behavioral

sciences
Article
The Basic Psychological Needs in the Classroom Scale (BPN-CS)
Pedro Javier Conesa 1 and Jon Andoni Duñabeitia 2,3, *

1 Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain; [email protected]

2 Centro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, 28015 Madrid, Spain
3 Department of Language and Culture, The Arctic University of Norway, 6050 Tromsø, Norway
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Recent experimental and theoretical studies have shown that the assessment of students’
satisfaction of their basic psychological needs (BPN) can be a powerful resource to identify different
areas to improve their well-being, engagement, or learning achievement in school contexts. However,
currently, the number of validated tools to assess the satisfaction of the BPN is very low, hindering
informed decision-making strategies at the educational level. The aim of this study was to develop
and validate the Basic Psychological Needs in the Classroom Scale (BPN-CS) instrument, adapting
existing instruments and putting the new tool to the test. The BPN-CS was developed to measure the
level of satisfaction of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and novelty in the classroom. We tested
the scale on a representative sample of 1344 Spanish elementary school students from 8 to 13 years
old. A series of analyses were run in order to test the internal consistency of the main factors as well
as to prove the convergent and divergent validity of the instrument. In summary, the BPN-CS is
presented as a reliable and valid self-report instrument to measure basic psychological needs in a
classroom context with elementary school pupils in the Spanish context.






Keywords: BPN-CS; basic psychological needs; self-determination theory; measurement; elementary
Citation: Conesa, P.J.;
Duñabeitia, J.A. The Basic
school; validation
Psychological Needs in the
Classroom Scale (BPN-CS). Behav. Sci.
2021, 11, 96. https://doi.org/
10.3390/bs11070096 1. Introduction
The self-determination theory (SDT) [1,2] stems from the premise that all individuals
Academic Editors: Antonella Brighi, have a natural tendency toward growth and healthy development. The fundamental
Livia Taverna and Scott D. Lane motivational energy that makes individuals grow and develop comes from a set of basic
psychological needs that are crucial for a person to experiment, endure, and promote wel-
Received: 25 March 2021
fare, internalization, and learning. This idea about the satisfaction of a set of psychological
Accepted: 16 June 2021
needs yielding growth and improvement is the core premise of the basic psychological
Published: 24 June 2021
needs theory (BPNT) [2,3]. Interestingly, the BPNT has been claimed to be relatively
universal, extending across ages and cultural origins [4,5].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
According to the BPNT, the basic psychological needs are competence, autonomy, and
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
relatedness, which, when satisfied or frustrated, show a direct effect on an individual’s
published maps and institutional affil-
motivation [6]. The satisfaction or frustration of these needs depend on multiple internal
iations.
and external (contextual) factors [7,8], and while both their satisfaction and frustration are
closely interrelated constructs, the former has been classically associated with well-being
outcomes, while the latter has been linked to ill-being outcomes [9] While the satisfaction
and frustration of basic psychological needs do not necessarily represent the exact same
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
concepts and produce the same outcomes, the SDT literature has typically measured
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
satisfaction as a composite estimate of both satisfaction and reverse-scored frustration
This article is an open access article
items. In this line, in the current study, we focus on need satisfaction as a proxy for general
distributed under the terms and
assessment of the basic psychological needs. The need for competence is related to the
conditions of the Creative Commons
experience of efficacy in a given duty or action. This need reveals itself as the desire to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
extend an individual’s own capacities and skills [6,10]. The need for autonomy refers to the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
experience of showing will and self-direction within an activity or action, and it represents

Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11070096 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 2 of 13

a critical aspect of behavior regulation [9]. Finally, the need for relatedness is conceived as
the necessity to establish a successful relationship with others, caring about them and at
the same time being cared about [11]. Hence, relatedness is grounded on building safe
and close relationships [12]. These three needs are especially relevant in school contexts,
since competence is closely related to the perception of success by students when they are
involved in learning activities, autonomy is linked to the behavioral regulation that directs
students’ actions to an end, and relatedness is grounded in the establishment of positive
and supportive social and affective bonds with the peers.
The SDT postulates that the type of regulated motivation that drives students’ expe-
rience in school environments is influenced by the satisfaction or frustration of the basic
psychological needs [6]. In this sense, the SDT considers different forms of motivational
regulation [13] and explains the degree to which behaviors are volitional or self-determined
through a motivational continuum. This continuum ranges from the lowest levels of
self-determination (amotivation) to the highest ones (intrinsic motivation), with different
intermediate levels (extrinsic motivation). An intrinsically motivated learner will partic-
ipate in an activity for the pleasure and satisfaction it generates. In contrast, students
who participate in activities for the effects they obtain from them would be extrinsically
motivated [14]. Hence, the least autonomously regulated motivation is the external one,
and it refers to the performance or behavior oriented at obtaining a reward or avoiding
a punishment [15]. If the behavior is performed to avoid guilt or shame, it is understood
as a process motivated by introjected regulation. When a person chooses to act because the
behavior or its outcome is personally important, the process is typically associated with
identified regulation, as in the case of students who value and accept the benefits associated
with the learning activity. Finally, integrated regulation occurs when the learner has internal-
ized the reasons for engaging in a behavior. In general terms, and according to the SDT,
the satisfaction of psychological needs is associated with increased autonomous regulation
(identified regulation and intrinsic motivation) leading to well-being, adaptation, and optimal
functioning [8].
In the last decades, the BPNT has been strongly backed up mainly by theoretical
and observational research in the educational field, as well as by experimental research
specifically oriented toward certain disciplines, such as physical education [8,10]. As a
consequence, there is common agreement that measuring basic psychological needs can
be effective to understand the diverse cognitive, social, and motivational aspects of stu-
dents [7,16]. Different studies conducted in educational contexts show that the satisfaction
or frustration of a student’s BPN have a direct impact on wellbeing [17–19], intrinsic motiva-
tion [20], engagement during class [14,21], or academic achievement [22,23]. Interestingly,
this has been shown both for unique needs and for the interaction of all of them in a
collaborative way [7].
Recently, several researchers have proposed new candidate needs to be incorporated
into the BPNT. One of the more repeatedly suggested ones is the need for novelty [24]. The
need for novelty is defined as the necessity to experience something not previously known
or that differs from the experiences that comprise an individual’s everyday routine [25].
Hence, the experience of novelty has been claimed to be critical for the development of
internal motivation, and this is particularly relevant in school contexts. The satisfaction
of novelty as a psychological need could be promoted in educational environments by
providing students with experiences involving novel activities, tasks, projects, materials,
groups, or contacts. Recent studies controlling for the three classic BPN have shown that
novelty satisfaction significantly contributes to a person’s motivation by increasing self-
reports of vitality, life satisfaction, and general well-being [24]. Nonetheless, and in spite of
the great deal of attention received by the novelty dimension in recent years, it is worth
noting that its inclusion as a definite BPN is yet to be accepted [10].
In order to measure both the satisfaction and the frustration components of the
different elements that are part of the BPN, the main tool used is the Basic psychological
need satisfaction and frustration scale (BPNSFS) [5]. This scale was originally created to be
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 3 of 13

used in the adult population, and context-specific adaptations are available including
the work-domain [26], sports [27–29], or physical education [30,31]. However, a more
generalized adaptation to the school context that goes beyond a specific subject or area
such as physical education is still to be developed. The school environment represents
one of the major life contexts of children. Moreover, given the relevance of the BPN in
educational environments and considering the potential usefulness of a valid measuring
instrument for school contexts and younger samples, an adapted and validated tool is
needed, and the current study aimed at filling this gap by providing the educational
community with an adapted and validated scale.
While this is not the first attempt to adapt some instruments from the adult scale
and test them in school contexts, it is worth underlining that the internal consistency and
validity measures for these tools have not been reported. In this line, some researchers
have employed differing sub-scales drawn from existing questionnaires to measure the
satisfaction of the needs within the school context (see [32]), while others have created
totally new instruments such as The adolescent students’ basic psychological needs at school scale
(ASBPNSS; [33]). This last tool measures the satisfaction of the psychological needs of ado-
lescent students at the school, but it has only been used and tested in a sample of Chinese
adolescents, and underlying potential cross-cultural differences may make this instrument
unsuited for other samples. Furthermore, it does not include specific items related to the
novelty component, which, as stated above, is a critical one in educational contexts.
In the Spanish educational context, and in the absence of other instruments, the most
widely used tool is the Spanish physical education version (PE) [34] of the Basic Psychological
Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES) [35]. Under the specific context of physical education,
several studies have found that fostering a need-supportive teaching style by PE teachers
positively affects different types of psychological needs and self-determined motivation [36–
38]. However, and considering that the BPNES was originally devised as an instrument
specifically oriented at physical education contexts, some of the situations proposed in this
scale can be hardly generalized to other school contexts, not being transferable to other
classroom scenarios (e.g., the item “Exercise is an activity I do very well” or the item “I feel
very comfortable when I do exercise with my peers”). Hence, while the BPNES is an outstanding
instrument for PE contexts, an analysis of the items of the scale raises doubts about the
generalizability of the results to other classroom settings. Additionally, it should be kept
in mind that PE strategies and contexts differ from those associated with many other
academic subjects. For example, in many physical education sessions, demonstrations
and assessments of competence are often public, whereas, in other academic sessions
at school, an individual’s performance may be relatively more covert [39]. In addition,
many of the learning goals of PE are qualitatively different from those of other academic
subjects, and healthy behaviors (e.g., levels of physical activity or exercise) have been
shown to be a possible predictor of satisfaction of basic psychological needs in students in
PE contexts [40,41], while transferability to other subjects is yet to be established. Thus, the
physical education context represents a clearly different arena for the satisfaction of basic
psychological needs, which greatly differs from other classroom settings. Consequently,
the use of the same scale may not be suited, and it may be useful to provide a tool that
measures the satisfaction of basic psychological needs of elementary students in a broader
educational context.
Childhood is an important stage of cognitive and social maturation. Given that the
satisfaction of students’ needs at school is closely related to their social and learning out-
comes [7,8], it seems important to monitor and ensure the satisfaction of psychological
needs at school. Satisfying BPNs has been shown to have significant positive effects on
students for their optimal development and functioning [7,23]. As such, it is important to
provide the educational community with a scale with adequate psychometric properties
that measures the satisfaction of basic psychological needs in elementary school to identify
different areas of intervention to improve the well-being, engagement, or achievement of
these students. As said, an all-encompassing and validated tool to measure basic psycholog-
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 4 of 13

ical needs has not yet been developed for elementary school children. Therefore, the aim of
this study was to develop a tool to assess the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs in
elementary school students—the Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction in the Classroom Scale
(BPN-CS)—by adapting and extending existing scales, and to validate the instrument in a
large sample of children. This scale stems from the Spanish physical education version [34]
of the BPNES and adapts it to fit the general classroom context. Its psychometric properties
were tested among a large sample of Spanish elementary school students. Based on pre-
vious studies, the fit of the data to a four-factor model and a general-factor model [42,43]
was explored. The internal consistency of its subscales was also investigated, as well as its
validity across genders and socioeconomic status.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
In this cross-sectional study, we investigated 1344 elementary school Spanish students
from 8 to 13 years old (M = 10.3, SD = 0.896, 48.5% females). The sample size is similar to
that of recent studies following similar approaches in Spanish samples of adolescents (e.g.,
1444 participants in [43]). The data collected in this research were part of a larger longi-
tudinal research project (2020–current) aimed at exploring the impact of a world-leading
computerized cognitive intervention program (CogniFit Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA)
based on the stimulation of the executive functions on the motivation of the studentship.
The sample included students of 26 public and private Spanish schools, in the last three
years of Elementary Education (fourth, fifth, and sixth grades). A total of 27.5% of the
students were enrolled in fourth grade, 40.3% in fifth grade, and 32.2% in sixth grade.

2.2. Measure
The Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction in the Classroom Scale (BPN-CS; see Appendix A)
was created by adapting to the elementary classroom context the Spanish version by [34] of
the Basic Psychological Needs Exercise Scale (BPNES; [35]). The adaptation included 17 items
grouped into four subscales: autonomy satisfaction (e.g., “I feel I have been doing what really
interests me in class”), competence satisfaction (e.g., “In class, I feel confident that I can do
things well”), relatedness satisfaction (e.g., “I feel like I have a close relationship with my teachers
and classmates”), and novelty satisfaction (e.g., “I frequently feel there are novelties for me in the
classroom”). Responses were collected by asking students to select one out of five values in
a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The five items
related to the novelty satisfaction variable were taken and adapted from the Novelty Need
Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (NNSFS; [25]).

2.3. Procedure
This study procedure was approved by the University of Murcia’s Research Ethics
Commission (Ref: 2989/2020). Since the sample was composed of underage participants,
parents were requested to sign a parental consent form. Participants completed a 20-min
online study programmed using the Gorilla Experiment Builder [44]. Project staff contacted
the schools and asked them to participate in the study. After the schools’ staff gave their
consent to participate in the study, we initiated an information session for parents and
teachers, in which the child and his or her parent volunteered to participate. Students were
informed that their responses would be confidential and used only for research purposes.
Participation in the study was voluntary and participants could give up at any time.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlations, reliability analysis, and confirmatory
factor analysis were conducted with JASP v.14.1 software using the SEM module (lavaan
package). Firstly, a descriptive analysis of the 17 items in the questionnaire was carried out,
considering the means and standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis. The assumption
of univariate normality was examined by standardized values for univariate skewness
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 5 of 13

and kurtosis coefficients [45]. The t-test was used to analyze gender differences between
need satisfaction. Following this, a correlation analysis was performed for the four-factor
model of the BPN-CS test. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and Mc Donald’s omega
were used to analyze the reliability of the scale. In comparison with Cronbach’s alpha,
McDonald’s omega has the advantage of taking into account the strength of association
between items and constructs as well as item-specific measurement errors [46]. The Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin sample adequacy measure (KMO) and the Bartlett sphericity test were used
to test the adequacy of the sample to the factor analysis. Next, a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was performed using a robust weighted least square (DWLS) estimator.
DWLS was chosen because this estimator is more suitable due to the ordered–categorical
nature of Likert scales, rather than the traditional maximum likelihood estimation [47,48],
resulting in more precise estimates of key model-parameters. The factor loadings were
analyzed using three subscales proposed by Chen et al. [5] in addition to the proposal
of González-Cutre et al. [24], including novelty as the fourth basic psychological need.
The goodness of fit was judged with the following fit indexes: the ratio between the
Chi-squared value and the degree of freedom (X2 /df ), the comparative fit index (CFI),
the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the standardized root–mean–square residual (SRMR), the
root–mean–square error of approximation (RMSEA), and with a confidence interval at
90% (90% CI). After this, and in order to explore measurement invariance across gender
(group 1 = girls, group 2 = boys) and socioeconomic status, a multiple-group confirmatory
factor analysis (MGCFA) was performed. The measurement invariance types considered
in this study were a configural model, metric, scalar, and strict invariance. The configural
invariance indicates that participants from different groups conceptualize the constructs in
the same way. The metric invariance tests if different groups respond to the same factor
loadings. The scalar invariance compares latent means, and the strict invariance is the
equivalent of the residual items [49]. An MGCFA following these steps is widely accepted
as the best approach for testing measurement invariance [45]. In this study, according to
Chen [50], we used criteria of a −0.01 change in CFI, paired with changes in RMSEA of
0.020 and SRMR of 0.030 for metric invariance and 0.010 for scalar invariance.

3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Analysis
A detailed sample description is presented in Table 1. The means, standard deviations,
skewness, and kurtosis of the four subscales of the 17-item BPN-CS are presented split by
gender in Table 2. No missing values were observed. Standardized values ranged from
−1.37 to −0.11 for skewness and from −0.32 to 1.76 for kurtosis, sustaining the assumption
of univariate normality [48].

Table 1. Sample size and demographic characteristics of the participants split by grade.

Grade N % Age (Mean) Age (SD) * Age (Range) Girls % Boys %

Total 1344 100 10.29 0.90 8–13 652 48.51 692 51.49
4th grade 370 27.53 9.26 0.48 9–11 183 49.46 187 50.54
5th grade 541 40.25 10.25 0.49 10–12 257 47.50 284 52.50
6th grade 433 32.22 11.21 0.49 10–13 212 48.96 221 51.04
* Note. SD = standard deviation.
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 6 of 13

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of total sample (n = 1344), girls (n = 652), and boys (n = 692).

Autonomy Competence Relatedness Novelty

Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
Total Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total Girls Boys
Mean 3.41 3.50 3.32 4.02 4.06 3.98 4.37 4.39 4.35 3.85 3.91 3.79
SD * 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.69 0.81 0.80 0.81
Skewness −0.23 −0.36 −0.11 −0.76 −0.84 −0.68 −1.32 −1.37 −1.28 −0.61 −0.69 −0.55
Kurtosis −0.29 −0.15 −0.32 0.61 0.70 0.59 1.73 1.76 1.73 0.07 0.20 −0.02
Min 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.25 1.00 1.20 1.00
Max 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
* Note. SD = standard deviation, Min = minimum, Max = maximum.

In order to check the adequacy of the sample to the factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin sample adequacy measure (KMO) and the Bartlett sphericity test were used. The
KMO index showed a good value of 0.90 and the values of the Bartlett sphericity test were
statistically significant (X2 = 7538; p < 0.001). The internal consistency of the scale was
evaluated with two indexes: Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω [51]. The results showed
good internal consistency in all subscales. The measures associated with the reliability of
the subscales are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Reliability of the four subscales in the BPN-CS as measured by the internal consistency using
Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω.

Subscale Cronbach’s α McDonald’s ω

Autonomy Satisfaction 0.72 0.72
Competence Satisfaction 0.76 0.76
Relatedness Satisfaction 0.78 0.79
Novelty Satisfaction 0.78 0.77

Correlations between the satisfaction of the four main psychological needs are pre-
sented in Table 4. As expected, all the subscales were strongly and positively correlated
with each other.

Table 4. Pearson correlation among the satisfaction of basic psychological needs.

Autonomy Competence Relatedness

Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
Autonomy
—
Satisfaction
Competence
0.58 *** —
Satisfaction
Relatedness
0.42 *** 0.41 *** —
Satisfaction
Novelty Satisfaction 0.56 *** 0.44 *** 0.43 ***
Note. *** p < 0.001.

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The factorial loadings of the individual items of the four sub-scales of the 17-item
BPN-CS are presented in Table 5. Factor loadings of all items were statistically significant
within their respective factor, and factor loadings ranged from 0.57 (Q16) to 0.81 (Q9) (girls:
factor loadings ranging from 0.57 (Q3) to 0.84 (Q13); boys: factor loadings ranging from
0.53 (Q10) to 0.84 (Q9)).
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 7 of 13

Table 5. Factorial loadings of the BPN-CS by sub-scale and gender.

Factor Indicator Total Sample * Girls * Boys *

Autonomy
Satisfaction
Q1 0.67 0.66 0.67
Q5 0.72 0.70 0.73
Q9 0.81 0.77 0.84
Q14 0.68 0.70 0.65
Competence
Satisfaction
Q2 0.59 0.61 0.57
Q6 0.65 0.62 0.68
Q10 0.59 0.64 0.53
Q15 0.64 0.63 0.65
Relatedness
Satisfaction
Q3 0.62 0.57 0.66
Q7 0.60 0.61 0.59
Q12 0.65 0.68 0.62
Q16 0.57 0.61 0.54
Novelty Satisfaction
Q4 0.64 0.63 0.64
Q8 0.73 0.73 0.74
Q11 0.75 0.69 0.81
Q13 0.80 0.84 0.77
Q17 0.61 0.61 0.60
* Note. All regression weights are significantly different from zero at p < 0.001.

In order to find the most optimal model, the above proposed four-factor model
(autonomy satisfaction with the items Q1, Q5, Q9, and Q14; competence satisfaction with
the items Q2, Q6, Q10, and Q15: relatedness satisfaction with the items Q3, Q7, Q12, and
Q16; novelty satisfaction with the items Q4, Q8, Q11, Q13, and Q17) was compared with a
general factor including the seventeen items (see Table 6). The four-factor model showed
an excellent fit for the data (X2 = 222.06, p < 0.001, X2 /df = 1.96, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99,
SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.03). In contrast, the model with a general factor showed a
much poorer fit (X2 = 771.11, p < 0.001, X2 /df = 6.47, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.08,
RMSEA = 0.06).

Table 6. Fit indices for the two models (n = 1344).

Model X2 df X2 /df p CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA (90% CI)

Four-factor model 222.06 113 1.96 <0.001 0.99 0.99 0.04 0.03 (0.02–0.03)
General-factor
771.11 119 6.47 <0.001 0.95 0.94 0.08 0.06 (0.06–0.07)
model

Note. X2 = Chi Squared; df = Degree of Freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index;
SRMR = Standardized Root–Mean–Square; RMSEA = Root–mean–square Error of Approximation; 90% CI = 90%
Confidence Interval.

3.3. Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A multiple-group approach was used to test measurement invariance across gender.
Configural invariance criteria were met, as noted by the models’ good fit indices across
gender (see model 1 in Table 7). Criteria for metric invariance (model 2) was also met,
showing that the BPN-CS was invariant across gender groups (∆CFI = − 0.002; ∆RMSEA
= 0.003). The results showed that the criteria for scalar invariance (model 3) were fully
met across gender groups (∆CFI = 0.000; ∆RMSEA = −0.001). Criteria for strict invariance
(model 4) were also met across gender groups (∆CFI = 0.000; ∆RMSEA = −0.002).
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 8 of 13

Table 7. Model fit and measurement invariance between groups according to gender.

RMSEA
X2 CFI SRMR
Model X2 /df p TLI (90% CI)
(df) (∆CFI) (∆SRMR)
(∆RMSEA)
Gender
286.62 0.020
Model 1: Configural invariance 1.26 <0.001 0.995 0.994 0.045
(226) (0.012–0.027)
0.023
325.933 0.993 0.048
Model 2: Metric invariance 1.36 <0.001 0.992 (0.017–0.029)
(239) (−0.002) (0.003)
(0.003)
0.022
334.833 0.993 0.046
Model 3: Scalar Invariance 1.33 <0.001 0.992 (0.015–0.028)
(252) (0.000) (−0.002)
(−0.001)
0.021
347.480 0.993 0.047
Model 4: Strict Invariance 1.29 <0.001 0.993 (0.014–0.027)
(269) (0.000) (0.001)
(−0.001)
Note. X2 = Chi Squared; df = Degree of Freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root–
Mean–Square; RMSEA = Root–Mean–Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI = 90% Confidence Interval; ∆CFI = Change in Comparative
Fit Index, ∆RMSEA = Change in Root–Mean–Square Error of Approximation.

4. Discussion
The main objective of this study was to adapt the Spanish physical education ver-
sion [34] of the BPNES [35] to the general classroom context and to validate it in a large
sample of elementary school students. Additionally, this study aimed at validating an
instrument that could also account for the satisfaction of the need for novelty, which is
a critical factor recently highlighted in the literature [24,25]. To this end, a new instru-
ment was developed by adapting and extending an existing tool: The Basic Psychological
Needs Satisfaction in the Classroom Scale (BPN-CS). The tool was then applied to a large and
heterogeneous group of children, and the results were analyzed following classic scale
validation approaches (including descriptive and factorial analysis). The results supported
the validity of this instrument, as has been previously the case for other similar studies
with different adaptations of the original scale for different samples [43,52–56].
Based on previous studies, two models were tested in a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA): a four-factor model and a general-factor model. The results of this CFA confirmed
the four-factor structure as a good fitting model for the BPN-CS, confirming once again the
assumption of the SDT that the satisfaction of the different psychological needs (including
the recently incorporated need for novelty [24,25]) is best explored and represented as
different constructs [6]. Additionally, regarding the reliability of the scale, the internal
consistency analysis provided an adequate value for the Cronbach’s alpha and Mc Donald’s
omega (ranging from 0.72 to 0.78) in each of the four subscales. These results are similar to
those obtained in previous studies [34,42,53], and in line with the findings of [57], where
they observed that different cultural context or translation errors do not significantly
influence the meaning of the items.
The BPN-CS is a valid instrument that could serve to measure the satisfaction of
autonomy, competence, relatedness, and novelty in the classroom. Research literature has
observed a direct and indirect relationship in students between the satisfaction of their
psychological needs in class and happiness [58], psychological well-being [59], school
engagement, or academic achievement [23]. In order to motivate children in the school,
it seems essential that they are provided with a class environment in which their basic
psychological needs are satisfied. By measuring the level of satisfaction of their students
through the use of tools such as the BPN-CS, teachers can get an estimate of their well-being
and intervene if deemed appropriate.
Despite the overall positive results obtained in this study, some future directions must
be taken into consideration too. Firstly, the sampling technique employed to validate the
BPN-CS focused on a relatively large Spanish sample of children from different schools.
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 9 of 13

The analysis of the validity and reliability of this very same scale in different cultures
and countries could offer a new opportunity to measure these constructs, widening its
scope and reach. In addition, future studies should analyze the measurement invariance
with respect to other variables, age, academic achievement, or type of center (e.g., public,
concerted, or private). In this line, it is worth mentioning that while this was not the
main aim of the present study, the large sample size and the relatively balanced gender
distribution allowed for a closer look at potential gender differences in the satisfaction
of basic psychological needs. No significant differences were observed in the relatedness
variable. In contrast, the satisfaction of competence, novelty, and autonomy differed across
genders, showing higher scores for girls than boys [60,61] (see Table 2). This observation
sets the ground for future studies exploring the underlying mechanisms driving these
gender differences.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the BPN-CS exclusively measured the satis-
faction, not the frustration, of the needs (similar to the case of the BPNES [34]). The theory
of the satisfaction and frustration of the needs with coexistent but separated different
constructs is increasingly getting support in the literature [10]. Therefore, the frustration
of the needs should be also investigated as an additional set of variables in the future.
Additionally, the validity of this new tool could have been explored using similar existing
scales. However, it should be kept in mind that existing tools are biased towards specific
educational contexts as in the case of physical education (BPNES). Finally, although much
research is being done on the need for novelty in recent years, especially in the Spanish
context, it should be made clear that novelty is considered a candidate need and is not yet
universally accepted as a basic psychological need. Therefore, caution is advised when
interpreting this subscale [10].
In sum, this study investigated the psychometric properties of The Basic Psychological
Needs in the Classroom Scale (BPN-CS) in a Spanish context of elementary school. The
results showed that the validity and reliability of the scores derived from the BPN-CS and
their subscales (autonomy satisfaction, competence satisfaction, relatedness satisfaction,
and novelty satisfaction) were adequate and satisfactory, suggesting that it is a reliable
instrument to measure the basic psychological needs described in the self-determination
theory in the classroom culture in elementary school students.

Author Contributions: P.J.C. and J.A.D. designed the study. P.J.C. and J.A.D. wrote the manuscript.
P.J.C. conducted the research and analyzed data under the supervision of J.A.D. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research has been partially funded by grants PGC2018-097145-B-I00 and RED2018-
102615-608 T from the Spanish Government and H2019/HUM-5705 from the Comunidad de Madrid.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Murcia (Ref:
2989/2020).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request to
[email protected] (P.J.C.). The data are not publicly available due to the potential classification
as personal health data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Appendix A.1. The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in Classroom Scale
Appendix A.1.1. Autonomy Need Satisfaction
Q1. Las actividades que hago en clase se ajustan a mis intereses (I feel I have been
doing what really interests me in class).
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 10 of 13

Q5. Las actividades que hago en clase coinciden perfectamente con la forma en que
yo quiero hacerlas. (The activities I do in class match perfectly with the way I want to
do them).
Q9. La forma de realizar las actividades responde a mis deseos (I feel my choices
express who I really am in class).
Q14. Tengo la oportunidad de elegir cómo realizar las actividades (In my class, I feel a
sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertake).

Appendix A.1.2. Competence Need Satisfaction

Q2. Me siento capaz de alcanzar mis metas en clase (I feel competent to achieve
my goals).
Q6. Realizo las actividades de forma eficaz (I am capable of effectively doing even the
tasks considered difficult by most of my peers).
Q10. En clase, siento que puedo realizar bien las actividades. (In class, I feel confident
that I can do things well).
Q15. Pienso que puedo cumplir con las exigencias de clase (I think I can meet the
demands of the class).

Appendix A.1.3. Relatedness Need Satisfaction

Q3. Me siento muy cómodo/a con mis profesores y compañeros/as (I feel very
comfortable with my teachers and classmates).
Q7. Me llevo bien con mis profesores y compañeros de clase (I feel like I have a close
relationship with my teachers and classmates).
Q12. Los profesores y compañeros de clase se preocupan por mí y yo me preocupo
por ellos (I feel connected with people who care about me, and for whom I care)
Q16. Me gustan mucho mis profesores y compañeros de clase (I like my teachers and
classmates very much).

Appendix A.1.4. Novelty Need Satisfaction

Q4. Siento que hago cosas novedosas en clase. (I feel like I’m doing new things
in class).
Q8. Siento que a menudo hay novedades para mí, en clase. (I often feel that there is
something new for me).
Q11. Experimento sensaciones nuevas. (I feel new sensations in my class).
Q13. Creo que se plantean situaciones novedosas para mí, en clase. (I think new
situations are coming for me in class).
Q17. Creo que descubro cosas nuevas a menudo, en clase (I think I often discover new
things in class).

References
1. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [CrossRef]
2. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [CrossRef]
3. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol.
Can. 2008, 49, 182–185. [CrossRef]
4. Deci, E.L.; Vansteenkiste, M. Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in
positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia 2004, 27, 23–40.
5. Chen, B.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Beyers, W.; Boone, L.; Deci, E.L.; Van Der Kaap-Deeder, J.; Duriez, B.; Lens, W.; Matos, L.;
Mouratidis, A.; et al. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motiv. Emot.
2015, 39, 216–236. [CrossRef]
6. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness; Guilford Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2017.
7. Niemiec, C.P.; Ryan, R.M. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. Theory Res. Educ. 2009, 7, 133–144. [CrossRef]
8. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory,
practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 61, 101860. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 11 of 13

9. Bartholomew, K.J.; Ntoumanis, N.; Ryan, R.M.; Bosch, J.A.; Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. Self-determination theory and diminished
functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 37, 1459–1473.
[CrossRef]
10. Vansteenkiste, M.; Ryan, R.M.; Soenens, B. Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions.
Motiv. Emot. 2020, 44, 1–31. [CrossRef]
11. Ryan, R.M. The Nature of the Self in Autonomy and Relatedness. In The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches; Springer: New York, NY,
USA, 1991; pp. 208–238.
12. Reeve, J.; Jang, H.; Carrell, D.; Jeon, S.; Barch, J. Enhancing Students’ Engagement by Increasing Teachers’ Autonomy Support.
Motiv. Emot. 2004, 28, 147–169. [CrossRef]
13. Ryan, R.M.; Connell, J.P. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 749–761. [CrossRef]
14. Jang, H.; Kim, E.J.; Reeve, J. Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring
classroom context. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 104, 1175–1188. [CrossRef]
15. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept.
Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 319–338. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, W.C.; Ryan, R.M.; Wang, J.C.K. Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-Determination
Theory; Springer: Singapore, 2016.
17. Duineveld, J.J.; Parker, P.D.; Ryan, R.M.; Ciarrochi, J.; Salmela-Aro, K. The link between perceived maternal and paternal
autonomy support and adolescent well-being across three major educational transitions. Dev. Psychol. 2017, 53, 1978–1994.
[CrossRef]
18. Joussemet, M.; Koestner, R.; Lekes, N.; Landry, R. A Longitudinal Study of the Relationship of Maternal Autonomy Support to
Children’s Adjustment and Achievement in School. J. Pers. 2005, 73, 1215–1236. [CrossRef]
19. Rodríguez-Meirinhos, A.; Antolín-Suárez, L.; Brenning, K.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Oliva, A. 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. 2019, 21, 95–116. [CrossRef]
20. Gnambs, T.; Hanfstingl, B. The decline of academic motivation during adolescence: An accelerated longitudinal cohort analysis
on the effect of psychological need satisfaction. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 36, 1691–1705. [CrossRef]
21. Connell, J.P.; Wellborn, J.G. Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In Self
Processes and Development; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1991; pp. 43–77.
22. Ratelle, C.F.; Guay, F.; Vallerand, R.J.; LaRose, S.; Senécal, C. Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic
motivation: A person-oriented analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 99, 734–746. [CrossRef]
23. Wang, Y.; Tian, L.; Huebner, E.S. Basic psychological needs satisfaction at school, behavioral school engagement, and academic
achievement: Longitudinal reciprocal relations among elementary school students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 56, 130–139.
[CrossRef]
24. González-Cutre, D.; Romero-Elías, M.; Jiménez-Loaisa, A.; Beltrán-Carrillo, V.J.; Hagger, M.S. Testing the need for novelty as a
candidate need in basic psychological needs theory. Motiv. Emot. 2020, 44, 295–314. [CrossRef]
25. González-Cutre, D.; Sicilia, Á.; Sierra, A.C.; Ferriz, R.; Hagger, M.S. Understanding the need for novelty from the perspective of
self-determination theory. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016, 102, 159–169. [CrossRef]
26. Trépanier, S.-G.; Fernet, C.; Austin, S. Longitudinal relationships between workplace bullying, basic psychological needs, and
employee functioning: A simultaneous investigation of psychological need satisfaction and frustration. Eur. J. Work. Organ.
Psychol. 2016, 25, 690–706. [CrossRef]
27. Delrue, J.; Reynders, B.; Broek, G.V.; Aelterman, N.; De Backer, M.; Decroos, S.; De Muynck, G.-J.; Fontaine, J.; Fransen, K.;
van Puyenbroeck, S.; et al. Adopting a helicopter-perspective towards motivating and demotivating coaching: A circumplex
approach. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 40, 110–126. [CrossRef]
28. De Francisco, C.; Parra-Plaza, F.J.; Vílchez, P.M. Basic Psychological Needs in Spanish Athletes: Validation of the “Basic Needs
Satisfaction in Sport Scale”. Apunts Educación Física y Deportes 2020, 141, 11–20. [CrossRef]
29. Chu, T.L.; Zhang, X.; Lee, J.; Zhang, T. Perceived coach-created environment directly predicts high school athletes’ physical
activity during sport. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2021, 16, 70–80. [CrossRef]
30. Haerens, L.; Aelterman, N.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Soenens, B.; Van Petegem, S. 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. [CrossRef]
31. Chen, C.; Zhang, T.; Gu, X.; Lee, J.; Ren, S.; Wang, H. Understanding Adolescents’ Need Support, Need Satisfaction, and
Health-Related Outcomes: A Self-Determination Health Behavior Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 17, 104.
[CrossRef]
32. Van Ryzin, M.J.; Gravely, A.A.; Roseth, C.J. Autonomy, Belongingness, and Engagement in School as Contributors to Adolescent
Psychological Well-Being. J. Youth Adolesc. 2009, 38, 1–12. [CrossRef]
33. Tian, L.; Han, M.; Huebner, E.S. Preliminary development of the Adolescent Students’ Basic Psychological Needs at School Scale.
J. Adolesc. 2014, 37, 257–267. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 12 of 13

34. Murcia, J.A.M.; Coll, D.G.-C.; Garzón, M.C.; Rojas, N.P. Adaptación a La Educación Física De La Escala De Las Necesidades
Psicológicas Básicas En El Ejercicio. Rev. Mex. Psicol. 2008, 25, 295–303.
35. Vlachopoulos, S.P.; Michailidou, S. Development and Initial Validation of a Measure of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness
in Exercise: The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2006, 10, 179–201. [CrossRef]
36. Aelterman, N.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Berghe, L.V.D.; De Meyer, J.; Haerens, L. Fostering a Need-Supportive Teaching Style:
Intervention Effects on Physical Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Teaching Behaviors. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014, 36, 595–609.
[CrossRef]
37. Cheon, S.H.; Reeve, J.; Song, Y.-G. Recommending goals and supporting needs: An intervention to help physical education
teachers communicate their expectations while supporting students’ psychological needs. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 41, 107–118.
[CrossRef]
38. Su, Y.-L.; Reeve, J. A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support Autonomy. Educ. Psychol.
Rev. 2010, 23, 159–188. [CrossRef]
39. Vasconcellos, D.; Parker, P.D.; Hilland, T.; Cinelli, R.; Owen, K.B.; Kapsal, N.; Lee, J.; Antczak, D.; Ntoumanis, N.; Ryan, R.M.;
et al. Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 112,
1444–1469. [CrossRef]
40. Cuevas-Campos, R.; Fernández-Bustos, J.; González-Cutre, D.; Hernández-Martínez, A. Need Satisfaction and Need Thwarting
in Physical Education and Intention to be Physically Active. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7312. [CrossRef]
41. Teixeira, P.J.; Carraça, E.V.; Markland, D.; Silva, M.N.; Ryan, R.M. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A
systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 78. [CrossRef]
42. Cardella, G.M.; Hernández-Sánchez, B.; Sánchez, J.C. Basic Psychological Needs as a Motivational Competence: Examining
Validity and Measurement Invariance of Spanish BPNSF Scale. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5422. [CrossRef]
43. Trigueros, R.; Mínguez, L.A.; González-Bernal, J.J.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M.; Padilla, D.; Álvarez, J.F. Validation of the Satisfaction Scale
of Basic Psychological Needs in Physical Education with the Incorporation of the Novelty in the Spanish Context. Sustainability
2019, 11, 6250. [CrossRef]
44. Anwyl-Irvine, A.L.; Massonnié, J.; Flitton, A.; Kirkham, N.; Evershed, J.K. Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment
builder. Behav. Res. Methods 2020, 52, 388–407. [CrossRef]
45. Milfont, T.L.; Fischer, R. Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. Int. J. Psychol.
Res. 2010, 3, 111–130. [CrossRef]
46. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousands Oaks, CA, USA, 2017.
47. Beauducel, A.; Herzberg, P.Y. On the Performance of Maximum Likelihood Versus Means and Variance Adjusted Weighted Least
Squares Estimation in CFA. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2006, 13, 186–203. [CrossRef]
48. Forero, C.G.; Maydeu-Olivares, A.; Gallardo-Pujol, D. Factor Analysis with Ordinal Indicators: A Monte Carlo Study Comparing
DWLS and ULS Estimation. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2009, 16, 625–641. [CrossRef]
49. Schroeders, U.; Gnambs, T. Degrees of Freedom in Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analyses. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2020, 36,
105–113. [CrossRef]
50. Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2007, 14,
464–504. [CrossRef]
51. Dunn, T.J.; Baguley, T.; Brunsden, V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency
estimation. Br. J. Psychol. 2013, 105, 399–412. [CrossRef]
52. Catalán, Á.A.; Serrano, J.S.; Clemente, J.A.J.; Lucas, J.M.-A.; García-González, L. Spanish validation of the Basic Psychological
Needs at Work Scale: A measure to predict teachers’ well-being in the workplace. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 2017, 18, 127–148.
[CrossRef]
53. Burgueño, R.; González-Cutre, D.; Sevil-Serrano, J.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Segura-Díaz, J.M.; Medina-Casaubón, J.; Chillon, P.
Validation of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in Active Commuting to and from School (BPNS-ACS) Scale in Spanish
young people. J. Transp. Health 2020, 16, 100825. [CrossRef]
54. Šakan, D. Validation of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS) on adolescents in Serbia. Curr.
Psychol. 2020, 1–14. [CrossRef]
55. Sturm, D.J.; Bachner, J.; Haug, S.; Demetriou, Y. The German Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Physical Education Scale:
Adaption and Multilevel Validation in a Sample of Sixth-Grade Girls. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1554. [CrossRef]
56. Zamarripa, J.; Rodríguez-Medellín, R.; Pérez-Garcia, J.A.; Otero-Saborido, F.; Delgado, M. Mexican Basic Psychological Need
Satisfaction and Frustration Scale in Physical Education. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 253. [CrossRef]
57. Vlachopoulos, S.P.; Ntoumanis, N.; Smith, A.L. The basic psychological needs in exercise scale: Translation and evidence for
cross-cultural validity. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2010, 8, 394–412. [CrossRef]
58. Stiglbauer, B.; Gnambs, T.; Gamsjäger, M.; Batinic, B. The upward spiral of adolescents’ positive school experiences and happiness:
Investigating reciprocal effects over time. J. Sch. Psychol. 2013, 51, 231–242. [CrossRef]
59. Wentzel, K.R.; Wigfield, A. Motivational Interventions That Work: Themes and Remaining Issues. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 42, 261–271.
[CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 96 13 of 13

60. Soos, I.; Dizmatsek, I.; Ling, J.; Ojelabi, A.O.; Simonek, J.; Boros-Balint, I.; Szabo, P.; Szabo, A.D.; Hamar, P. Perceived autonomy
support and motivation in young people: A comparative investigation of physical education and leisure-time in four countries.
Eur. J. Psychol. 2019, 15, 509–530. [CrossRef]
61. Vansteenkiste, M.; Sierens, E.; Goossens, L.; Soenens, B.; Dochy, F.; Mouratidis, A.; Aelterman, N.; Haerens, L.; Beyers, W.
Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning,
motivation and problem behavior. Learn. Instr. 2012, 22, 431–439. [CrossRef]