Psychometric Properties of Basic Needs Scale Based on Choice Theory (BNSBCT)

Abstract

Choice Theory, which is a well-established psychological framework that emphasizes the importance of meeting basic psychological needs for human well-being and optimal functioning. The use of a reliable and valid measure like the BNSBCT can lead to more accurate and meaningful research findings, which can inform the development of interventions or policies aimed at improving individuals' basic psychological needs fulfillment in various contexts especially in education. The aim of this study was to develop a measurement instrument to find out the satisfaction levels of basic needs in adult population and to test the psychometric properties of the scale. Individuals aged 18 and older, who were reached with convenience sampling method, participated in the study. Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted with the data obtained from 381 participants, while Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted with the data obtained from 194 participants and goodness of fit indices were found to be χ²/df= 1.64; GFI=.85; IFI=.91; TLI=.90; CFI=.91; PNFI=.71; PGFI=.69; SRMR=.64 and RMSEA=.06. The 25-item scale includes five factors. Face validity of the scale is .91, while convergent validity value is .70. In terms of reliability, McDonald's Omega coefficient was found to be .92, while test-retest correlation coefficient was found to be .83. The results show that Basic Needs Scale based on Choice Theory is a valid and reliable measurement instrument. As a result, it can be stated that the scale can be used to determine the level of meeting the basic needs of adults.

Keywords

• Choice theory
• Basic needs
• Validity
• Reliability

Seçim Teorisine Dayalı Temel İhtiyaçlar Ölçeği’nin (STDTİÖ) Psikometrik Özellikleri

Öz

Bu araştırmada, Seçim Teorisi’nde öne sürülen beş temel ihtiyacın yetişkin bireylerde doyum düzeyini belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçme aracı geliştirmek ve psikometrik özelliklerini test etmek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmaya elverişli örnekleme yöntemi ile ulaşılan 18 yaş ve üzerindeki bireyler katılmıştır. 381 (253 kadın, 128 erkek) katılımcıdan elde edilen veriler ile Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi, 194 katılımcıdan (130 kadın, 64 erkek) elde edilen veriler ile Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi gerçekleştirilmiş ve χ²/df= 1.65; CFI=.91; IFI=.91; TLI=.90, GFI=.85 and RMSEA=.06. olarak bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi sonucunda ölçeğin beş faktör ve 26 maddeden oluştuğu tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin görünüş geçerliliği değeri .91, benzer ölçek geçerliliği değeri ise .58’dir. Ölçme aracının güvenilirliği kapsamında Cronbach Alfa katsayısı .92, test tekrar test korelasyon katsayısı ise .69 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular, Seçim Teorisi’ne Dayalı Temel İhtiyaçlar Ölçeği’nin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu desteklemektedir. Sonuç olarak, ölçeğin yetişkin bireylerin temel ihtiyaçlarının doyum düzeyini belirlemek amacıyla kullanılabileceği belirtilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seçim teorisi
• Temel ihtiçlar
• Geçerlilik
• Güvenilirlik

References

1. Brown, T., & Swenson, S. (2005). Identifying basic needs: The contextual needs assessment. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 24(2), 7-10.
2. Bradley, E. L. (2014). Choice theory and reality therapy: An overview. International Journal of Choice Theory and Reality Therapy, 5(1), 6-14.
3. Bryne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Burns, M. Vance, D., Szadokierski,I. & Stockwell, C. (2006). Student needs survey: A psychometrically sound measure of the five basic needs. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 25(2), 4-8.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Manual of data analysis for social sciences. Pegem Academic Publishing.
6. Chin R. W. A, Chua, Y.Y., Chu, M. N., Mahadi. N. F., Wong, M. S., Yusoff, M.S., et al. (2018). Investigating validity evidence of the Malay translation of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2017.06.003
7. Corey, G. (2015). Psychological counseling, psychotherapy theory and practice. Mentis Publishing.
8. Elnar, R. D. (2015). Development and validation of university of Mindanao needs assessment scale for college students [Doctoral dissertation]. Ateneo de Davao University.

9. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications Ltd.
10. Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory. Harper-Collins.
11. Glasser, W. (2002). Choice Theory/A New Psychology of Personal Freedom (Müge İzmirli Trans.). Hayat Publications. Glasser, W. (2003). Warning: Psychiatry can be hazardous to your mental health. Harper Collins.
12. Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Common factor-analysis versus component analysis- Some well and little known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 33-39.
13. Harvey, V S., & Retter, K. (1995). The development of the Basic Needs Survey. Journal of Reality Therapy, 15(1), 76-80.
14. Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., & Jr. Kivlighan, D. M. (2008). Research methods in counseling (D. M. Siyez. Trans. Eds.). Mentis Publishing.
15. Holden, R. R. (2010). Face validity. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0341
16. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit ındexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
17. Huffstetler, C. B., Mirns, H. S., & Thompson, L. C. (2004). Getting Together and Staying Together: Testing the Compabilitiy of the Need-Strength Profile and the Basic Needs Inventory, International Journal of Reality Therapy, 23(2),4-8.
18. Ikinci, M. (2003). The relationship between the level of meeting basic needs and coping behaviors in adolescents [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Karadeniz Teknik Universty.
19. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Jusoh, A. J. B. (2018). Choice theory and reality therapy in individual and group counseling in a Malaysian context. International Journal of Choice Theory and Reality Therapy, 37(2), 75-85.
21. Karagöz, Y. (2016). SPSS 23 and AMOS 23 applied statistical analysis. Nobel Akademic Publishing.
22. Karaman, H. (2015). Comparison of factor extraction methods used in exploratory factor analysis [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Hacettepe University.
23. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling.Sage Publishers.
24. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
25. Lafond, B. A. G. (2000). Glasser's Reality Therapy approach to relationships: Validation of a Choice Theory Basic Needs Scale [Doctoral dissertation]. St. Mary's University.
26. Lojk, L., Butorac, D., Posavec, M., Maras, T., Kranželić, V., & Baković, A. (2018). Reality therapy training efficiency in helping participants to better their relationships and improve their psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Choice Theory & Reality Therapy, 37(2), 111-121.
27. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
28. Matias, T., Dominski, F. H., & Marks, D. F. (2020). Human needs in COVID-19 isolation. Journal of Health Psychology, 25(7), 871-882. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320925149
29. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391
30. Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 287-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01065.x
31. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3(1), 248-292. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1571135649891537024
32. Ozdamar, K. (2002). Statistical data analysis with package programs. Kaan Bookstore.
33. Patkar, S. (2018). Reality therapy: From theory to practice an expert survey. International Journal Of Choice Theory And Reality Therapy, 37(2), 130-158.
34. Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Taylor&Francis.
35. Su, Y., Rao, W., Li, M., Caron, G., D’Arcy, C., & Meng, X. (2022). Prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Psychogeriatrics, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610222000199
36. Sekercioglu, G. (2021). Features of psychological tests. Y. Yavuzer ve Z. Karataş (Eds.), in Psychological Testings (pp.106- 162). Pegem Academic Publishing.
37. Sencan, H. (2005). Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measures. Seçkin Publishing.
38. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education Limited.
39. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS. Nobel Academic Publishing. Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414
40. Türkdogan, T., & Duru, E. (2012). Developing the University Students Basic Needs Scale (USBNS): validity and reliability study. Pamukkale University Journal of Education Faculty, 31(31), 81-91.
41. Türkdogan, T. & Duru, E. (2020). A need-based approach to well-and ill-being among college students. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 54, 435-460. DOI: 10.21764/ maeuefd.644062
42. World Health Organisation, (2022). World Health Organisation [WHO] Coronavirus (Covid-19) dashboard (2022) https://covid19.who.int/ adresinden erişildi.
43. Wubbolding, R. E. (2017) The three fold legacy of William Glasser, M.D. International Journal of Choice Theory and Reality Therapy, 37(1), 17-21.
44. Wubbolding, R. E. (2021). A research base for choıce theory/realıty therapy. International Journal of Choice Theory & Reality Therapy, 41(1), 21-23.
45. Wubbolding, R., Brickell, J., Lmhof, L., Kim, R., Lojk, L., & Rashidi, B. (2004). Reality Therapy: A global perspective. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 26(3), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ADCO.0000035526.02422.0d
46. Yusoff, M. S. B. (2019). ABC of response process validation and face validity index calculation. Resource, 11(3), 55-61.