Assessing coaches’ basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration: preliminary validation from a multidimensional approach

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to adapt and validate the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise (BPNES) and the Psychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS) to merge both measures and create a specific scale for the coaching context. Two studies were conducted. In Study 1, three sports psychologist experts adapted two instruments to analyze the coaches’ psychological needs on a single and multidimensional scale. Also, the content validity and comprehension of the scale were evaluated by 37 coaches (M_age = 33.03 ± 10.65; work experience = 8.79 ± 6.57 years). In Study 2, we tested other psychometric properties (i.e. confirmatory factor analysis, reliability, and concurrent validity) of the final version of the scale with 352 coaches (M_age = 32.88 ± 11.14; work experience = 8.03 ± 8.18 years) from four collective sports (soccer = 227; basketball = 69; handball = 43; and volleyball = 13). We tested a first-order six-factor solution of CBPN-Q and an H-CFA by including two second-order latent factors of need satisfaction and need frustration. The first-order six-factor solution obtained a better fit to the model than the H-CFA solution. The standardized factor loadings were positively significant and higher than.47. An adequate internal consistency was also obtained, and the concurrent validity of the scale was calculated with the types of motivation. These findings provide a valid and reliable scale to measure need satisfaction and need frustration in the field of coaching.

Keywords

Motivation self-determination theory

Assessing Coaches’ Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration: Preliminary Validation from a Multidimensional Approach Grounded in the Basic Psychological Needs Theory, one of the six mini-theories of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT),¹ the basic psychological needs represent universal psychological nutrients for a human being’s functioning. Following the principle of Ockham’s razor (the law of parsimony) and to avoid the proliferation of the number of basic psychological needs, a minimal number of needs (i.e. three – autonomy, competence, and relatedness) have been proposed to account for a maximal number of phenomena across ages, genders, and cultures.² The term ‘‘need’’ refers to what is vital or necessary for well-being and healthy functioning.³ Focusing on the psychological context, one may wonder whether there are, in fact, fundamental or basic psychological needs. In this regard, Ryan and Deci⁴ specified three innate psychological nutrients (i.e. needs) that are essential for psychological and physical health and social well-being. Autonomy concerns a sense of initiative and ownership of one's actions.⁵ Through autonomy, one experiences choice in and ownership of behavior, which is perceived as emanating from the self and follows one's abiding values and interests. Competence means the feeling of mastery, a sense that one can succeed and grow. The need for competence is best satisfied within well-structured environments that afford optimal challenges, positive feedback, and opportunities for growth.⁵ Relatedness refers to a need for connectedness with significant others, satisfaction with the social environment, and a feeling of being accepted and integrated.⁴ The level in which these three needs are satisfied or frustrated could explain explain the achievement of positive or negative outcomes [e.g.,.⁶]

SDT⁴ also describes different types of regulation, rated on a self-determination continuum ranging from intrinsic motivation (i.e. activities done “for their own sake” or for their inherent interest and enjoyment) to amotivation (i.e. lack of value or interest in an activity). Between these two types of motivation, there are four types of extrinsic motivations which concern behaviors done for reasons other than their inherent satisfaction.⁵ Whereas both external and introjected regulations represent controlled forms of motivation, integrated and identified regulation can also be autonomously enacted.⁵ Specifically, integrated regulation is characterized when the activity is assumed and valued through other core interests and values. Identified regulation is defined by the value consciously attached by the person to the activity. Introjected concerns acting to avoid a sense of guilt or anxiety or to protect one's pride. Finally, external regulation refers to behaviors driven by externally imposed rewards and punishments.

Based on basic pyshological needs, numerous instruments have been created to examine the degree of need satisfaction in several settings. In work-related contexts, Deci et al.⁷ developed the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSAW) that has been widely adapted to the coaching context [e.g.,.^8–10] Van den Broeck et al.¹¹ also created the Work-Related Need Satisfaction Scale, and Brien et al.¹² developed and validated the Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale with participants recruited from various occupations. Likewise, other scales have been designed [e.g.,,¹³] or adapted [e.g.,¹⁴] to assess the degree of needs satisfaction with exercise professionals. Focusing on the sport context, apart from aforementioned adaptations, Ng et al.¹⁵ created the Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS), which assesses the need for autonomy in three separate factors (i.e. autonomy-choice, autonomy-internal perceived locus of causality, and autonomy-volition), the need for competence, and the need for relatedness.

A low degree of satisfaction of the basic psychological needs might simply reflect need dissatisfaction, and may not adequately tap into the active nature and intensity of need frustration (e.g.; “I do not feel related” vs. “I feel I am rejected”). Vansteenkiste and Ryan¹⁶ also explained that “the relationship between those constructs is asymmetrical, that is to say, whereas low need satisfaction does not necessarily involve need frustration, need frustration by definition involves low need satisfaction” (p. 3). However, this statement should be revised since recent studies found differences between low need satisfaction and high need dissatisfaction.¹⁷ Autonomy frustration involves feelings of being controlled by external or selfimposed pressures.³ Competence frustration refers to the experience of a sense of inefficacy when interacting with one's environment.¹⁸ Relatedness frustration has to do with the experience of rejection or lack of integration with significant others.⁵ Thus, when these needs are frustrated, maladjustment and even psychopathology can be the result.^16,19 We note that whereas Bartholomew et al.¹⁸ used the term need-thwarting to reflect personal feelings, we prefer, consistent with other work [e.g.,,^16,20] to use the term need frustration. This is because the term need frustration more closely reflects personal experiences (in the same way as need satisfaction does), whereas the term need-thwarting is used in reference to contextual features that undermine coaches’ needs.

The needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be supported or thwarted by the context.¹⁸ For instance, if coaches feel capable to take decisions or with the provision opportunities for initiative (i.e. autonomy-support), their person's abilities are considered and recognized (i.e. competence-support), and their person's integration are promoted (i.e. relatedness-support),⁴ their basic psychological needs would be satisfied.¹⁸ By contrast, if coaches present a sense of pressure to develop a way of training or take decisions (i.e. autonomy-thwarting), a lack of trust in their abilities (i.e. competence-thwarting), and rejected by the people that around them (i.e. relatedness-thwarting), their basic psychological needs would be frustrated.¹⁸

In the same line as need satisfaction, several measures have been proposed to evaluate the degree of need frustration in different fields. Bartholomew et al.¹⁸ created and developed the Psychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS) in sport setting, which measured the perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness frustration. This instrument has been widely adapted to other countries and settings [e.g.,,²¹] including coaching self-reports [e.g.,.^9,10]

Despite the great value of the aforementioned scales, Martinent et al.²² also suggested that need satisfaction and need frustration should be measured simultaneously. For this reason, Chen et al.¹ developed and validated a scale to analyze the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration Scale (BPNSFS) by adapting existing instruments^23–25 to assess university students from four countries (USA, China, Belgium, and Peru). The BPNSFS final version is composed of six factors (four items for each factor): autonomy satisfaction, autonomy frustration, competence satisfaction, competence frustration, relatedness satisfaction, and relatedness frustration. This instrument has been adapted to other countries such as Spain,²⁶ Portugal,^27,28 Italy^29,30 and Japan³¹ supporting the cross-cultural validity of the BPNSFS. Other scales have also been created to assess needs satisfaction and frustration simultaneously in contexts such as work or education (The Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (NSFS)³² or a similar dimension of frustration, such as dissatisfaction (The Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs).²⁵

The present study

Despite that some studies have adapted several scales to assess the degree of basic psychological need in the coaching role[e.g.,,^8–10] to our knowledge, there is no specific instrument that assesses the basic psychological needs for coaches multidimensionally and that can be used by other researchers. Furthermore, considering that the instruments must be adapted to each target area or group,³³ it would be relevant to have a scale in the coaching domain. Therefore, the aim of the present research is to validate a holistic scale that analyzes coaches’ need satisfaction and need frustration at the same time through two studies. The objective of Study 1 was to adapt for coaches the original structures of the two scales (Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale; BPNES),¹³ for the three dimensions of need satisfaction, and the PNTS; Bartholomew et al.,¹⁸ for the three factors of need frustration) and examine the content validity and the level of agreement and understanding of researchers and coaches concerning the scale proposed. We selected these instruments because they have a balanced factorial structure and are have been widely used in the role of exercise and sport, respectively. Then, the aim of Study 2 was to test the psychometric properties (i.e. confirmatory factor analysis, reliability, and concurrent validity) of the final version of the instrument to analyze coaches’ need satisfaction and need frustration in the field of coaching. Specifically, we tested a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) solution. Considering previous adaptation for coaches of the BNSAW and the PNTS using need satisfaction and need frustration as global factors, [e.g.,,^8–10] we also conducted a hierarchical CFA (H-CFA) solution of the scale. Based on prior empirical findings, we formulated the hypotheses of Study 2.

After obtaining the final version of the instrument in Study 1, we expected that the new scale would show adequate fit indices in the CFA and H-CFA solutions (Hypothesis 1) and adequate internal reliability (Hypothesis 2) in Study 2. Furthermore, the concurrent validity of the factors of the present scale was assessed, through a bivariate correlation analysis of the types of motivation perceived by coaches. Previous research on coaches has found that need satisfaction as a global factor is positively related to autonomous motivation.¹⁰ On the other hand, need frustration, also as a global factor, has been positively associated with coaches’ controlled motivation¹⁰ and amotivation.³⁴ Thus, we hypothesized that, separately, the factors of need satisfaction would be positively related to more self-determined motivations and negatively to lower self-regulation. In addition, three independent factors of need frustration would be negatively associated with coaches’ more self-determined motivations and positively with extrinsic regulation and amotivation (Hypothesis 3).

Study 1

The objective of the Study 1 was to adapt and assess the content validity and comprehension of the scale in a pilot study developed with coaches. A three-phase process was carried out. Phase 1 included item adaptation using a group of experts who evaluated the adequacy of the each item content. Phase 2 involved a pilot study with 37 coaches to assess the level of understanding of the proposed scale. Finally, Phase 3 for the readjustment after instrument evaluations.

Method and results

Phase 1 - Scales translation and adaptation. Two adaptations were conducted using the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES)¹³ for the three dimensions of need satisfaction and the PNTS¹⁸ for the frustration of the three of needs to create a specific and multidimensional instrument that analyzes coaches’ needs satisfaction and needs frustration. Previously, we obtained the necessary permissions from the owners of the original questionnaires to modify them asking them via mail to adapt and reproduce the scales to the coaching context. Then, both instruments were translated and adapted in Spanish by three independent translators. The translation team consisted of two English professors for Spanish University class, and a Spanish professor of psychology. All of them translated the measure from English to Spanish. They discussed all the discrepancies identified between the two versions until finding a satisfactory solution. On this basis, a professional bilingual translator who did not have prior knowledge of the original versions then back-translated the Spanish versions.

Concerning need satisfaction, we adapted the 12 items (i.e. four items for each sub-scale) of the BPNES to the coaching setting. For needs frustration, we adapted the 12 items (i.e. also four items for each sub-scale) of the PNTS. A protocol was followed to adapt these questionnaires. First, a panel of experts composed by three sports psychologist researchers in SDT (i.e. full-time professors with at least 10 years SDT-based investigations) proposed an initial sentence of the scale and the adaptation of each item.^35,36 A think-aloud protocol of the three proposals about the modifications of the questionnaires was held to highlight the different points from the experts’ perspective.³⁷ Next, doubts and discrepancies between experts were discussed to arrive at consensual agreement on the final proposal. Lastly, the final version including the items of both scales was reviewed.

The main modifications were focused on the words referring to the context. Specifically, the stem-sentence used in the PNTS “In my sport…” was replaced by “During my role as a coach…”. Some words of the items were also changed. For instance, the BPNES item assessing relatedness satisfaction “I feel that I associate with the other exercise participants in a very friendly way” was changed to “When I am with other club people, I feel that I associate in a very friendly way,” referring to the coaching context. As another example, the PNTS item examining autonomy frustration “I feel under pressure to agree with the training regimen I am provided” was modified to “I feel under pressure to agree with the training regimen that the club has provided,” referring to the clubs, not to the players.

Phase 2 - Content validity and comprehension. Next, the first version of the scale was administered to 37 coaches aged between 19 and 58 years (M = 33.03, SD = 10.65) from different sports; soccer = 19, basketball = 11, volleyball = 6, and handball = 1; across several development competitive levels. They were not involved in the Study 2 (see below) and had an average training experience of 8.79 years (SD = 6.58). The coaches evaluated the content and the level of comprehension of each item using a scale ranged from 1 (total misunderstanding) to 10 (total understanding). Previously, they received information about the meaning of each dimension but they did not know which items belonged to each factor. They were asked to suggest improvements in the items or propose alternatives.

Phase 3 – Readjustment of the scale. All recommendations whether to retain, eliminate, or revise the items proposed by the coaches were considered. The three experts held a new meeting to identify problematic items or terms that coaches evaluated as inappropriate in any of the items. Finally, this phase supported the content validity based on experts’ judgment of the other items of the questionnaire and served to establish the scale's name: Coaches Basic Psychological Needs Questionnaire (CBPN-Q).

Study 2

The objective of Study 2 was to test the psychometric properties of the CBPN-Q, which analyzes coaches’ needs satisfaction and needs frustration carried out with sports coaches. Specifically, we tested the factorial validity, internal consistency, and concurrent validity of the scale.

Method

Procedure. First, the ethical approval of both studies (Study 1 and Study 2) were obtained from the first author's university (Protocol number: 239/2019). Then, the researchers contacted the clubs to explain the proposal of the studies and request voluntary participation, following the American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines regarding consent, confidentiality, and anonymity of responses. An individual report was sent to the clubs that agreed to participate in the research, providing more specific information about the objectives and an informed consent form. Next, all the coaches completed the questionnaires face-to-face with the help of a research assistant to guarantee the quality of the measure. Participants completed the questionnaires individually in a locker room 30 min before a training session.

Participants. The sample was composed by 352 coaches (19 females) different from Study 1 and aged between 18 and 67 years old (M = 32.88, SD = 11.14). They coached in different collective sports; soccer = 227, basketball = 109, volleyball = 13, and handball = 3, with an average training experience of 8.02 years (SD = 8.18). The coaches performed their role with Spanish athletes aged between 9 and 18 years old and from 48 different clubs. The selection of the sample was intentional, taking into account the location of the clubs and the previous contact the researchers had with the clubs. A total of 11 questionnaires (3.03%) were excluded due to invalid completion (i.e. more than 50% of the questions were not completed, more than one answer was given to the same question, or the presence of a clear response pattern).

Instruments

Basic psychological needs . The final version of the CBPN-Q was used. This instrument is composed of the initial stem “During my role as a coach…” and followed by 24 items to assess autonomy satisfaction (e.g. “I can make my own decisions”), competence satisfaction (e.g. “I feel effective”), relatedness satisfaction (e.g. “I feel that I can trust people who surround me”), autonomy frustration (e.g. “I feel forced to follow a certain way of training”), competence frustration (e.g. “There are some situations that make me feel ineffective”), and relatedness frustration (e.g. “I feel as if other people in the club are envious when I achieve success”). All responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Motivation . To assess the coaches’ motivation, an adaptation of the Work Motivation Scale (WMS)³⁸ was carried out. The original initial sentence “Why do you do your work?” was replaced by “Why do you perform your role as a coach…” followed by 24 items (i.e. four items for each sub-scale) to assess the types of motivation. The scale items were adapted to fit the context of coaching based on small word modifications mentioning the coaching setting, for example, “to work” was changed to “to train”. The types of motivation are: intrinsic motivation (e.g. “For the great moments and pleasure that training gives me”), integrated motivation (e.g. “Because training reflects the essence of who I am”), identified motivation (e.g. “Because it is an activity that I choose to achieve a certain lifestyle”), introjected motivation (e.g. “Because I want to be very good as a coach; otherwise, I would be disappointed with myself”), external motivation (e.g. “For the success it gives me”), and amotivation (e.g. “I don't know, I have the impression that I don't have what it takes to train”). All responses are rated on 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As the scale has not yet been validated for coaching setting, a CFA to analyze the psychometric properties was performed: χ² = 439.91 df = 210, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05, 95% CI [0.04, 0.06], SRMR = 0.06. Also, all factors were above the criterion (α, and Ω > 0.70) suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein³⁹ for acceptable reliability in the psychological domain.

Data analysis. A first-order six-factor CFA and an H-CFA including two second-order factors (i.e. need satisfaction and need frustration) were calculated using Mplus 7.3.⁴⁰ Due to the Likert nature of the items and non-normality (i.e. with some kurtosis and skewness values out of the + 1 to −1 range), a robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimator was used, which provides standard errors and robust fit indices. Specifically, we used the following fit indices to carry out the preliminary validation: Chi-square (χ²), degrees of freedom of the model (df), the significance (p), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Values between 0.90 and 0.95 for CFI and TLI, and between 0.06 and 0.08 for RMSEA and SRMR are considered adequate, whereas values greater than 0.95 for CFI and TLI, and values smaller than 0.06 for RMSEA and SRMR, are considered excellent.⁴¹

In addition, descriptive statistics, skewness and kurtosis, and Cronbach's alpha (α) and Omega (ω) coefficients were calculated to analyze the reliability.⁴² Finally, the concurrent validity of the scale was also assessed correlating the psychological need satisfaction and need frustration with the types of motivation perceived by coaches.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis. First, the goodness-of-fit statistics and information criteria for the first-order six-factor solution of CBPN-Q showed adequate fit indices: χ² = 377.47, df = 237, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.04. Second, we tested an H-CFA by including two second-order latent factors of need satisfaction and need frustration, which also showed adequate fit indices: χ² = 409.59, df = 245, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.04. However, the first-order six-factor solution of the CBPN-Q obtained a better fit to the model than the H-CFA solution.¹ The standardized factor loadings for the first-order six-factor solution of CBPN-Q are presented in Table 1 (see also Supplemental Table 2). Six factors were positively significant and higher than 0.47 [43]: autonomy satisfaction = 0.47–0.85, competence satisfaction = 0.59–0.79, relatedness satisfaction = 0.52–0.79, autonomy frustration = 0.60–0.71, competence frustration = 0.56–0.73, and relatedness frustration = 0.70–0.81.

Table 1.
Standardized factor loadings for six-factors CFA solution of the CBPN-Q.

Variables Items λ(p) R² Variables Items λ(p) R²

Autonomy
Satisfaction 1 0.47* 0.22* Autonomy
Frustration 4 0.60* 0.36*

7 0.82* 0.67* 10 0.66* 0.44*

13 0.81* 0.65* 16 0.71* 0.50*

19 0.86* 0.73* 22 0.66* 0.44*

Competence
Satisfaction 2 0.60* 0.35* Competence
Frustration 5 0.56* 0.32*

8 0.71* 0.51* 11 0.73* 0.53*

14 0.72* 0.51* 17 0.67* 0.46*

20 0.79* 0.63* 23 0.65* 0.43*

Relatedness
Satisfaction 3 0.79* 0.63* Relatedness
Frustration 6 0.70* 0.49*

9 0.70* 0.49* 12 0.77* 0.59*

15 0.76* 0.57* 18 0.81* 0.66*

21 0.52* 0.27* 24 0.71* 0.50*

Note. ***p < 0.001.

Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics, reliability, and bivariate correlations between the CBPN-Q factors. As can be observed, autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction showed higher scores than autonomy, competence, and relatedness frustration. Table 2 also shows the internal consistency of all the variables via Cronbach's alpha and Omega coefficients⁴³: all the factors obtained scores higher than 0.75 in both reliability analyses. Finally, regarding bivariate correlations between factors, the three needs satisfaction correlated positively with each other (r = 0.44–0.58) and negatively with the three needs frustration (r = −0.30 – −0.48). The three types of need frustration were also positively intercorrelated (r = 0.65–0.69).

Table 2.
Descriptive statistics, internal consistency and correlations between factors.

Variables M(SD) Skewness Kurtosis α ω 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Autonomy Satisfaction 4.66(0.43) −1.52 2.43 0.76 0.81 −

2. Competence Satisfaction 4.43(0.49) −0.54 −0.57 0.75 0.80 0.58* −

3. Relatedness Satisfaction 4.47(0.57) −1.00 0.28 0.84 0.76 0.56* 0.44* −

4. Autonomy Frustration 1.41(0.67) 2.32 5.99 0.81 0.76 −0.46* −0.34 −0.34* −

5. Competence Frustration 1.54(0.69) 1.83 3.75 0.80 0.75 −0.37* −0.48* −0.32* 0.69* −

6. Relatedness Frustration 1.42(0.65) 2.17 5.22 0.76 0.84 −0.35* −0.25* −0.30* 0.68* 0.65*** −

Note. p < 0.01; p < 0.001.

Concurrent validity. To analyze the concurrent validity, the six factors were correlated with the types of motivation, using an adaptation for coaches of the WMS.³⁸ Table 3 shows that intrinsic motivation correlated positively with the three needs satisfaction (r = 0.26 − 0.40) and negatively with competence frustration (r = −0.16). Likewise, integrated motivation correlated positively with the three needs satisfaction (r = 0.16 − 0.30). Identified motivation was significantly and positively associated with relatedness frustration (r = 0.13), whereas introjected motivation was significantly and positively correlated with the three needs frustration (r = 0.14 − 0.23). Finally, external motivation was significantly and negatively associated with autonomy satisfaction (r = −0.10), and positively with autonomy (r = 0.14), and relatedness frustration (r = 0.12), whereas amotivation was correlated negatively with the three needs satisfaction (r = −0.30 − −0.21). and positively with the three needs frustration (r = 0.41 − 0.46).

Table 3.
Bivariate correlations between the six factors of the CBPN-Q and the types of motivation and descriptive statistics and reliability of the factors of the WEIMS adaptation for coaches.

Variables Autonomy Satisfaction Competence Satisfaction Relatedness Satisfaction Autonomy Frustration Competence Frustration Relatedness Frustration M(SD)* Skewness Kurtosis α ω

Intrinsic Motivation 0.34 0.40* 0.26* −0.09 −0.16* 0.02 4.20(0.62) −0.58 −0.29 0.70 0.71

Integrated Motivation 0.20* 0.30* 0.16* −0.03 −0.09 0.04 3.75(0.87) −0.79 0.53 0.75 0.79

Identified Motivation −0.06 0.04 −0.04 0.09 0.02 0.13* 2.89(1.03) .08 −0.87 0.78 0.75

Introjected Motivation −0.04 0.08 −0.04 0.17* 0.14* 0.23* 2.56(0.95) .35 −0.52 0.76 0.76

External Motivation −0.10 0.08 −0.03 4* 0.06 0.12 2.62(0.98) .36 −0.50 0.75 0.77

Amotivation −0.30* −0.22* −0.21* 46* 0.41* 0.46* 1.63(0.76) 1.72 3.49 0.76 0.76

Note. p < 0.01; p < 0.001.

General discussion

The main aim to the current study was to validate a scale that assesses the multidimensional psychological needs satisfaction and frustration perceived by coaches in the development of their role. First, we hypothesized that this coaches’ scale adaptation would show a good factorial (CFA and H-CFA) structure (Hypothesis 1). After testing the first-order six-factor solution of the scale, adequate fit indices were found in the CFA. In addition, all standardized factor loadings were significant for their specific factors. Related literature focused on analyzing the relation between coaches’ need satisfaction and need frustration with other variables have employed adaptations of other scales (e.g. BNSAW for need satisfaction and PNTS for need frustration;^.8–10⁾ Rocchi and Pelletier¹⁰ reported adequate CFA values in both instruments, but without specifying the factorial structure tested (i.e. three factors for need satisfaction and three factors for need frustration or two global factors, need satisfaction and need frustration). In contrast, Stebbings et al.^8,9 presented a revised version of the BNSAW in both studies, deleting one item from each subscale⁸ and removing two problematics items for the Relatedness subscale.⁹ However, Stebbings et al.⁹ did not present CFA values for the PNTS scale adaptation for coaches. In this case, they only assumed that Bartholomew et al.¹⁸ had reported good factorial validity of the PNTS scale. Moreover, none of the three correlational studies reported the standardized factor loadings of the subscales of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness on the global factor, which prevents comparing these studies with the results of our study. The original instruments in the work context showed a three-factor structure through CFA both for the BNSAW⁷ and the PNTS.¹⁸ Despite the H-CFA model tested in the current study added need satisfaction and need frustration as second-order factors and showed an adequate fit to the model, the CFA model presents a six-factor scale structure that best reflects the theorized constructs of satisfaction and frustration of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Also, it is in line with previous scales in the work context. However, the H-CFA findings also supported the use of this scale to analyze need satisfaction and need frustration as global factors defined by the subscales of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Second, we also hypothesized that the scale would present good internal consistency (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, adequate reliability was obtained through Cronbach's alpha and Omega coefficients in all the factors, with values higher than 0.75 in both analyses. That is, it seems that the adaptation of the scales considering cultural, language and context factors was carried out satisfactorily. Comparing these findings with other studies, low reliability (i.e. below 0.70) in the primary analysis was obtained in the BPNSFS in the Autonomy Satisfaction factor in Belgian (0.69) and Chinese samples (0.47).³ These cultural differences in the interpretation of the items’ meaning should be considered for further studies and, in turn, adjustments in the construction of each item for each sub-sample should be taken into account in research that adapt and reproduce scales to other contexts. However, this low reliability was then alleviated through SEM analysis with latent variables to control for measurement errors. Other scales also had adequate internal consistency through Cronbach's alpha coefficient [e.g.,.^27,30] The alpha coefficient underestimates true reliability unless the items are tau-equivalent, and the omega coefficient is deemed as a practical alternative to the alpha coefficient to estimate the measurement reliability of the total score.⁴² Thus, the results corroborate our Hypothesis 2.

On another hand, as our secondary objective, we tested the concurrent validity of the scale according to the types of motivation using an adaptation for coaches of the WMS (Hypothesis 3*). The three needs satisfaction variables were positively related to most forms of autonomous motivation (except for identified regulation), with competence satisfaction obtaining the highest scores. Moreover, only autonomy satisfaction was negatively associated with external regulation, whereas the three needs satisfaction variables were negatively related to amotivation. These findings are consistent with previous studies focused on the coaching setting. Need satisfaction as a global factor has positively predicted the autonomous motivation,¹⁰ whereas it was not a predictor of controlled motivation. Distinguishing the three needs satisfaction, Alcaraz et al.⁶ found that only relatedness satisfaction positively explained the self-determination index (i.e. SDI). Overall, most research has also found a relationship between need satisfaction variables and positive motivational outcomes. Furthermore, other studies have also found relationships between psychological needs and positive consequences (e.g. subjective vitality, positive affect, well-being, and less perceived stress;^.6,9⁾ Thus, this scale seems consistent with the relationship between need satisfaction variables and the more autonomous forms of motivation and some positive outcomes. However, although the present study shows significant negative relationships between the three basic psychological needs satisfaction and amotivation, the relation between the three basic psychological needs satisfaction and the less self-determined forms of motivation is not so clear. Further research focused on the coaching setting could consider analyzing the three basic psychological needs separately to test these interactions.

Concerning need frustration, only competence frustration was negatively associated with one of the more autonomous forms of motivation (i.e. intrinsic motivation). As previous research has shown, the relationship between need frustration and the more autonomous forms of motivation does not seem consistent. Assessing need frustration as a global factor [e.g.,,¹⁰] it was not associated with autonomous motivation. Conversely, the three needs frustration variables were related to external and introjected regulation, respectively. Related to these findings, need frustration as a global factor was a positive predictor of coaches’ controlled motivation.¹⁰ Also, the three need frustration variables were positively related to amotivation, as other studies have found, considering need frustration as a latent factor.³⁴ Thus, the three dimensions of need frustration are presented as a positive antecedent of forms of controlled motivation and amotivation. All these studies highlight that need satisfaction has not been extensively associated with more extrinsic forms of motivation of the hierarchical continuum established by SDT, and need frustration is not related to the more autonomous forms of motivation. Moreover, relatedness frustration was positively related to identified regulation. A possible explanation could be that coaches who, despite not having good relationships in the context in which they carry out their role, may consider it necessary to do whatever they do and find benefits for themselves in the activity. In other words, coaches may feel that their need for relatedness is frustrated because they do not feel integrated with other colleagues or club managers, but that does not prevent them from being committed to the training task and highly valuing their work as a coach.

Conclusion, limitations and future directions

The main conclusion of the current project was to present a specific scale for coaches to assess the satisfaction and frustration of their basic psychological needs. The CBPN-Q showed an adequate first-order six-factor structure, composed of 24 items and with good internal reliability. This structure best reflects the theorized constructs of satisfaction/frustration of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In addition, the three needs satisfaction factors were positively associated with the more autonomous forms of motivation (except for identified regulation) and negatively with amotivation. On the other hand, the three factors of need frustration were positively related to introjected and external regulation and amotivation. However, further empirical examination of the cross-relationships between the basic psychological needs and types of motivation is extremely important. Their link seems to be inconsistent both in the literature and in the current study. The CBPN-Q could be a useful instrument to assess the multidimensional perspective of basic psychological needs in the field of coaching.

This study presents several limitations that should be taken into account. First, both BPNES and PNTS are a exercise-based and a sport-based measures from exercisers’ and athlests self-reports, respectively. Perhaps to adapt scales designed to assess superordinate/work role (e.g. BNSAW for coaches’ need satisfaction dimensions), which are more aligned to the role of coaches would have been more appropriate. Second, another limitation of the study is that the coaches’ profiles used for this adaptation corresponded to youth sports, so it would be interesting to analyze the factorial validity in other contexts (e.g. levels of competition). Third, measurement invariance across the gender was not calculated due to the small number of female coaches. Future research could recruit a greater number of female coaches through federations that have direct contact in each of the sports modalities. In addition, it is required to test the invariance of the instrument also considering the competitive levels and coaching roles (e.g. head coaches vs. assistant coaches).

The present research provides some practical applications for researchers, practitioners, and coaches. First, CBPN-Q would allow us to know the essential psychological variables that widely determine the motivation for coaching and the achievement of adaptive or maladaptive outcomes. As pointed out by Vansteenkiste and Ryan¹⁶ and adapted to coaching setting, a coach who is not integrated with the club in which they develop their coaching role, must not necessarily feel rejected by that environment. Second, the present study proposed a valid and reliable Spanish measure of need satisfaction and need frustration at coaching setting, thus contributing to the feasibility of cross-cultural studies conducted across the European continent. Finally, although the psychometric properties of the CBPN-Q were tested with a sample of coaches, the nature of the items could allow future researchers to examine the basic psychological needs in other related roles in work occupation in sport.

Variables	Items	λ(p)	R²	Variables	Items	λ(p)	R²
Autonomy Satisfaction	1	0.47***	0.22***	Autonomy Frustration	4	0.60***	0.36***
7	0.82***	0.67***	10	0.66***	0.44***
13	0.81***	0.65***	16	0.71***	0.50***
19	0.86***	0.73***	22	0.66***	0.44***
Competence Satisfaction	2	0.60***	0.35***	Competence Frustration	5	0.56***	0.32***
8	0.71***	0.51***	11	0.73***	0.53***
14	0.72***	0.51***	17	0.67***	0.46***
20	0.79***	0.63***	23	0.65***	0.43***
Relatedness Satisfaction	3	0.79***	0.63***	Relatedness Frustration	6	0.70***	0.49***
9	0.70***	0.49***	12	0.77***	0.59***
15	0.76***	0.57***	18	0.81***	0.66***
21	0.52***	0.27***	24	0.71***	0.50***

Variables	M(SD)	Skewness	Kurtosis	α	ω	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Autonomy Satisfaction	4.66(0.43)	−1.52	2.43	0.76	0.81	−
2. Competence Satisfaction	4.43(0.49)	−0.54	−0.57	0.75	0.80	0.58***	−
3. Relatedness Satisfaction	4.47(0.57)	−1.00	0.28	0.84	0.76	0.56***	0.44***	−
4. Autonomy Frustration	1.41(0.67)	2.32	5.99	0.81	0.76	−0.46***	−0.34**	−0.34***	−
5. Competence Frustration	1.54(0.69)	1.83	3.75	0.80	0.75	−0.37***	−0.48***	−0.32***	0.69***	−
6. Relatedness Frustration	1.42(0.65)	2.17	5.22	0.76	0.84	−0.35***	−0.25***	−0.30***	0.68***	0.65***	−

Variables	Autonomy Satisfaction	Competence Satisfaction	Relatedness Satisfaction	Autonomy Frustration	Competence Frustration	Relatedness Frustration	M(SD)	Skewness	Kurtosis	α	ω
Intrinsic Motivation	0.34**	0.40***	0.26***	−0.09	−0.16***	0.02	4.20(0.62)	−0.58	−0.29	0.70	0.71
Integrated Motivation	0.20***	0.30***	0.16***	−0.03	−0.09	0.04	3.75(0.87)	−0.79	0.53	0.75	0.79
Identified Motivation	−0.06	0.04	−0.04	0.09	0.02	0.13***	2.89(1.03)	.08	−0.87	0.78	0.75
Introjected Motivation	−0.04	0.08	−0.04	0.17***	0.14***	0.23***	2.56(0.95)	.35	−0.52	0.76	0.76
External Motivation	−0.10**	0.08	−0.03	4***	0.06	0.12**	2.62(0.98)	.36	−0.50	0.75	0.77
Amotivation	−0.30***	−0.22***	−0.21***	46***	0.41***	0.46***	1.63(0.76)	1.72	3.49	0.76	0.76

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain) under Grant code: IJC2019-040788-I.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the OSF repository, https://osf.io/t7b4q/?view_only=7d4676546e6b43fd8a41d7818f724d6b

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

ORCID iDs

Juan Jose Pulido

Miguel Angel López-Gajardo

Miguel Ángel Tapia

Francisco M. Leo

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Deci

Ryan

. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective . Handbook of Self-determination Research 2002; 3–33.

Vansteenkiste

Niemiec

Soenens

. The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. Adv Motiv Achiev 2010; 16: 105–165.

Ryan

Deci

. Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness 2017. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

Chen

Vansteenkiste

Beyers

, et al. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motiv Emot 2015; 39: 216–236.

Ryan

Deci

. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 2020; 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Alcaraz

Torregrosa

Viladrich

. How coaches’ motivations mediate between basic psychological needs and well-being/ill-being. Res Q Exercise Sport 2015; 86: 292–302.

Deci

Ryan

Gagné

, et al. Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: a cross-cultural study of self-determination. Per Soc Phychol B 2001; 27: 930–942.

Stebbings

Taylor

Spray

. Antecedents of perceived coach autonomy supportive and controlling behaviors: coach psychological need satisfaction and well-being. J Sport Exercise Psy 2011; 33: 255–272.

Stebbings

Taylor

Spray

, et al. Antecedents of perceived coach interpersonal behaviors: the coaching environment and coach psychological well-and ill-being. J Sport Exercise Psy 2012; 34: 481–502.

10.

Rocchi

Pelletier

. The antecedents of coaches’ interpersonal behaviors: the role of the coaching context, coaches’ psychological needs, and coaches’ motivation. J Sport Exercise Psy 2017; 39: 366–378.

11.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

, et al. Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. J Occup Organ Psych 2010; 83: 981–1002.

12.

Brien

Forest

Mageau

, et al. The basic psychological needs at work scale: measurement invariance between Canada and France. Appl Psychol-Hlth We 2012; 4: 167–187.

13.

Vlachopoulos

Michailidou

. Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: the basic psychological needs in exercise scale. Meas Phys Edu Exer Sci. 2006; 10: 179–201.

14.

Sánchez-Oliva

Morin

Teixeira

, et al. A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling representation of the structure of the basic psychological needs at work scale. J Voc Beh 2017; 98:173–187.

15.

Lonsdale

Hodge

. The basic needs satisfaction in sport scale (BNSSS): instrument development and initial validity evidence. Psychol Sport Exerc 2011; 12: 257–264.

16.

Vansteenkiste

Ryan

. On psychological growth and vulnerability: basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. J Psychother Integr 2013; 23: 263–280.

17.

Bhavsar

Ntoumanis

Quested

, et al. Conceptualizing and testing a new tripartite measure of coach interpersonal behaviors. Psychol Sport Exerc 2019; 44: 107–120.

18.

Bartholomew

Ntoumanis

Ryan

, et al. Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: assessing the darker side of athletic experience. J Sport Exercise Psy 2011; 33: 75–102.

19.

Ryan

Deci

Vansteenkiste

. Autonomy and autonomy disturbances in self-development and psychopathology: research on motivation, attachment, and clinical process. Child Y Psy 2016; 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy109

20.

Haerens

Aelterman

Vansteenkiste

, et al. Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychol Sport Exerc 2015; 16: 26–36.

21.

Cuevas

Sánchez-Oliva

Bartholomew

, et al. Adaptation and validation of the psychological need thwarting scale in spanish physical education teachers. Spanish J. Psychol 2015; 18. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.56

22.

Martinent

Guillet-Descas

Moiret

. Reliability and validity evidence for the French psychological need thwarting scale (PNTS) scores: significance of a distinction between thwarting and satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Psychol Sport Exerc 2015; 20: 29–39.

23.

Ilardi

Leone

Kasser

, et al. Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. J Appl Soc Psychol 1993; 23: 1789–1805.

24.

La Guardia

Ryan

Couchman

, et al. Within-person variation in security of attachment: a self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000; 79: 367

25.

Sheldon

Hilpert

. The balanced measure of psychological needs scale (BMPN): an alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motiv Emotion 2012; 36: 439–451.

26.

Rodríguez-Meirinhos

Antolín-Suárez

Brenning

, et al. A bright and a dark path to adolescents’ functioning: the role of need satisfaction and need frustration across gender, age, and socioeconomic status. J Happiness Stud 2020; 21: 95–116.

27.

Cordeiro

Paixão

Lens

, et al. The Portuguese validation of the basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale: concurrent and longitudinal relations to well-being and ill-being. Psychol Belg 2016; 56: 193–209.

28.

Rodrigues

Hair

Jr Neiva

, et al. The basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale in exercise (BPNSFS-E): validity, reliability, and gender invariance in Portuguese exercisers. Percept Motor Skill 2019; 126: 949–972.

29.

Costa

Ingoglia

Inguglia

, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale (BPNSFS) in Italy. Meas Phys Edu Exer Sci 2018; 51: 193–206.

30.

Liga

Ingoglia

Cuzzocrea

, et al. The basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale: construct and predictive validity in the Italian context. J Pers Assessment 2020; 102: 102–112.

31.

Nishimura

Suzuki

. Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration in Japan: controlling for the big five personality traits. Jpn Psychol Res 2016; 58: 320–331.

32.

Longo

Gunz

Curtis

, et al. Measuring need satisfaction and frustration in educational and work contexts: the need satisfaction and frustration scale (NSFS). J Happiness Stud 2016; 17: 295–317.

33.

Brawley

Carron

. Caution in interpreting confirmatory factor analysis of the group environment questionnaire: a response to sullivan, short, and cramer (2002). Percept Motor Skill 2003; 97: 315–318.

34.

Alcaraz

Torregrosa

Viladrich

. The darker side of coaching: influence of sport context on the negative experience of basketball coaches. Rev Psicol Deporte 2015; 24: 71–78.

35.

Boateng

Neilands

Frongillo

, et al. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 2018; 6: 1–18.

36.

Lynn

Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986; 35: 382–385. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017

37.

Hoffmann

Loughead

. Preliminary development of a questionnaire to assess peer athlete mentoring functions: the athlete mentoring questionnaire (AMQ). Meas Phys Edu Exer Sci 2018; 1–16. doi:10.1080/1091367x.2018.1479708

38.

Tremblay

Blanchard

Taylor

, et al. Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: its value for organizational psychology research. Can J Behav Sci 2009; 42: 70. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0018176

39.

Nunnally

Bernstein

. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 1994.

40.

Muthén

. Mplus user’s guide. 8th ed. Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017.

41.

Marsh

Hau

Wen

. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct Equ Modeling 2004; 11: 320–341.

42.

Deng

Chan

. Testing the difference between reliability coefficients alpha and omega. Edu Psychol Meas 2017; 77: 185–203.

43.

Brown

. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Gilford Press, 2006.

44.

McDonald

. Test theory: a unified approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.