Download - Brien Et Al_2012

8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

1/21

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

and France aphw_1067 167..187

Maryse Brien*Universit de Montral, Canada

Jacques ForestUQAM School of Management Science, Canada

Genevive A. Mageau and Jean-Sbastien BoudriasUniversit de Montral, Canada

Pascale DesrumauxUniversit de Lille 3, France

Luc BrunetUniversit de Montral, Canada

Estelle M. MorinHEC Montral, Canada

The purpose of this study is to develop and validate the Basic PsychologicalNeeds at Work Scale (BPNWS) in French, but items are also provided inEnglish in the article. The BPNWS is a work-related self-report instrumentdesigned to measure the degree to which the needs for autonomy, competence,and relatedness, as identied by Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan,2000), are satised at work. Using exploratory and conrmatory factor analy-sis, the rst study examines the structure of the BPNWS in a group of 271workers. The second study tests the measurement invariance of the scale in agroup of 851 teachers from two different cultures, Canada and France. Resultssupport the three-factor structure and show adequate internal consistency, aswell as nomological validity across samples.

* Address for correspondence: Maryse Brien, Universit de Montral, Department of Psychology, C.P. 6128, Downtown station, Montral, Qubec, Canada H3C 3J7. Email:[email protected]

bs_bs_banner

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2012, 4 (2), 167187doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2012.01067.x

2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 2012 The InternationalAssociation of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 GarsingtonRoad, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

2/21

Keywords: basic psychological need, self-determination theory, scale, struc-tural invariance, work context

INTRODUCTION

The concept of need is one that is fundamental to behavioural science(Latham & Budworth, 2006). Indeed, as early as 1938, Murray had postu-lated the existence of several social needs, such as the need for relatedness andthe need for power. Just a few years later, Maslow (1943) proposed a list of innate needs, hierarchically organised in a pyramid, at the top of which stoodthe need for self-actualisation. Recently, Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, and Kasser(2001) compared, in three studies, 10 psychological needs (including safety,self-esteem, and popularity) to nd which are truly fundamental to humanbeings. The results support self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci,2000) which postulates that the needs for autonomy (to feel free to chooseand organise ones life), relatedness (to feel efcient in negotiating lifeschallenges), and competence (to have positive and benecial interactions withothers) are the most important for human beings. In fact, these needsemerged among the top four needs for both their salience and their associa-tion with emotional events in each of their studies. Moreover, Ryan andBrown (2003) show why the need for self-esteem is not a fundamental needfor human being and how SDTs needs seem to remain the truly fundamentalones.

To date, autonomy, competence, and relatedness have all been shown toplay important roles in areas such as education (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci,2006), sports (Gagn, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003; Gillet, Berjot, & Gobanc,2009) and the workplace (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004), and have also beenlinked to more individual aspects such as mental health (Ryan & Deci, 2000).Despite the fact that these basic needs have been related to many positiveoutcomes (e.g. Sheldon & Filak, 2008), including work performance (e.g.Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993) and well-being (e.g. Patrick, Knee,Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007), only the generic Basic Psychological NeedsScale (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the more specialised Basic PsychologicalNeeds in Exercise Scale (Vlachopoulos, 2008) have to date been rigorouslyvalidated. In work contexts, scales used have not been extensively validatedor had some limitations. This article intends to develop and validate the BasicPsychological Needs at Work Scale (BPNWS) using two different methods:the exploratory method and the measurement invariance method.

NEEDS IN SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

Within SDT, a basic psychological need is described as a universal and innatenutrient for optimal functioning, personal growth and integration, well-being

168 BRIEN ET AL.

2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 2012 The InternationalAssociation of Applied Psychology.

8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

3/21

and social development (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Need satisfaction is alsorequired for intrinsic motivation and internalisation (Gagn & Deci, 2005).

The need for autonomy is dened as an individuals desire to make his orher own choices, to express his or her feelings freely and to initiate his or herown actions (Deci & Ryan, 2002, p. 8; deCharms, 1968). When the need forautonomy is fullled, an individual feels free to choose and organise his ownactions (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002).

The need for competence refers to the individuals desire to have an effecton the environment and to reach desired outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Thisneed is expressed by an individuals propensity to engage in certain activitiesthat will allow him to utilise his skills and to develop new competencies (Deci& Ryan, 2002, p. 7; Deci, 1975; White, 1959). Thus, ones need for compe-tence is satised when one feels skilled enough to carry out a task to the bestof ones ability, and thus, reach ones goals (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002).

The need for relatedness refers to the desire to establish mutually caringbonds and positive alliances with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci &Ryan, 2002, p. 7; Harlow, 1958). It refers to ones need to feel connected toothers, to love and to care, as well as to be loved and cared for (Deci & Ryan,2000, 2002, p. 7).

Need CorrelatesWithin SDT, need satisfaction is important for well-being. Indeed, severalstudies have shown a positive relationship between need satisfaction andwell-being (Gagn et al., 2003; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000;Uysal, Lin, & Knee, 2010) and a negative relationship between need satis-faction and ill-being (Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009) in general, as well asbetween need satisfaction and daily uctuations of well-being (Ryan, Bern-stein, & Brown, 2010; Uysal et al., 2010). Overall, need satisfaction system-atically leads to improved psychological well-being within various contexts,including family and friends (Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011), sports (Rein-both, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004), and education (Vallerand, Fortier, &Guay, 1997; Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011). Need satisfactions positiveeffect on psychological well-being extends to individuals undergoing obesitytreatment (Vieira et al., 2011), as well as for depressed individuals who are inromantic relationships (Ibarra-Rovillard & Kuiper, 2011).

Organisational research has also shown that need satisfaction is positivelylinked to well-being (e.g. Kasser & Ryan, 1999), intrinsic motivation (e.g.Ryan & Deci, 2000), and higher performance (e.g. Baard et al., 2004) in theworkplace, and is negatively linked to distress at work (e.g. Van den Broeck,Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). Lastly, research that has consideredautonomy, competence, and relatedness individually has revealed that eachof the three needs was positively related to employees optimal functioning

BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS AT WORK SCALE 169


8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

4/21

(Lynch, Plant, & Ryan, 2005) and intrinsic motivation (Gagn, Forest,Gilbert, Aub, Morin, & Marloni, 2009). These results are in line with theidea that satisfaction of each of the three basic needs contributes to onespersonal growth (Ryan, 1995). Furthermore, some organisational and per-sonal variables have also been linked to psychological need satisfaction. Forexample, procedural justice (van Prooijen, 2009; Grenier, Gilbert, & Savoie,2010) and optimism (Gilbert, Lebrock, & Savoie, 2008b) were both positivelylinked to SDT needs.

A Measurement of Basic PsychologicalNeed Satisfaction

In SDT, sufciently validated measures of basic psychological need satisfac-tion are commonly used (e.g. Vlachopoulos, 2008); however, to date allwork-related measures (Baard et al., 2004; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007) are adhoc instruments and evidence of their validity has yet to be shown. Moreover,the only validated measure of basic need satisfaction at work has somelimitations. First, some of their items do not entirely reect basic psychologi-cal need satisfaction constructs sufciently well. For example, some mightargue that items such as The tasks I have to do at work are in line with whatI really want to do (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, &Lens, 2010) is an antecedent (work characteristic) to rather than demonstra-tive of autonomy satisfaction per se. Also, Van den Broeck et al. (2010) arguethat studying need satisfaction and need frustration independently is apromising research avenue and that their scale is designed to measure both.However, tests of the model where need satisfaction is on the same level asneed frustration seems to yield a non-ideal t (i.e. CFI = .77, RMSEA = .18),whereas tests of the model where there are second-order factors of satis-faction versus frustration seem to have a relatively good t (i.e. CFI = .90,RMSEA = .09). With their scale, it would appear that the best t (i.e.CFI = .99, RMSEA = .02) is obtained when frustration items are reversed.This is not to say that need frustration cannot be measured; rather, that needsatisfaction seems to yield a better statistical t to the data than separatingneed satisfaction and need frustration. One hypothesis regarding these resultsis that need frustration according to Van den Broeck et al. (2010; e.g. I dontreally mix with other people in my job) may only indicate an absence or lowlevel of their items measuring need satisfaction (e.g. At work, I feel part of a group). A more accurate measure of need frustration could be the positivestatements of the Psychological Need Thwarting Scale (Bartholomew, Ntou-manis, & Thgersen-Ntoumani, 2009; e.g. I feel I am rejected by thosearound me) rather than negative statements of need satisfaction. In light of this, one research objective of this study is to develop a parsimonious scalewhich aims at tapping directly into psychological need satisfaction at work, a

170 BRIEN ET AL.


8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

5/21

scale that could potentially be combined in further studies with an indepen-dent need thwarting scale such as the Psychological Need Thwarting Scale .

In this perspective, 13 items that suitably measure the three basic needs inthe workplace were chosen. All items were rst written in French. The fouritems measuring the need for autonomy were taken directly from Morins(2002) scale, the ve items measuring the need for competence were allcreated in line with SDTs denition and inspired by the Basic Need Satis-faction at Work Scale (Leone, 1995, in Baard et al., 2004), and the four itemsmeasuring the need for relatedness were taken directly from Richer andVallerands (1998) scale.

An English version of the items was then constructed using the translation back-retranslation procedure, with two translators independently convertingthe French version into an English one, and two more retranslating theEnglish version into a French one. Table 1 presents items in both languages.1

SDTs Basic Psychological Needs ModelWhereas Maslow (1943) proposed hierarchically ordered needs (lower orderneeds must be satised before higher order needs can be fullled), SDThypothesised that all three needs are equally important for individual full-ment and that all three needs are interrelated (Sheldon et al., 2001). In line

with SDTs perspective, the theoretical model that will be tested postulatesthat the three needs will be correlated. Although the satisfaction of all threeneeds is important for optimal development, empirical evidence has shownthat different needs could be linked to different predictors (Greguras &Diefendorff, 2009), as well as different outcomes (Brien, Boudrias, Lapointe,& Savoie, 2010; Gagn et al., 2009; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). There-fore, a three-factor model will be chosen rather than a second-order model.

Measurement InvarianceAccording toSDT, the basicpsychological needs areuniversal.SDT needs canmanifest themselves in differentways acrosscultures,but regardless of culture,their satisfaction is always essential for optimal functioning (Chirkov &Ryan, 2001; Chirkov, Ryan, & Willness, 2005; Grouzet et al., 2005). Thus, it isimperative to examine whether scores obtained using the Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale (BPNWS) are measurement-invariant across cultures.

STUDY 1

Study 1 will explore and attempt to conrm a three-factor model. Thehypotheses tested in Study 1 are as follows: (a) Exploratory factor analysis

1 Only the French version of the instrument was validated in this paper.



8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

6/21

will group the items into three factors (1) autonomy, (2) competence, (3)relatedness); (b) instrument subscales will emerge as internally consistent(alpha over .70; Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1993); (c) a three-factor model willprovide a good t with the data in conrmatory factor analysis; and (d)the subscales will be related in theoretically expected ways to predictors(optimism, justice) and outcomes (well-being, distress, intrinsic motivation).Optimism and procedural justice were selected as predictors given that bothof them have been frequently positively linked to SDT needs (e.g. justice: vanProoijen, 2009; Gagn & Forest, 2008; e.g. optimism: Gilbert et al., 2008b).

METHOD

Participants and ProcedureReliability analyses and conrmatory factor analyses were conducted forthe rst sample. A total of 271 Canadian participants (62% female) wererecruited from various occupations using the contacts of students partici-pating in an undergraduate research course. All participants were told thattheir participation was anonymous and that their responses would remaincondential. They all signed a consent form and completed demographicinformation. Participants occupations varied across sectors, including sales(23%), education (14%), health care (9%), manufacturing (7%), nancial(6%), and government (6%). To accept participants into the study, there weretwo inclusion criteria: participants were required to be at least 18 years old(legal age in Canada) and must have occupied their current post for at leastthree months. If they didnt meet these criteria, they were not eligible torespond. Age was measured in ranges (e.g. 2130, 3140). Accordingly, in thissample, 49 per cent of participants were less than 30 years old and 32 per centwere more than 41 years old. The majority of participants were permanentworkers (73%) and worked between 21 and 60 hours per week (78%). Finally,60 per cent of participants had been employed in their organisation for lessthan 5 years and 27 per cent had been employed for more than 10 years.

MeasuresIntrinsic Need Satisfaction. Work need satisfaction was measured

with the 13-item Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale (BPNWS) mea-suring needs for autonomy (e.g. my work allows me to make decisions),competence (e.g. I feel competent at work) and relatedness (e.g. When Imwith the people from my work environment, I feel understood) using a6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Stronglyagree). Internal reliability was good, with alphas between .86 (autonomy) and.89 (competence).

172 BRIEN ET AL.


8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

7/21

Intrinsic Motivation. We measured intrinsic motivation with the three-item scale of the Motivation at Work Scale (e.g. Because I enjoy this workvery much; Gagn et al., 2009; a = .93).

Well-Being. The questionnaire used in this study was an adaptationof the Well-Being Manifestations Measure Scale (Mass et al., 1998; e.g. Inthe last month, my morale was good) to the work setting (Gilbert et al.,2008b). This is a 25-item instrument on a 5-point scale, from 1 (Almost never)to 5 (Almost always). In the present data set, alpha was .93 for the totalscore. Construct validity of this measure was demonstrated by Gilbert et al.(Gilbert, Lebrock, & Savoie, 2008a, 2008b; Gilbert, 2009).

Distress. We measured distress at work with the 23-item work settingadaptation (Gilbert et al., 2008b) of the Distress Manifestations MeasureScale (Mass et al., 1998; e.g. I felt useless). Several studies, including thosehaving employed conrmatory factor analysis, support the validity andreliability of this measure (Gilbert et al., 2008a, 2008b; Gilbert, 2009). In thepresent data set, alpha was .95.

Optimism. A French-Canadian version (Trottier, Mageau, Trudel, &Halliwell, 2008) of the six-item Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; e.g.Im always optimistic about my future; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) wasused in this study. Alpha was .72.

Procedural Justice. Procedural justice were measured with the seven-item Moormans scale (1991; e.g. procedures designed to collect accurateinformation necessary for making decisions) using a Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (Completely disagree) to 6 (Completely agree). Alpha was .86.

RESULTS

Data ScreeningSample 1 data were examined to verify whether they met the assumptions formultivariate analysis. All measures were normally distributed, with kurtosisand skewness values within the +1 to - 1 range (Muthn & Kaplan, 1985).Also, there was no evidence of singularity or multicollinearity. Table 2 pre-sents means and SDs for each variable.

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Factor ReliabilityThe factorial structure of the BPNWS was tested using exploratory factoranalysis (EFA). Analyses included maximum likelihood (ML) estimation and



8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

8/21

promax rotation with SPSS 16.0. Although it is recommended that conr-matory factor analysis (CFA) be used to test the factorial structure of a scale,EFA are sometimes performed on a measure prior to CFA. This is a justiedstrategy in the earlier stage of scale development (Babyak, Snyder, & Yoshi-nobu, 1993; Byrne, 1994; Pentz & Chou, 1994). The EFAs yielded threeeigenvalues over one and the screeplots also indicated a three-factor solution.One item from the competence subscale had a low loading (.30) on its factoras well as a low cross-loading (.30) on the autonomy subscale, and wassubsequently eliminated. This elimination brought the BPNWS down to fouritems per factor (12 items instead of 13). The alpha coefcients were between.86 (autonomy) and .89 (competence). The complete results are reported inTable 1.

Conrmatory Factor Analysis and Scale ReliabilityA conrmatory factor analysis was performed on sample 1 using EQS 6.1(Bentler, 2006). Given that the BPNWS was created a priori to assess threeunderlying factors, a hypothesised three-factor structure was tested. Thesefactors corresponded to the three subscales (autonomy, competence, andrelatedness) and were made up of the four corresponding items for eachsubscale. No cross-loadings were postulated; however, a covariance between

the three intrinsic needs latent factor was hypothesised in accordance withSDT postulates and EFA suggestions.To assess the t of the models, goodness-of-t indices were used in com-

bination with the c 2 statistic (taking into account that the chi-square statisticis highly sensitive to sample size; Hu & Bentler, 1995). Fit indices were theCFI, the RMSEA, the RMSEA 90 per cent condence interval, the SRMR,and the NFI. CFI and NFI values greater than .90 indicate a good t of themodel to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1995), whereas values of .95 or greaterindicate an excellent t (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Hu and Bentler (1999) also

indicated that values lower than .08 for the SRMR indicate good modelt. RMSEA values smaller than .08 indicate good t of the model to thedata, and values lower than .05 indicate very close t (McCallum, Browne, &Sugawara, 1996). RMSEA 90 per cent condence interval (CI) was also usedto assess hypotheses of very close t (RMSEA < .05) and not a close t(RMSEA > .10; McCallum et al., 1996).

The CFA supported the factor structure of the BPNWS (c 2 (51) = 135.49, p < .001, CFI = .956, RMSEA = .079 and 90 per cent CI = .063, .095,SRMR = .06, NFI = .931).

Nomological ValidityCorrelations with constructs that were positively or negatively correlatedwith basic need satisfaction in SDT are presented in Table 2. In line with

174 BRIEN ET AL.


8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

9/21

TABLE 1Factor Loadings, Communalities (h 2), Factor Correlations, Cronbachs Alpha,

and Percent of Variance and Covariance for ML Extraction and Promax Rotation

Item

Factor loading

h 21 2 3

1 Mon travail me permet de prendre des dcisions - .06 - .05 .83 .62My work allows me to make decisions

2 Je peux exercer mon jugement pour rsoudre des problmesdans mon travail

- .09 .05 .86 .73

I can use my judgement when solving work-related problems3 Je peux assumer des responsabilits dans mon travail .07 - .02 .80 .67

I can take on responsibilities at my job4 Au travail. je me sens libre dexcuter mes tches ma

faon.21 .00 .60 .51

At my work, I feel free to execute my tasks in my own way5 Jai les capacits pour bien faire mon travail .02 .85 - .06 .69

I have the ability to do my work well6 Je me sens comptent mon travail .04 .88 - .02 .79

I feel competent at work7 Je suis capable de rsoudre des problmes mon travail - .07 .70 .21 .63

I am able to solve problems at work8 Je russis bien dans mon travail .02 .84 - .08 .66

I succeed in my work

9 Avec les personnes qui mentourent dans mon milieu detravail, je me sens compris .92 .00 - .06 .81When Im with the people from my work environment,

I feel understood10 Avec les personnes qui mentourent dans mon milieu de

travail, je me sens cout.91 - .10 .02 .78

When Im with the people from my work environment,I feel heard

11 Avec les personnes qui mentourent dans mon milieu detravail, je me sens en conance avec eux

.74 .08 .06 .64

When Im with the people from my work environment,I feel as though I can trust them

12 Avec les personnes qui mentourent dans mon milieu detravail, je me sens un ami pour eux

.62 .08 .01 .43

When Im with the people from my work environment,I feel I am a friend to them

Factor correlationsFactor 1Autonomy Factor 2Competence .40 Factor 3Relatedness .41 .47

Alpha coefcient .86 .89 .88Percent of variance by PCA (Principal component

analysis)44.4 16.0 14.1

Percent of variance by EFA (ML and Promax) 41.4 13.5 11.5Percent of covariance 22.3 22.6 20.9

Factor Loadings > .30 are in dark.



8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

10/21

SDT, all three basic needs seem to promote psychological health by beingpositively correlated to well-being (.45 < r < .47, p < .001) and negativelycorrelated to distress (- .33 < r < - .48, p < .001). Also, intrinsic motivationwas related to satisfaction of the needs for autonomy (r = .53, p < .001),

competence (r = .33, p < .001), and relatedness (r = .41, p < .001). In line withGilbert et al. (2008b), optimism, an individual resource, and procedural justice, an organisational resource, are positively related to autonomy (r = .28and r = .43, p < .001), competence (r = .39 and r = .40, p < .001), and related-ness (r = .33 and r = .52, p < .001) need satisfaction.

STUDY 2

In agreement with Messick (1995), who argued that construct validation is aniterative process that requires several sources and samples, Study 2 examinesthe invariance property of the scale and assumes that BPNWS item responsesare invariant across cultures (in this case, Canada and France). Evidence of invariance would support the generalisability and validity (Messick, 1995) of BPNWS scores across different cultures. The hypotheses tested in Study 2 areas follows: (a) the BPNWS instrument will be congurally invariant, implyingthat in both groups, the data are broken down into the same number of factors (same pattern of item loadings; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002); (b) themetric invariance of BPNWS scores is supported, implying that the stretch of the relationship between each item and its associated factor is invariantacross groups; (c) the structural invariance of BPNWS is supported, implyingthat the strength of the relationship between each item and its associatedfactor and between each of the three factors will be equivalent across groups;

TABLE 2Nomological Validity of the BPNWS (Correlations)

Mean SDNeed forautonomy

Need forcompetence

Need forrelatedness

Need for autonomy 3.12 .63Need for competence 3.52 .48 .43***Need for relatedness 3.15 .60 .40*** .38***Optimism 2.93 .42 .28*** .39*** .33***Intrinsic motivation 2.99 .80 .53*** .33*** .41***Distress 1.67 .55 - .36*** - .33*** - .48***Well-being 3.91 .55 .47*** .46*** .45***Procedural justice 2.84 .57 .43*** .40*** .52***

Note : N ranges from 261 to 271.*** p < .001.

176 BRIEN ET AL.


8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

11/21

(d) instrument subscales will emerge as internally consistent (alpha over .70;Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1993); and (e) the subscales will be related in theoreti-cally expected ways with predictors and outcomes.

METHOD

Participants and ProcedureAll participants from the two samples were told that their participation wasanonymous and that their responses would remain condential. All partici-pants signed a consent form and completed demographic information.

Sample 1 (Canada). School boards were invited to take part in a studywhere the psychological health of their primary and secondary school teach-ers would be assessed. Thereafter, school boards proposed to their schoolprincipals that they participate in the project. If a school principal wasinterested in taking part in the study, an appointment was scheduled withthe researchers on a forthcoming pedagogical day. At that scheduled time,researchers presented the study to the teachers and had them sign a consent

form before the questionnaires were distributed and completed. Participantswere 488 teachers (69% female) from elementary schools (42%), high schools(54%), and vocational training schools (4%). Age was measured in ranges(e.g. 2130, 3140). Accordingly, in this sample, the majority of the partici-pants were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (63.5%, with 19% under 30and 17.5% over 50), were highly educated (79.5% had a bachelors degree and15.1% had a masters degree or more) and held a full-time position (94.6%).Participants had an average of 13.6 years (SD = 9.0 years) of experience asteachers.

Sample 2 (France). Research assistants recruited teachers from schoolslocated in northern France to participate in a questionnaire study. Teacherswere given an explanation on the details of the study, such as the purpose of the study (e.g. investigating the quality of teachers work life) and the timerequired to complete the questionnaire (e.g. 45 minutes), and their consent toparticipate was obtained. Participants were given two weeks to complete thequestionnaire during their own time and return it to the research assistants.Participants were also informed that all their responses would be keptcondential and anonymous. Participants were 363 teachers (60% female)recruited from elementary schools (34%) and high schools (32% collge and29% lyce). Participants had a mean age of 40.6 years (SD = 10.6 years) andhad been employed as teachers for an average of 16.8 years (SD = 11.1).



8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

12/21

8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

13/21

both Canada and France (see Table 3). This model was chosen as the baselinemodel for invariance analyses (Byrne, 2006).

Invariance AnalysisThe factorial invariance of the BPNWS was tested using the procedure out-lined in Byrne (2006). First, the baseline model was tested (step 1) by com-bining the two samples to show the congural invariance (same pattern of item loadings). This models t with the data was acceptable (see Table 3).The second and third steps are the verication of the metric invariance(pattern coefcients) and the measurement invariance (correlations betweenlatent factors) across groups (Byrne, 2006). By constraining the pattern coef-cients to be equal across the two samples (step 2), the model still t the datawell with no signicant deterioration in model t (see Table 3). A statisticallysignicant deterioration in t would imply a DCFI larger than - .01 (Cheung& Rensvold, 2002). The third step, the structural model invariance, involvesconstraining correlations between the latent factors as well as all patterncoefcients to be equal across groups. The Dc2 indicates a signicant deterio-ration in model t when compared to the previous model (see Table 3);however, DCFI indicates a negligible deterioration.

When a model doesnt pass all invariance tests, Byrne (2006) suggeststesting partial-measurement invariance where only specic parts of the modelare veried. By this logic, she suggests identifying correlations between latentfactors that are not invariant across groups. Investigation of model misspeci-cation with the maximum likelihood Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test forreleasing constraints revealed that one constraint did not behave the sameway in the two samples (i.e. autonomy with competence). Releasing thisconstraint identied the only constraint that signicantly improved themodels, which was an enhancement in chi-square that was ve times largerthan the one for the next suggested constraint release. Table 4 shows thedifference in the autonomycompetence correlation between both groups. Itreveals that while the latent correlation between autonomy and competenceneeds was .37 in Canada, it was .60 in France. Although both of thesecorrelations are still considered moderate to high, and concur with what ispostulated in the theory, they still differ in magnitude. By releasing thisconstraint, the overall t was better and closer to the generally recognisedboundary (see Table 3). Support for a second-order model was nally foundusing the overall sample, where needs for autonomy, competence, and relat-edness load on a second-order latent factor labelled intrinsic needs (seeTable 3). However, because each of the SDT needs could be predicted withdifferent independent variables (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009) and becausethe improvement in t over the previous fully constrained model was greaterthan the recommended cut-off (see Table 3), the three correlated factors



8/12/2019 Brien Et Al_2012

14/21

T A B L E 3

F i t S t a t i s t i c s f o r A l t e r n a t i v e M o d e l s

M o d e l s

N

S - B c 2

d f c

2 / d f R M S E A 9 0 %

C I C F I S R M R

A I C A G F I

M o d e l

c o m p a r i s o n

D c 2

D C F I

C a n a d a o n l y

4 8 8

1 9 7 . 5 9 * * *

5 1

3 . 8 7

. 0 8

. 0 7 .

0 9

. 9 4 4

. 0 5

9 5 . 5

9

. 8 9

F r a n c e o n l y

3 6 3

1 7 2 . 8 6 * * *

5 1

3 . 3 9

. 0 8

. 0 7 .

0 9

. 9 4 5

. 0 5

7 0 . 8

6

. 9 2

B a s e l i n e m o d e l ( C o n g u r a l

i n v a r i a n c e T w o c o u n t r i e s

c o m b i n e d )

8 5 1

3 7 0 . 7 7 * * * 1 0 2

3 . 6 4

. 0 8

. 0 7 .

0 9

. 9 4 4

. 0 5

1 6 6 . 7 7

. 8 8

M e t r i c i n v a r i a n c e ( s a m e

s t r e n g t h s o f i t e m l o a d i n g s :

p a t t e r n c o e f c i e n t s w e r e

c o n s t r a i n e d )

8 5 1

3 8 4 . 2 3 * * * 1 1 1

3 . 4 6

. 0 8

. 0 7 .

0 8

. 9 4 3

. 0 5

1 6 2 . 2 3

. 8 9

B a s e l i n e v s .

M e a s u r e m e n t

1 5 . 4 1

- . 0

0 1

S t r u c t u r a l i n v a r i a n c e 1 ( s a m e

s t r e n g t h s o f i t e m l o a d i n g s

a n d s a m e s t r e n g t h s o f f a c t o r

c o v a r i a n c e s : p a t t e r n

c o e f c i e n t s a n d l a t e n t f a c t o r

c o v a r i a n c e s w e r e

c o n s t r a i n e d )

8 5 1

4 0 9 . 7 1 * * * 1 1 4

3 . 5 9

. 0 8

. 0 7 .

0 9

. 9 3 9

. 0 6

1 8 1 . 7 1

. 8 9

M e a s u r e m e n t

v s . S

t r u c t u r a l

2 9 . 7 0 *

* * - . 0

0 4

S t r u c t u r a l i n v a r i a n c e 2

( p a t t e r n c o e f c i e n t s a n d

l a t e n t f a c t o r c o v a r i a n c e s

w e r e c o n s t r a i n e d e x e p t

c o v a r i a n c e b e t w e e n

a u t o n o m y a n d c o m p e t e n c e )

8 5 1

3 8 5 . 2 4 * * * 1 1 3

3 . 4 1

. 0 8

. 0 7 .

0 8

. 9 4 4

. 0 4

1 5 9 . 2 4

. 8 9

S t r u c t u r a l v s .

S t r u c t u r a l

- 1

- 2 7

. 7 8 * * *

. 0 0 5

S e c o n d o r d e r b a s e l i n e m o d e l

8 5 1

2 5 7 . 3 0 * * *

9 4

2 . 7 4

. 0 6

. 0 6 .

0 7

. 9 6 6

. 0 5

6 9 . 3

1

. 8 7

S i n g l e f a c t o r b a s e l i n e m o d e l

8 5 1 2 7 3 9

. 3 8 * * * 1 1 1 2 4

. 6 8

. 2 4

. 2 3 .

2 5

. 4 5 6

. 2 0

4 7 0 3

. 2 2

. 3 3

N o t e : T h e c h a n g e i n c h i - s q u a r e t e s t w a s c o n d u c t e d u s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d c h i - s q u a r e

v a l u e s , a

s t h e S - B c h i - s q u a r e d o e s n o t h a v e t h e s a m e t y p e o f d i s t r i b u t i o n .

* * *

p