MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406086835 · doi:10.1080/00223891.2024.2444460

The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale: Some Satisfying and Frustrating Findings

2025· article· en· W4406086835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald R. Holden, Erika L. Peter, Madeleine T. D’Agata, Brenda Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFrustrationScale (ratio)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a tool for operationalizing basic psychological needs theory (an aspect of self-determination theory), the Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS) has become the primary self-report measure. Here, with a sample of 807 Canadian military members, we confirm the BPNSFS six content factor structure and, in supporting that structure, demonstrate the differential association of satisfaction and frustration scales with psychological functioning variables that are external to the factor analysis. Although the specific content interpretation of the BPNSFS can be debated, we support the continued use of the BPNSFS as a psychometrically sound instrument.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207