable, albeit slightly poorer than the original version (Autin et al., 2019). This result may be explained by the lower factor loadings, but may be expected given the complex process of language and culture in the adaptation of measures (e.g., Ægisdóttir et al., 2008) and consistent with findings from the Chinese adaptation of the WNSS (Xu et al., 2022) and a Korean measure of career aspirations (Kim et al., 2016).

Finally, we examined the WNSS-SV for concurrent validity. According to PWT, basic need satisfaction directly predicts both job and life satisfaction. As such, we examined both a correlational and structural model examining relations between these variables and WNSS-SV factors. We found that all WNSS-SV factors had moderate, positive associations with job and life satisfaction as expected. This is reflective of the validation study for the English-version scale. Furthermore, our structural model revealed all but one direct path from WNSS-SV factors to job and life satisfaction were significant. The path from survival needs to job satisfaction was nonsignificant. This replicates findings by Autin et al. (2019) and suggests that basic survival needs may be a more important predictor of off-the-job variables (e.g., life satisfaction) than outcomes directly related to one’s work environment.

Implications for Theory and Research

Overall, findings from the current study align closely with findings from the validation study of the English-version WNSS (Autin et al., 2019). This contributes to the literature in three important ways. First, it provides a mechanism for continued research with Spanish-speaking Latinx workers, one of America’s largest portions of the work force, and a group whose experiences are underrepresented in literature in vocational psychology. Although the majority Latinx workers are English speakers, providing options for a preferred language is an important social justice imperative, particularly when language spoken intersects with other marginalized identities (e.g., undocumented immigrant status). Furthermore, a substantial proportion of bilingual Latinx workers in the U.S. are Spanish-dominant (Lopez et al., 2017); as such, using English-language measurement instruments in diverse Spanish-speaking populations may impact data quality. Thus, validation of the WNSS-SV provides a mechanism to conduct inclusive, high-quality research on a large sector of the U.S. labor force.

Second, the development of a Spanish-language instrument also provides an opportunity for international research in Spanish-speaking countries. One critique of PWT is that it was developed in a U.S. context and may have limited global generalizability (Duffy et al., 2016). Access to Spanish-language PWT instruments is an important step in the further development and revision of PWT theory in a global context. Future studies might extend current findings by testing the WNSS-SV beyond a U.S. context and, if appropriate, using it to examine basic PWT tenets cross-culturally. The availability of the WNSS-SV is an important step toward facilitating more empirical research, as well as interventions aimed at the various ecological levels (i.e., individual, institutional, community, policy), for the sake of promoting decent work in countries of the world whose workers are currently underrepresented in the academic literature (Flores et al., 2019).

A third important contribution is the utility in testing hypothesized relations within PWT, as well as building on existing theory to understand explanatory mechanisms of these relations. The current study replicated findings of direct relations from basic needs to job and life satisfaction. Since the development of PWT, the majority of empirical studies have focused on predictors in the model and less on outcomes. Replication of previous findings that basic need satisfaction, overall, is indeed predictive of work-related and general well-being provides support for understudied hypotheses within PWT. While establishing this direct link is important, a Spanish version of the WNSS provides researchers with a tool for connecting these variables to the central variable in the PWT model: decent work (Duffy et al., 2016). A primary aim for PWT scholars is to understand factors that promote decent work, as well as explain why decent work relates to positive outcomes. Given that basic need satisfaction is a primary hypothesized mediating variable in the PWT model (Duffy et al., 2016), it is essential that researchers have access to appropriate tools to test these explanatory connections. Research connecting decent work to work fulfillment and well-being outcomes via mediating mechanisms (like need satisfaction) is essential for future theory extension and revision.

Limitations/Future Directions

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting and applying the results of the current study. First, it is essential to recognize that, although Spanish-speaking Latinx communities in the U.S. share many cultural norms, there is vast also vast diversity within and between communities. Although we do not anticipate this impacting the validity of our scale items or factor structure, it is important that future users of this instrument maintain awareness of cultural differences within Spanish-speaking communities. Second, all of the participants in the current study were people residing in the U.S. Further research may be necessary to establish validity and reliability in other countries. Third, since we tested predictive validity using a cross-sectional sample, the WNSS-SV will need to be continuously tested using more robust methods (e.g., longitudinally) to bolster its predictive validity. Fourth, future studies may prioritize larger sample sizes. Specifically, in the current study, we lacked the sample size to conduct invariance testing across groups, and this will be important to establish in the future. The translation of the WNSS to the Spanish language contributes an essential resource for scholars and practitioners to capture the predictors and outcomes of need satisfaction in a Spanish-speaking population, especially for researchers operating within a PWT perspective. The translation of this scale may be used for future empirical research aimed at understanding the role of need satisfaction in the work lives of diverse Spanish-speaking populations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Public Significance Statement

Authors translated and validated an instrument measuring basic need satisfaction among Spanish-speaking workers. Findings indicated that the scale is valid and reliable.

ORCID iDs

Kelsey L. Autin

Willy Anthony Diaz Tapia

German A. Cadenas

References

Ægisdóttir

Gerstein

L. H.

Çinarbaş

D. C.

(2008). Methodological issues in cross-cultural counseling research: Equivalence, bias, and translations. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(2), 188–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000007305384

Arevalo

McNaughton-Cassill

(2016). The role of collectivism among Latino American college students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 15(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2015.1045143

Autin

K. L.

Duffy

R. D.

Blustein

D. L.

Gensmer

N. P.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Allan

B. A.

(2019). The development and initial validation of need satisfaction scales within the psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000323

Blustein

D. L.

(2001). Extending the reach of vocational psychology: Toward an inclusive and integrative psychology of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1823

Blustein

D. L.

Olle

Connors-Kellgren

Diamonti

A. J.

(2016). Decent work: A psychological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00407.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

Chirkov

V. I.

Ryan

R. M.

Kim

Kaplan

(2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97

Chirkov

V. I.

Ryan

R. M.

Willness

(2005). Cultural context and psychological needs in Canada and Brazil: Testing a self-determination approach to the internalization of cultural practices, identity, and well-being. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275960

Church

A. T.

Alvarez

J. M.

Katigbak

M. S.

Mastor

K. A.

Cabrera

H. F.

Tanaka-Matsumi

Vargas-Flores

J. d. J.

Ibanez-Reyes

Zhang

H. S.

Shen

Locke

K. D.

Ortiz

F. A.

Curtis

G. J.

Simon

J. Y. R.

Ching

C. M.

Buchanan

A. L.

(2012). Self-concept consistency and short-term stability in eight cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.003

10.

Coleman-Jensen

Rabbitt

M. P.

Gregory

C. A.

Singh

(2017). Household food security in the United States in 2016. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/84973/err-237.pdf

11.

Cross

S. E.

Markus

H. R.

(1999). The cultural constitution of personality. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 378–396). Guilford Press.

12.

Deci

E. L.

Olafsen

A. H.

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

13.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

14.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In Dienstbier

R. A.

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1990: Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). University of Nebraska Press.

15.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

16.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

England

J. W.

Blustein

D. L.

Autin

K. L.

Douglass

R. P.

Ferreira

Santos

E. J. R.

(2017). The development and initial validation of the Decent Work Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000191

17.

Duffy

R. D.

Blustein

D. L.

Diemer

M. A.

Autin

K. L.

(2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140

18.

Duffy

R. D.

Kim

H. J.

Gensmer

N. P.

Raque-Bogdan

T. L.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Buyukgoze-Kavas

(2019). Linking decent work with physical and mental health: A psychology of working perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.05.002

19.

Duffy

R. D.

Prieto

C. G.

Kim

H. J.

Raque-Bogdan

T. L.

Duffy

N. O.

(2021). Decent work and physical health: A multi-wave investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 127, 103544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103544.

20.

Falicov

C. J.

(2001). The cultural meanings of money: The case of Latinos and Anglo-Americans. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(2), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957088

21.

Flores

L. Y.

Martinez

L. D.

McGillen

G. G.

Milord

(2019). Something old and something new: Future directions in vocational research with people of color in the United States. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718822461

22.

Gorsuch

R. L.

(1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

23.

Gould

E. L.

Perez

Rawlston-Wilson

(2020). Latinx workers--particularly women--face devastating job losses in the COVID-19 recession: Report. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/latinx-workers-covid/

24.

Hayton

J. C.

Allen

D. G.

Scarpello

(2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675

25.

Hill

C. E.

(2012). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. American Psychological Association.

26.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

27.

Kim

Y. H.

O’Brien

K. M.

Kim

(2016). Measuring career aspirations across cultures: Using the career aspiration scale with young Korean women. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599538

28.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

29.

Krogstad

J. M.

Lopez

M. H.

(2017, October 31). Use of Spanish declines among Latinos in major U.S. metros. Pew Research Center Fact Tank; Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/31/use-of-spanish-declines-among-latinos-in-major-u-s-metros/

30.

Lopez

M. H.

Gonzalez-Barrera

Lopez

(2017, December 20). Hispanic identity fades across Generations as immigrant connections fall awayGenerations as immigrant ties weaken. Pew research center’s hispanic trends project. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/

31.

MacCallum

R. C.

Widaman

K. F.

Zhang

Hong

(1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84

32.

O’Connor

B. P.

(2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807

33.

Parent

M. C.

(2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(4), 568–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012445176

34.

Price

(1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 18(4/5/6), 305–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729710182260

35.

Rigotti

Mohr

De Cuyper

De Witte

Bernhard

Isaksson

De Jong

Schalk

Caballer

Gracia

Peiró

J. M.

Ramos

Silla

Clinton

Guest

Krausz

Staynvarts

(2003). Instruction work and blue print for methodology. Unpublished research report. https://www.uv.es/psycon/documentacion/WP3.pdf

36.

Rinderle

Montoya

(2008). Hispanic/Latino identity labels: An examination of cultural values and personal experiences. The Howard Journal of Communications, 19(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170801990953

37.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68

38.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

39.

Schwartz

S. J.

Weisskirch

R. S.

Hurley

E. A.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Park

I. J. K.

Kim

S. Y.

Umaña-Taylor

Castillo

L. G.

Brown

Greene

A. D.

(2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 548–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021370

40.

Segal

Gerdes

Mullins

Wagaman

Androff

(2011). Social empathy attitudes: Do Latino students have more? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(4), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.566445

41.

Semega

Kollar

Shrider

E. M.

Cramer

(2020). Income and poverty in the United States: 2019. The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html

42.

Vázquez

Duque

Hervás

(2013). Satisfaction with life scale in a representative sample of Spanish adults: Validation and normative data. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E82. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.82.

43.

Velicer

W. F.

Eaton

C. A.

Fava

J. L.

(2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In Goffin

R. D.

Helmes

(Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment. Kluwer Academic.

44.

Weston

Gore

P. A.,

Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345

45.

Worthington

R. L.

Whittaker

T. A.

(2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

46.

Wang

Lan

(2022). Validation of work need satisfaction scales among Chinese working adults: A psychology of working theory perspective. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(1), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211032368