Assessing Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Contexts: Issues of Score Invariance, Item Modification, and Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The researchers examined if scores from the original Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale (Wilson, Rogers, Rodgers, & Wild, 2006 Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. T., Rodgers, W. M. and Wild, T. C. 2006. The psychological need satisfaction in exercise scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28: 231–251. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) were invariant from a modified version specific to physical activity and then examined measurement invariance of scores across groups on the modified scale. Three groups were examined: (a) Students/staff from a university (N = 283), (b) a sample drawn from the general population (N = 214), and (c) individuals living with osteoporosis (N = 221). Measurement invariance was tested with four nested models using increased equality constraints per model. Results of invariance tests between two versions of the Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale and between groups that completed the Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale modified to physical activity supported configural and weak invariance of scores (i.e., equivalent factor structure and loadings). As such, the constructs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness were construed similarly across versions of the instrument and across two groups. Strong invariance (i.e., equivalent intercepts) was not supported, and therefore, direct score comparisons should be made with caution.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".