MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale: Measurement Invariance between Canada and France

2012· article· en· W1894412492 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maryse Brien, Jacques Forest, Geneviève A. Mageau, Jean‐Sébastien Boudrias, Pascale Desrumaux, Luc Brunet, Estelle M. Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychology Health and Well-Being · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeci-Nomological networkConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyMeasurement invarianceScale (ratio)AutonomyExploratory factor analysisCompetence (human resources)Social psychologySelf-determination theoryInternal consistencyApplied psychologyPsychometricsStructural equation modelingMathematicsStatisticsClinical psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to develop and validate the Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale (BPNWS) in French, but items are also provided in English in the article. The BPNWS is a work-related self-report instrument designed to measure the degree to which the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as identified by Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), are satisfied at work. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, the first study examines the structure of the BPNWS in a group of 271 workers. The second study tests the measurement invariance of the scale in a group of 851 teachers from two different cultures, Canada and France. Results support the three-factor structure and show adequate internal consistency, as well as nomological validity across samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations126
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Psychology Health and Well-BeingSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207