Capturing Autonomy, Relatedness and Competence at Work:

Construction and Validation of a Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale.

Anja VAN DEN BROECK1, Maarten VANSTEENKISTE, Hans DE WITTE1,

Willy LENS1, Bart SOENENS
1

University of Leuven, Belgium

2

Ghent University, Belgium

Corresponding Author:
Anja Van den Broeck, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Email: Anja.VandenBroeck@psy.kuleuven.be
NOTE: The first authors contribution was supported by the grant from the Fund for Scientific
Research Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen). We would like to thank Filip Germeijs and Rein De
Cooman for their help in the data collection and Lance Ferris for his helpful suggestions in
conducting this research.

Need satisfaction at work 2

Abstract

The satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness, as defined by Self-Determination Theory, has been identified as an
important predictor of individuals optimal functioning. The study of work-related
need satisfaction is, however, hampered by the lack of a validated measure. The
present study aimed to develop and validate a Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction
scale (W-BNS). Using four samples, evidence was found for the 3-factor structure of
the scale, the discriminant validity and reliability of the three needs, and their
criterion-related and predictive validity. Based on these results, it is concluded that
the W-BNS represents a promising tool for future research and practice.

KEY WORDS: Scale Development, Basic Need Satisfaction, Self-Determination Theory, Work
Motivation

Need satisfaction at work 3

Capturing Autonomy, Relatedness and Competence at Work
Construction and Validation of a Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale.
Various scholars have suggested that needs are the fundamental drivers of human behavior
(Latham & Pinder, 2005). Maslow (1943), for instance, suggested five hierarchically ordered needs
ranging from physiological sustainability to self-actualisation. McClelland (1965) proposed that
individuals differ in the extent to which they develop, for instance, a need for achievement, affiliation
and power. In Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Deci, 2008
three innate psychological needs are considered crucial for individuals optimal functioning, that is, the
needs for autonomy (i.e., volitional functioning), relatedness (i.e., feeling loved and cared for) and
competence (i.e., feeling effective).
The empirical literature on need satisfaction is exponentially growing, providing evidence for the
beneficial effects of basic psychological need satisfaction, as defined in SDT, both in general and in
specific life-domains (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, a coherent further study of need satisfaction in the
context of work might be hampered by the lack of a validated domain specific measurement, leading
researchers to rely on ad-hoc scales (e.g., Roca & Gagn, 2008). Based on four samples, we aim to
develop and validate a work-related basic need satisfaction measure in this study, which might foster the
study of work-related need satisfaction, its antecedents and outcomes.
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in Self-Determination Theory
In SDT, basic psychological need satisfaction is assumed to represent the underlying
motivational mechanism that energizes and directs peoples behavior and that promotes wellness and
development (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Need satisfaction is defined as the innate psychological nutriment
that is essential for ongoing optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This definition highlights several
important features of SDTs concept of needs. First, primary attention is paid to individuals
psychological rather than their biological needs (e.g., hunger, thirst, sex) as was the case in the early
need theories (e.g., Hull, 1943). Second, similar to biological needs, these psychological needs are said
to be innate, thus being part of all individuals inherent nature and remaining important throughout the
life-span. Third, basic need satisfaction is regarded as essential for individuals optimal functioning and
wellness, as the provision of water, minerals and sunshine is crucial for plants to blossom (Ryan, 1995).
In SDT, three psychological needs are considered crucial, that is, the needs for autonomy,
competence and relatedness. The need for autonomy represents individuals inherent desire to feel
volitional in acting and to experience a sense of choice and authorship over their behavior (deCharms,
1968; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Although related, SDTs concept of autonomy is somewhat different from

Need satisfaction at work 4

the conceptualizations of autonomy as typically held in organizational psychology (e.g., Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006). Karasek (1979), for instance, equals autonomy with decision latitude and control
over skill utilization. Hackman and Oldham (1975) define autonomy in terms of substantial freedom,
independence and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures
to be used in carrying it out (p. 258). First, unlike SDTs definition of autonomy, which refers to the
subjective experience of freedom and choice, these definitions refer to autonomy as a task characteristic.
Second, although task autonomy is likely to contribute to feelings of psychological freedom, people
might also get their need for autonomy satisfied when they depend on others or even when they follow
orders from others. Employees might for instance execute a particular task ordered by their superior
(which reflects a lack of independence) but still willingly engage in this task because the superior
provided a meaningful and clear rationale doing the task (Soenens et al., 2007).
The second basic psychological need in SDT, the need for relatedness, is defined as individuals
inherent propensity to feel connected to others, that is, to be members of a group, to love and care and
be loved and cared for (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The need for relatedness will be satisfied if people
experience a sense of communion and develop close and intimate relationships with others (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). The assumption that individuals benefit from being cared fore and have the natural
tendency to integrate themselves in the social matrix is equally emphasized in developmental
approaches such as attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) and is consistent with concepts in organizational
psychology such as social support (Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999) and loneliness at work
(Wright, Burt, & Strongman, 2006).
Finally, the need for competence is defined as an individuals inherent desire to feel effective in
interacting with the environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000; White, 1959). It is prominent in individuals'
propensity to explore and manipulate the environment and to actively seek challenges to extend one's
skills. Competence satisfaction allows individuals to efficiently adapt to complex and changing
environments, whereas competence frustration is likely to result in helplessness and a lack of motivation
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). Like the need for relatedness, the need for competence is rather uncontroversial in
organizational psychology. Similar constructs figure in Vrooms (1964) expectancy-value theory and
Banduras (1997) self-efficacy theory. Outcome expectancies and self-efficacy refer, however, to
acquired cognitions with respect to ones capacities to successfully accomplish particular tasks.
Therefore, they are positively valued as far as they help one in reaching desired goals. Because SDTs
concept of competence refers to an innate tendency to effectively deal with the environment,
competence satisfaction is valued in its own right (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
The SDT view on needs differs in at least two ways from other well-known need perspectives
such as McClellands framework (1965). First, McClelland focuses upon need strength. As he considers
needs to originate out of ones developmental process, individuals are thought to differ in the strength of

Need satisfaction at work 5

or importance they attach to particular needs. For instance, individuals may differ in the need for
achievement because some were previously lauded after achieving a particular goal, and hence, learned
to attach positive feelings to achievement situations, whereas others did not (Winterbottum, 1959). As
all individuals are said to be endowed with the basic psychological needs within SDT (Deci & Ryan,
2000), SDT does not consider individual differences in need strength, but differences in the degree in
which people are able to satisfy their fundamental needs. The degree of need satisfaction is considered
the most important predictor for optimal functioning. Consequently, SDT maintains, for instance, that
positive feedback is beneficial for all employees, as it satisfies their inborn need for competence
(Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Sideris, 2008).
Second, McClelland argues that needs drive individuals behavior until needs are fully satisfied.
When need satisfaction is reached, the behavior is stopped until the need becomes again salient. In this
view, people with a high need for affiliation will search for warm social contacts. Once such contact has
taken place, the need is temporarily reduced and the behavior wanes. According to SDT, individuals do
not need to experience a deficit in need satisfaction in order to search for need satisfaction. Rather, they
are assumed to be attracted to situations in which need satisfaction may occur. Further, unlike in
McClellands framework, individuals experiencing need satisfaction are assumed to feel energized and
to engage actively in more need fulfilling activities.
In general, SDT maintains that the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs for
autonomy, competence and relatedness contributes to individuals flourishing, wellness and protects
them against ill-being. Consistent with this claim, several studies have shown positive relations between
need satisfaction and optimal functioning in general (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001) and across
life-domains such as sports and exercise (Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006), schooling (Gillison,
Standage, & Skerington, 2008), and relationships (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). Such
findings have been obtained at the interpersonal and intra-individual level (e.g., Mouratidis, et al., 2008;
Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000) and in culturally very diverse samples, such as American
(Reis et al., 2000), Belgian (Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Duriez, in press), Singaporean
(Sheldon, et al., 2001), Chinese (Vansteenkiste, Lens, Soenens, & Luyckx, 2006), and Russian (Chirkov,
Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003) participants.
In the context of work, initial evidence was found for positive relations between need
satisfaction and employees work-related well-being as indexed by job satisfaction, work engagement
and lower burnout (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993, Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, &
Lens, 2008), positive attitudes in terms of decreased turnover-intentions (Lynch, Plant, & Ryan, 2005;
Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), and employees performance (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Richer &
Vallerand, 1995). Work-related need satisfaction has furthermore been related to general well-being in
terms of vitality, life-satisfaction, self-esteem, and less ill-being as indexed by anxiety, depression and

Need satisfaction at work 6

somatization (Baard, et al., 2004). Basic need satisfaction has also been proposed as a useful concept to
understand the impact of organizational factors, as it has been shown to explain the associations
between supervisors' leadership styles (e.g., Deci, Ryan, Gagn, Leone, Usunov, & Kornazheva, 2001),
job characteristics (Van den Broeck, et al., 2008) and employees well-being and performance.
Present Study
Clearly, need satisfaction at work may be a useful concept to understand employees functioning
and examine the motivational potential of organizational factors. However, within this promising body
of research, different ad-hoc instruments have been used. This might hamper the development of a
coherent and cumulative literature on work-related need satisfaction for various reasons. First, to date,
these questionnaires lack stringent validation. Second, the different scales used sometimes contain items
that do not tap into the satisfaction of the basic needs as such. For instance, the basic need satisfaction at
work scale (W-BNS, Baard, et al., 2004; Deci, et al., 2001; Vansteenkiste, et al., 2007) includes items
referring to job characteristics such as social support (e.g., People at work tell me I am good at what I
do), which may represent an antecedent of basic need satisfaction rather than the experience of need
satisfaction per se. Alternatively, the work motivation form employee scale (WMF- E; Ilardi, et al.,
1993; Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992) assesses potential consequences of basic need satisfaction such as
intrinsic motivation (e.g., How much do you enjoy your work). Third, little research has been
conducted to gain insight in the role of need frustration. This is an important issue in light of previous
critical accounts suggesting that SDT is exclusively concerned with human flourishing at the expense of
human maladjustment and need frustration (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 2000). We formulated
items that tap into both need satisfaction and need frustration. This was done to examine whether need
satisfaction and need frustration can be located onto one underlying continuum or represent two
different aspects of employees functioning, as suggested by research on the distinction between
pleasure and displeasure (Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007; Watson, & Tellegen, 1985).
In sum, in this study, we aim to develop and validate a content-valid measure to asses need
satisfaction and need frustration in the context of work. To this end, the following steps were taken
(Hinkin, 1998; Devellis, 2003). In Phase 1, a large item pool was generated. In Phase 2, a final set of
items was selected based on item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and inter-item correlations. In
Phase 3, confirmatory factor analysis was used to further validate the factor structure of the scale and to
examine the discriminant validity of the different needs. In Phase 4, we further investigated the
psychometric properties of the scale by examining the scales reliability and the degree to which
impression management would confound this self-report measure. In particular, we examined the role of
impression management, that is, individuals tendency to create and maintain desired perceptions of

Need satisfaction at work 7

themselves (Bolino, Kacmar, Tumley, & Gilstrap, 2008), as it has been forwarded as a potential
confound in self-report research in organisational psychology (e.g., Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008).
In Phase 5, we aimed to examine the discriminant, criterion-related, and predictive validity of the WBNS. Specifically, we examined whether the three needs were different from, yet related to job
resources (i.e., task autonomy, opportunities for skill utilization and social support), as environmental
factors and employees functioning in terms of well-being (i.e., job satisfaction, vigor, exhaustion),
work-related attitudes (i.e., intrinsic motivation, affective organisational commitment) and behavior
(i.e., performance). In addition to assessing whether need satisfaction relates to employees self-reported
functioning, we furthermore examined the W-BNS potential to predict an objective, prospective
outcome, that is, actual turnover.
To examine these issues, four samples were used. First, a large convenience sample (N = 594)
was recruited. This sample was randomly split in Sample 1 (N = 297) and Sample 2 (N = 297) to select
the final set of items and assess the scales factor structure and reliability (Phase 3). To further examine
the psychometric properties of the scale and assess its discriminant and criterion-related validity, two
samples in two different organisations (Sample 3 and Sample 4) were collected. The predictive validity
of the W-BNS was assessed in Sample 4.
Method
Procedure and Participants
Sample 1 and 2 were collected by 120 undergraduate students of a large university in the Dutchspeaking part of Belgium. As part of an introductory course on quantitative research, the students were
asked to distribute 5 questionnaires among friends or relatives with at least three years of working
experience as an employee. The questionnaires included a letter explaining that participation was
voluntary and anonymous. The completed questionnaires were either picked up by the students in sealed
envelopes or they were directly sent back to the researchers by the participants using pre-stamped
envelops. In total, 594 questionnaires were returned. Sample 3 included 170 Belgian employees of a
HR-service company, whereas Sample 4 comprised 261 Dutch call centre agents. For Samples 3 and 4,
data collection was part of a voluntary and confidential internet survey, which participants filled out
during regular working hours. Information about participants background variables is displayed in
Table 1.
----- Please, insert Table 1 about here -----

Need satisfaction at work 8

Measures
All questionnaires were available in Dutch. Scale scores were computed as the mean of the
items.
Impression management was assessed in Sample 3 with 18 items borrowed from Wayne and
Ferris (1990) such as I arrive early to make a good impression on my supervisor. Responses were
made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Cronbachs alpha of
the scale was .83. To avoid over-specification of our model, prior to model testing, these items were
randomly aggregated in three parcels (Alhija & Wisenbaker, 2006).
Job resources were measured in Sample 3 and 4. Task autonomy was measured with five items
of Rosenthal, Guest, and Peccei, (1996) such as I can decide for my own which task I execute in
Sample 3 (Cronbachs = .76) and with two items of Van der Doef and Maes (1999) such as My job
allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own in Sample 4 (r = .43). Skill utilization was assessed
with two items of Van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994) in Sample 3 (r = .50) and six items of Van der
Doef and Maes (1999) in Sample 4 (Cronbachs = .76). Sample items are My job requires me to be
creative and My job requires me to learn new skills. Social support was measured with five items
such as My colleagues help me to get things done in Sample 3 from Rosenthal and colleagues (1996)
and six items such as I can ask my colleagues for help in Sample 4 (Van Veldhoven and Meijman,
1994). Cronbachs s were .84 and .90 in Sample 3 and 4 respectively. All job resources were scored
on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Employees functioning was examined in Sample 3 and 4. Job satisfaction was measured with
one face-valid item. Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally unsatisfied)
to 7 (totally satisfied) to the question how satisfied are you, all in all, with your job?. This one-item
measurement has been shown to be highly related to multi-item assessments of job satisfaction
(Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). Vigor was measured with the five items of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (e.g., At my work, I feel bursting with energy; Schaufeli, Salanova, GonzalezRoma, & Bakker, 2002). Cronbachs alpha was .91 and .90 in Sample 3 and 4, respectively. Exhaustion
was assessed with the five items of the Dutch version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory General
Survey. A sample item is I feel totally exhausted on my job (Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 2000).
Cronbachs alpha was .91 in both samples. Both vigor and exhaustion were rated on a 7-point Likert
scale from 0 (Never) to 6 (Always, every day). Life satisfaction was tapped with the item How satisfied
are you, all in all, with your life. Responses were indicated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(totally unsatisfied) to 7 (totally satisfied). In Sample 3, intrinsic motivation was assessed with five
items such as The work I do is a lot of fun. These items were based on the academic and prosocial

Need satisfaction at work 9

self-regulation scales of Ryan and Connell (1989) and were adapted to the present work context.
Cronbachs alpha was 95. Due to space limitations, only three items of this scale were included in
Sample 4. Cronbachs alpha was .94. Affective organizational commitment was measured with 5 items
such as I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for on a 5-point scale ranging from
1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree; Cook & Wall, 1980). Cronbachs alpha equalled .83 and .89 in
Sample 3 and 4, respectively. In Sample 3, participants were asked to rate their own performance on five
items such as How well did you did you achieve your objectives during the last week (Abramis,
1994). Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good).
Cronbachs alpha was .90. In line with Abramis measure, in Sample 4, eight job specific items were
developed in collaboration with the HR-manager to tap employees performance. Sample items are To
what extent did you follow the procedures and To what extent did you take care of the quality of your
calls. Cronbachs alpha was .83. Turnover-rates were only available in Sample 4. Six months after
participants had indicated their need satisfaction, the HR-management provided information whether
they still employed each of the participants. By that time 31% of the participants (n = 80) had left the
organization; 75% of them (n = 60) had initiated the contract termination themselves and were labeled
as cases of self-initiated turnover.
Phase 1: Item Development
To develop an item pool, we first studied the literature and inspected general and domainspecific operationalizations of need satisfaction. Then, we selected and developed appropriate items
taking the following criteria into account. First, items needed to reflect employees perceptions of need
satisfaction rather than antecedent need-supportive conditions or potential consequences. Second, as we
aimed to develop a scale that would be applicable to all work contexts, specific work setting
terminology was avoided. Finally, both positive (i.e., need satisfaction) and negative (i.e., need
frustration) items were included. Theoretically, this was done for the reasons mentioned above. From a
methodological point of view, a formulation of both positive and negative items might reduce
acquiescence bias or the tendency to agree with all items (Billiet & McClendon, 2000).
All items were formulated as declarative statements following the stem The following
statements aim to tap into your personal experiences at work. Responses had to be made on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging between 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). This response format was chosen
because it is both simple which limits the amount of construct irrelevant variance (Harvey, Billings, &
Nilan, 1985) and sufficiently refined to elicit variability in the responses (Reise, Waller, & Comrey,
2000).
Through joint discussion, the authors reduced the initial large pool of items based on the
theoretical soundness, equivalence, and redundancy of the items. The 44 remaining items (13 autonomy,

Need satisfaction at work 10

21 relatedness, and 10 competence) were examined by a panel of four academic judges who were all
familiar with SDT's conceptualization of basic psychological needs. One of the judges was specially
selected for his expertise in organizational psychology, two others for their experience in scale
development and validation. Based on the judges comments on the items content and face validity,
relevance and clarity, 24 items were retained, 1 relatedness and 1 competence item were reworded and 2
new items for relatedness were formulated. The final item pool included 26 items: 8 items for autonomy,
10 for relatedness and 8 for competence. Before administration, these items were randomly ordered.
Phase 2: Item selection
Prior to selecting the items through exploratory factor analysis and examining interitem
correlations, we examined item completeness and the distributions of the item scores as indicated by
the mean, median, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis in Sample 1. The number of missing
values for all administered items was low, ranging from 0 to 2%, and were therefore deemed to be
random (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The means of all items ranged from 2.85 to 4.42. All standard
deviations exceeded .50, being indicative of adequate variability (Stumpf, Colarelli, & Hartman, 1983).
Skewness values showed that particularly the relatedness frustration items showed a tendency for low
scores.
In a next step, exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The data were considered suitable for
factor analytic modeling as the Barlett's test of sphericity ( 2 =2953.91, df = 325) was significant (p < .
001), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO-) equaled .90 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989), and the ratio of usable
responses versus items was 11:1 (Kline, 1994). To identify the factors underlying the administered
items, we ran exploratory factor analysis (principal axis analysis). Oblique rotation (PROMAX) was
used as the three different needs were expected to be related (Reise, et al., 2000). The scree-test
indicated that three factors with eigenvalue 7.87, 2.72, and 1.79 could be extracted (Cattell, 1966),
representing relatedness, autonomy and competence, respectively. These three factors explained 48.00%
of the total variance. Three items (one reflecting autonomy and two reflecting competence) did not load
on any factor and were therefore removed. All other items had a minimal factor loading of |.40| on their
expected factor and no cross-loadings above .30 emerged.
After this process 23 items remained: 7 items reflecting autonomy, 10 reflecting relatedness and
6 reflecting competence. The subscale lengths were further optimized using corrected item-total
correlations. Within the autonomy scale, one item was removed because it displayed a corrected itemtotal correlation of .31 (Nunnally, 1978). Within the relatedness scale, items were deleted through a
process of by stepwise removal of the items with the lowest corrected-item-total correlations, thereby
keeping the balance of items reflecting satisfaction versus frustration. The final 18-item need
satisfaction questionnaire contained three 6-item need satisfaction subscales. The scales of autonomy

Need satisfaction at work 11

and relatedness each contained 3 satisfaction and 3 frustration items, the competence scale included 4
satisfaction and 2 frustration items.

Phase 3: Factor Structure

Next, we aimed to further examine the factor structure of the need satisfaction scale and test the
discriminant validity of the different subscales. To this end, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was
conducted, using maximum likelihood estimation (Bollen, 1989) in Lisrel 8.54 (Jreskog & Srbom,
2004). To rule out potential methodological explanations if the results of the CFA in Sample 2 would
fail to confirm the earlier results obtained in the EFA in Sample 1, CFA was performed in both Sample 1
and 2 (Van Prooijen & van der Kloot, 2001).
In each sample, the 3-dimensional model (Model A) was compared with three different 2dimensional models in which two needs were taken together and contrasted with the third need (Model
B-D) and with the 1-factor model combining all three dimensions (Model E). Additionally, the 3-factor
model was compared to a two factor model (Model F) differentiating between need satisfaction and
need frustration items. In addition to these first order factor models, two higher order factor structures
were examined. Specifically, in Model G, the three needs were modelled as higher order factors with
each of them being represented by a first order need satisfaction and need frustration component. In
Model H, the six lower order factors grouping satisfaction and frustration for each of the needs were
modelled as indicators of two second order factors representing need frustration and need satisfaction,
respectively (Model H).
As suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) model fit was evaluated using three goodness of fit
indices: the Root Means Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
and the Standardized Root Means Square Residuals (SRMR). RMSEA below .05 in combination with
SRMR values below .09 indicate excellent fit, whereas values below .08 and .10, respectively, indicate
good fit (Byrne, 2001). CFI cut-off values of .95 indicate excellent fit, whereas values of .90 indicate
good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). SatorraBentler Scaled Chi (SBS-Chi; Satorra & Bentler, 1994)
difference tests were used to evaluate the differences in fit. As data screening using Prelis 2.71
(Jreskog & Srbom, 2004) revealed data non-normality at the univariate and the multivariate level, in
all subsequent models, in addition to the covariance matrix, the asymptotic covariance matrix was used
and the Satorra-Bentler Scales Chi-square (SBS-, Satorra & Bentler, 1994) instead of the common
was inspected.
----- Please, insert Table 2 about here ----Results reveal that the 3-factor solution (Model A) fits the data well in both Sample 1 and 2
(Table 2). Moreover, significant differences in Chi-value indicated that Model A yielded a superior fit

Need satisfaction at work 12

compared to any other first-order factor model. All items had significant loadings (ranging from .50 to .
81, p < .001, with an average loading of .67 in both samples) on their intended latent factor. Further, the
second-order factor model representing the three separate needs was superior to the model representing
satisfaction versus frustration. In sum, the results of the CFA support the 3-factor structure of the
questionnaire and indicated the distinctiveness of the subscales for autonomy, relatedness and
competence. CFA, furthermore, indicated that the 3-factor model also yielded good fit in Sample 3,
SBS- (132) = 234.91, p < .001; CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .09, and Sample 4, SBS- (132) =
232.42, p < .001; CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .08, which provides further evidence for the
scales internal structure.

Phase 4: Intercorrelations, Reliability and Method Effects

Across Samples 1 to 4, the intercorrelations between autonomy and competence ranged from .29
to .51, between autonomy and relatedness from .47 to .50, and between competence and relatedness
from .16 to .35. Across four samples, the reliability of the autonomy, competence, and relatedness
satisfaction scales ranged from .77 to .84, from .79 to .90, and from .76 to .84, respectively.
Although the scales were reliable, method effects may contaminate the responses as the W-BNS
relies on self-report. To examine this issue, we investigated whether impression management biases the
work-related need satisfaction scale. Analyses were performed in Sample 3, thereby following the
procedure for method effects with latent variable modelling as outlined by Williams and colleagues
(Williams & Anderson, 1994; Williams, Gavin, & Williams, 1996).
First, a baseline model was computed in which the relations between the latent variable for
impression management and the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness were constrained to
zero; SBS- (186) = 314.94, p < .001; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .09, and CFI = .92. The baseline model
represents a model in which impression management does not confound the answers on the W-BNS.
Second, a confounded measurement model was inspected in which impression management was
assumed to influence the responses on the W-BNS. In this model, paths were allowed between
impression management and the indicators of the different needs, that is, the 18 need satisfaction items.
The model fit of this confounded model was as follows: SBS- (168) = 293.55, p < .001; RMSEA = .
07; SRMR = .08, and CFI = .92. This confounded model did not yield improved fit compared to the
baseline model, SBS- (18) = 21.39, ns, which suggests that impression management did not
significantly confound participants answers on the W-BNS.

Phase 5: Criterion-related and Discriminant Validity

Need satisfaction at work 13

The main aim of Phase 5 was to examine the criterion-related and predictive validity of the WBNS. Concerning predictive validity, first, we studied the associations between need satisfaction and job
characteristics, as SDT maintains that need satisfaction may help to gain insight in the motivational
impact of the environment. Specifically, as job resources are considered to yield a strong motivational
impact (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), we examined the associations between work-related need
satisfaction and task autonomy, skill utilization and social support (Karasek, 1979). In line with previous
studies in the realm of SDT (Gagn, Sencal, & Koestner, 1997; Richer, Blanchard, &Vallerand, 2002;
Van den Broeck, et al., 2008), we expected positive associations between these job resources and need
satisfaction. Specifically, the need for autonomy might be more closely related to task autonomy than
the other needs, whereas the needs for competence and relatedness might relate most strongly to skill
utilization and social support, respectively.
Second, as SDT considers need satisfaction as a necessary condition for individuals optimal
functioning, we examined the associations between the W-BNS and employees well-being, positive
work-related attitudes and behavior. Concerning employees well-being, we assessed job satisfaction,
work engagement, burnout, and life satisfaction. Job satisfaction and work engagement were selected as
a hedonic and eudaimonic aspect of work-related well-being, respectively (Kahneman, Diener, &
Schwarz., 1999; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008). Need satisfaction is expected to be positively related to
both. Burnout was included to assess the criterion validity of work-related need satisfaction with poor
well-being, to which need satisfaction is expected to relate negatively. Life satisfaction was used as an
indicator of general well-being. As life satisfaction may be influenced by various aspects others than
work, the association with work-related need satisfaction might be less strong compared to the aspects
of work-related well-being (Vallerand, 1997). Concerning work attitudes, first intrinsic motivation was
selected, as needs are considered to be highly satisfied if individuals are intrinsically motivated (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Affective organizational commitment was included as a second work-related attitude, as
this main aspect of organizational commitment is generally most predictive of, for instance, job
satisfaction, positive affect and most influenced by organizational aspects such as leadership and job
characteristics (Allen & Meyer, 1996). As SDT maintains that individuals feel naturally attracted to
situations in which their needs can be satisfied, a positive association was expected between workrelated need satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Finally, performance was selected as
behavioral correlates of need satisfaction. Performance and work-related need satisfaction were
expected to be positively correlated. Prior to assessing the criterion-related validity of the scale, it was
considered important to examine the potential overlap between feelings of need satisfaction,
environmental aspects and employees functioning. For this purpose, we relied on CFA.
In addition to the criterion validity of the W-BNS, we examined its predictive validity in Sample
4 by relating need satisfaction to turnover six months later. As mentioned above, SDT maintains that

Need satisfaction at work 14

individuals feel naturally attracted to situations in which their needs can be satisfied. In case of need
frustration, individuals are therefore likely to leave the organization. In line with this view, feelings of
competence and relatedness have previously been negatively related to turnover-intentions (Richer, et
al., 2002).
Results
First, CFA indicated that models differentiating the three needs and each of the criterion-related
variables yielded good fit to the data. Furthermore, they provided better fit compared to alternative 3factor models in which the criterion-related variables were modelled as a latent factor together with one
of the needs. The results of these analyses are available upon request from the first author. These results
suggest that the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are distinguishable from the criterionrelated variables.
As shown in Table 3, in general, the three needs displayed the expected correlations with each of
the criterion-related variables in both samples. In line with the hypothesis, task autonomy was stronger
related to the need for autonomy than to the need for competence (ZSample 3= 2.55, p < .01; ZSample 4 = 3.95,
p < .001) or relatedness (ZSample 3= 5.61, p < .001; ZSample 4 = 2.63, p < .01), and social support was
stronger related to the need for relatedness than to the needs for autonomy (Z Sample 3= 3.55; ZSample 4 =
3.82, ps < .001) or competence (ZSample 3= 5.44; ZSample 4 = 4.21, ps < .01). Unexpectedly, opportunities
for skill utilization did not relate more strongly to the need for competence than to the needs for
autonomy and relatedness. On the contrary, opportunities for skill utilization were even unrelated to
competence satisfaction in both samples, but correlated positively with the needs for relatedness in both
samples and with autonomy in Sample 4.
----- Please, insert Table 3 about here ----In line with expectations, the needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were positively
associated with both job satisfaction and vigor. They related negatively to exhaustion and positively to
life satisfaction. Autonomy and competence satisfaction, but unexpectedly not relatedness
satisfaction, related less strongly to life satisfaction than to the aspects of work-related well-being. In
line with the hypotheses, work-related need satisfaction related positively to intrinsic motivation,
affective organizational commitment, and performance.
To asses the predictive validity of need satisfaction, independent samples t-tests were performed
in Sample 4 examining differences between employees who turned over and those who did not in terms
of need satisfaction. As expected, employees leaving the company reported lower autonomy satisfaction
(M = 3.40) and relatedness satisfaction (M = 3.54) compared to employees who stayed M = 3.26 and M
= 3.71, respectively); t (230) = 4.24 and t (230) = 2.03; ps < .001, which supports the predictive validity

Need satisfaction at work 15

of the scale. No differences were, however, found between non-leavers (M = 3.88) and leavers (M =
3.79) for competence satisfaction; t (230) = 1.09; ns.
General Discussion
In SDT, satisfaction of the basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is considered
as a crucial condition for individuals thriving (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Several studies, across different life
domains, have provided evidence for this claim (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2008). Research in the field of
organizational psychology, however, might be hampered by the lack of a valid and reliable domainspecific need satisfaction measure. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to develop and
validate such a measure.
Results across four samples, totaling 1025 employees, provided support for the psychometric
properties of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Across the four samples, the scale
demonstrated a clean and acceptable factor structure. Consistent with SDTs conceptualization of three
distinct basic psychological needs, the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were found to
be related yet distinct, supporting their discriminant validity. Furthermore, the satisfaction and
frustration items needed to be conceptualized as simultaneous indicators of the higher order need
constructs, suggesting that satisfaction and frustration may be conceived of as opposite poles of the
same continuum tapping the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Each of the three
subscales proved to have good reliability.
In general, the three needs were shown to be related to environmental aspects and employees
functioning in a predictable fashion, providing evidence for the criterion-related validity of the scale.
Concerning environmental aspects, in line with previous research (e.g., Van den Broeck, et al., 2008),
work-related need satisfaction related positively to job resources. Specifically, as expected, task
autonomy was most closely related to autonomy satisfaction and social support related strongest to
relatedness satisfaction. Unexpectedly, opportunities for skill utilization were more strongly related to
relatedness and autonomy than to competence satisfaction. Perhaps the opportunity to be creative and
execute a highly skilled job provides employees with the chance to realize their interests and potentials,
thus contributing to a sense of autonomy, and also stimulates cooperation and close contact. In contrast,
being offered the chance to learn new skills might challenge ones competencies but not necessarily
contribute to competence satisfaction. Notably, the correlations between opportunities for skill
utilization and need satisfaction differed across Sample 3 and 4, pointing out the necessity to further
examine whether different measures of skill utilization or particular demographical variables might
influence the results.
Consistent with the assumption that need satisfaction relates to both hedonic and eudaimonic
well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001), the three needs related positively to job satisfaction as well as to vigor.

Need satisfaction at work 16

Further, the needs related negatively to exhaustion, supporting the notion that the absence of need
satisfaction can account for poor wellbeing. Interestingly, the positive associations between need
satisfaction and well-being were not limited to job-related outcomes, but also emerged for the more
general and domain-encompassing outcome of life satisfaction. Still, in line with our expectations,
autonomy and competence satisfaction related somewhat less strongly to life satisfaction than to the
aspects of work-related well-being. The latter set of findings supports the divergent validity of the
measure and highlights the importance of domain-specific measurements. Relatedness satisfaction
showed a relatively strong correlation with life satisfaction, suggesting that meaningful relationships at
work might be particularly important in fostering general well-being. Finally, results confirmed the
hypothesized positive associations between need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation, affective
commitment, and performance. In sum, these results confirm that need satisfaction relates to employees
optimal functioning, in terms of well-being, attitudes as well as behavior.
Finally, the observed positive contribution of need satisfaction to positive outcomes was not
limited to concurrent associations with self-report measures, but also emerged using an objective
indicator of prospective turnover.

Specifically, both autonomy and relatedness satisfaction were

negatively predictive of employees turnover, which was assessed six months after the assessment of
need satisfaction. These findings are consistent with research in other life domains, showing that
autonomous functioning is associated with less school drop-out (e.g., Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997).
These findings support the predictive validity of the scale and confirm once more that need satisfaction
might be a useful concept in the context of organizational psychology.
In sum, the present results support the psychometric properties of the work-related need
satisfaction scale. We hope this measure may assist researchers who seek to study employees need
satisfaction. The use of a validated need satisfaction measure rather than the reliance on ad hoc need
satisfaction measures may allow for more consistent cross-study comparisons and may contribute to a
more unified development of this field. We believe that the concept of need satisfaction deserves further
attention as need satisfaction may be a powerful tool to examine the motivational impact of
organizational environments and the motivational process underlying employees well-being. Notably,
researchers may want to use the three needs separately or focus on one of them, depending on their
research questions. It was not purpose of the current study to examine unique associations between each
of the needs and external variables. This might, however, be an important avenue for future research as
the lack of an association between the need for competence and turnover in the current study hints at
such potential unique associations of each of the needs.
On the practical level, these results indicate that work-related need satisfaction versus frustration
may have implications for individuals functioning, both on the job and in general. Employees might
therefore assess and monitor the need supportiveness of their jobs and seek for environments which

Need satisfaction at work 17

nourish their motivational energy and stimulate optimal functioning. Need satisfaction might be a point
of interest for organizations as well. It might be a useful concept to assess and improve the motivational
impact of organizational aspects such as job design. Paying attention to employees need satisfaction
might furthermore enhance employees well-being, attitudes, and behavior and, therefore, help to reduce
costs associated with stress or turnover, and increase productivity.
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Some limitations of this research need to be acknowledged. First, the current measurement relies
on employees self-reports to assess the internal process of need satisfaction. Although the present
findings indicate that impression management did not significantly bias the results, future studies might
examine whether other methodological artifacts or personality factors such as positive or negative affect
may influence responses to the W-BNS (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Second, the
present findings support the criterion-related validity of the work-related need satisfaction by means of
cross-sectional associations (Hinkin, 1998). A first insight in potential causal effects of need satisfaction
was gained by examining the prospective association between need satisfaction and turnover six months
later. Future studies may, however, further examine the antecedents and consequences of work-related
need satisfaction by means of longitudinal, cross-lagged or (field-) experimental studies. Such studies
might, however, take into account that need satisfaction is a fast changing phenomenon which fluctuates
with altering situations. Differences in need satisfaction will in turn result in immediate variations in
individuals functioning (Reis, et al., 2000). Third, the present study included heterogeneous as well as
quite diverse organization-specific samples. Future research in different sectors and countries may,
however, further add to the generalizability of the findings. Future studies may also elaborate upon the
present study by examining organizational variables such as leadership and remuneration systems
(Gagn & Forest, 2008) as potential antecedents of need satisfaction or explore the relations between
need satisfaction and other aspects of employees functioning, such as counterproductive behaviors.
We hope that the availability of a balanced, valid, and reliable measurement of need satisfaction
at work might stimulate work and organizational psychologists to examine these issues and to study the
role of need satisfaction in the context of work in general.

Need satisfaction at work 18

References
Abramis, D.J. (1994) Relationship of job stressor to job performance: Linear or an inverted-U.
Psychological Report, 75, 547-558.
Alhija, F. N. A., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item
parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13, 204-228.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the
Organization: An Examination of Construct Validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252276.
Baard, P., Deci, E. L, & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of
performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34,
2045-2068.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E., (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22, 309 - 328.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 373-403.
Baumeister, R. & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong. Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Billiet, J.B. and McClendon, M.J. (2000): Modeling aqcuiescence in measurement models for two
balanced sets of items. Structural EquationModeling, 7, 608-628.
Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Tumley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., (2008). A Multi-Level Review of
Impression Management Motives and Behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080-1109.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modelling with Amos. Basic Concepts Application and
Programming, Erlbaum, Mahwah, London (2001).
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245276.
Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y. & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism
and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural
orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and

Need satisfaction at work 19

personal need fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York:
Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319-338.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across
lifes domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagn, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need
satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc
country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory andapplications, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H; (2008). The development and Validation of the
Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348-1366.
Gagn, M., & Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensation systems through the lens of selfdetermination theory: Reconciling 35 years of debate. Canadian Psychology, 49, 225-232.
Gagn, M., Sncal, C. B., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings of
empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 27, 1222-1240.
Gillison, F., Standage, M., & Skevington, S. (2008). Changes in quality of life and psychological need
satisfaction following the transition to secondary school. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78, 149-162.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Harvey, R. J., Billings, R. S., & Nilan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Job Diagnostic
Survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 461468.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires.
Organizational Research Methods, 1,104121.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-55.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Ilardi, B., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation:
Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory
setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789-1805.

Need satisfaction at work 20

Jreskog, K. G. & Srbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.5 Users Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific
Software International.
Kahneman,d., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.) (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic
psychology; New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press, 1999.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies in a
psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 175187.
Kline, P. (1994) An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. Routledge, London.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in
security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment,
and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384.
Latham, G., & Pinder, C., (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first
century, Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485516.
Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Duriez, (in press). Basic Need Satisfaction and Identity Formation:
Bridging Self-Determination Theory and Process-Oriented Identity Research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology.
Lynch, M., Plant, R., & Ryan, R. (2005). Psychological needs and threat to safety: Implications for staff
and patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth. Professional Psychology Research and
Practice, 36, 415-425.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement and Entrepreneurship: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 389-92.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E., (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and
validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339.
Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G., (2008) The motivating role of positive
feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 30, 240-268.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S. (2000). Toward a dialectical analysis of growth and
defensive motives. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 301-305.

Need satisfaction at work 21

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419435.
Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (2003). How many IRT parameters does it take to model psychopathology
items? Psychological Methods, 8, 164184.
Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Supervisors' interactional styles and subordinates' intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 707-722.
Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089-2113.
Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089-2113.
Roca, J. C., & Gagn, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A
self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 15851604.
Rosenthal, P., Guest, & Peccei, R. (1996). Gender difference in managers' explanations for their work
performance: A study in two organizations. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 69, 145-151.
Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
Personality, 63, 397-427.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining
reasons for acting in two domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A Self-determination theory perspective on
eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139-170
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance
structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications
for developmental research (pp. 399419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma. V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout and: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies,
3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W.B. & Van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Handleiding van de Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS)
[Manual Utrecht Burnout Scale]. Lisse: Swets Test Services.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?
Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
325-339.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?
Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

Need satisfaction at work 22

325-339.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R. M. (2007).
Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promotion of
independence versus promotion of volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43, 633646.
Stumpf, S. A., Colarelli, S. M., & Hartman, K. (1983). Development of the career exploration survey
(CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 191-226.
Tabachnik, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. (2nd ed.). Harper & Row, New
York.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271-360). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life
setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1161-1176.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships
between job characteristics, burnout and engagement: The role of basic psychological need
satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22, 277-294.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire: Its construction,
factor structure, and psychometric qualities. Psychological Reports, 85, 954-962.
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Van Der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained
factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1, 777792.
Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een
vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA). [The measurement of
psychosocial job demands with a questionnaire: The questionnaire on the experience and
evaluation of work]. Amsterdam: Nederlands Instituut voor Arbeidsomstandigheden.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Luyckx, K. (2006). Autonomy and relatedness among
Chinese sojourners and applicants: Conflictual or independent predictors of well-being and
adjustment? Motivation and Emotion, 30, 273-282
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Luyckx, K. (2006). Autonomy and relatedness among
Chinese sojourners and applicants: Conflictual or independent predictors of well-being and
adjustment? Motivation and Emotion, 30, 273-282.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2007).
On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction, and job
outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Need satisfaction at work 23

Psychology, 80, 251-277.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work
stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314-334.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial validation of a measure of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The basic psychological needs scale.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10, 179201.
Vroom V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item
measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98,
219-235.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisorsubordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and a field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 487-499.
White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 279333.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latentvariable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 323331.
Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes
with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 88101.
Winterbottum, M. R. (1959). The relation of need for achievement to learning experiences in
independence and mastery. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society.
Princeton: Van Nostrand, pp. 453-478.
Wright, S. L., Burt, C. D., Strongman, K. T. (2006). Loneliness in the workplace: Construct definition
and scale development. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35, 59-68.

Need satisfaction at work 24

Need satisfaction at work 25

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants in the Four Samples
Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

297

297

170

261

Male

51%

48%

33%

46%

Female

49%

52%

67%

54%

Range

21 63 years

20 57 years

22 60 years

18-58 years

Mean

38.62 years

38.48 years

36.70 years

28.23 years

SD

11.25 years

10.95 years

8.17 years

9.00 years

Primary or Secondary
education

39%

37%

29%

41%

Bachelors degree

44%

47%

56%

54%

Masters degree

17%

16%

15%

5%

Blue collar worker

17%

15%

0%

0%

Administrative personnel

40%

43%

41%

100%

Professionals

20%

22%

35%

0%

Managers

5%

2%

24%

0%

Full-time

77%

81%

73%

71%

Part-time

23%

19%

27%

28%

93%

92%

94%

13%

7%

8%

6%

86%

Range

1 month
37 years

1 months
36 years

1 month
39 years

1 week
7 years

Mean

9.50 years

9.88 years

9.78 years

1.24 years

SD

9.96 years

9.76 years

10.55 years

1.72 years

N
Gender

Age

Education

Professional level

Hours worked

Contract

Fixed
Temporary

Tenure

Need satisfaction at work 26

Table 2
Fit indices for the Various Measurement Models of Need Satisfaction in Sample 1 and 2

Sample

Sample 1

Sample 2

Models

SBS-

df

RMSEA

CFI

Model
p-value
df
SBS SBSSRMR Compar
ison SBS- -

Model A

Autonomy vs. Relatedness vs. Competence

211.46

132

.000

.04

.97

.06

Model B

Autonomy-Relatedness vs. Competence

499.96

134

.000

.09

.92

.08

288.50

.000

Model C

Autonomy-Competence vs. Relatedness

583.46

134

.000

.10

.91

.07

372.00

.000

Model D

Autonomy vs. Relatedness-Competence

825.47

134

.000

.12

.88

.10

614.01

.000

Model E

Autonomy-Relatedness-Competence

919.89

135

.000

.13

.84

.11

708.43

.000

Model F

Need Satisfaction vs. Need Frustration

920.83

134

.000

.13

.85

.11

709.37

.000

Model G

2nd order factors of the Three Needs

156.28

126

.030

.03

.98

.05

Model H

2nd order factors of Satisfaction vs. Frustration

261.42

128

.000

.06

.95

.08

105.14

.000

Model A

Autonomy vs. Relatedness vs. Competence

230.02

132

.050

.05

.97

.05

Model B

Autonomy-Relatedness vs. Competence

485.71

134

.000

.09

.83

.08

255.69

.000

Model C

Autonomy-Competence vs. Relatedness

577.36

134

.000

.10

.92

.08

347.34

.000

Model D

Autonomy vs. Relatedness-Competence

759.39

134

.000

.12

.89

.10

529.37

.000

Model E

Autonomy-Relatedness-Competence

893.16

135

.000

.13

.86

.10

663.14

.000

Model F

Need Satisfaction vs. Need Frustration

902.05

134

.000

.13

.87

.10

672.03

.000

Model G

2nd order factors of the Three Needs

194.06

126

.000

.04

.97

.05

Model H

2nd order factors of Satisfaction vs. Frustration

294.27

128

.000

.06

.94

.08

100.21

.000

Need satisfaction at work 27

Table 3
Zero-order Correlations between Need Satisfaction, Job Resources and Employees Functioning in
Sample 3 and Sample 4
Need for
Autonomy
Sample
Sample
3
4

Need for
Competence
Sample
Sample
3
4

Need for
Relatedness
Sample
Sample
3
4

Job Resources
1. Task Autonomy

.45**

.47**

.23**

.22**

.02

.33**

2. Skill Utilization

.10

.55**

.13

.10

.23**

.38**

3. Social Support

.34**

.39**

.10

.33**

.58**

.58**

4. Job Satisfaction

.66**

.54**

.18*

.15*

.41**

.40**

5. Vigor

.54**

.49**

.41**

.31**

.38**

.40**

6. Exhaustion

-.52**

-.28**

-.27**

-.26**

-.32**

-.23**

7. Life Satisfaction

.30**

.22**

.24**

.16**

.41**

.32**

8. Intrinsic Motivation

.64**

.62**

.21*

.22**

.37**

.38**

9. Organisational Commitment

.51**

.58**

.18*

.18**

.36**

.42**

10. Performance

.31**

.21**

.44**

.35**

.19*

.18**

Outcomes

Note * p <.05; ** p< .0

Need satisfaction at work 28

Appendix
You are welcomed to use the W-BNS provided that you agree to the following two conditions:
1. The use is for non-commercial educational or research purposes only.
2. You agree to share the data you obtain with these items and some background-variables (age,
gender, occupation, ) with the authors to be used for further validation.
Need Satisfaction at work Scale

Werkbeleving

De volgende uitspraken gaan over hoe u uw werk beleeft. Wilt u aangeven in welke mate u akkoord gaat met
deze stellingen door steeds het best passende cijfer van 1 tot 5 te omcirkelen?
1
2
3
4
5
Helemaal niet
akkoord

Niet akkoord

Beetje niet akkoord/

beetje akkoord

Akkoord

Helemaal akkoord

Your experiences at work

The following statements aim to tap your personal experiences at work. Would you please indicate in which
degree you agree with these statements? You can indicate the most suitable number between 1 (totally
disagree) and 5 (totally agree).
1
2
3
4
5
Totally disagree

Disagree

Somewhat disagree
/ somewhat agree

Agree

Totally agree

Votre expriences au travail

Les phrases ci-dessous parlent de vos expriences au travail. Prire dindiquer dans quelle mesure vous tes
d'accord avec ces phrases en indiquant le numro correspondant votre opinion (indiquez s.v.p. un numro
entre 1 et 5)?
1
2
3
4
5
Totallement en
dsaccord

En disaccord

Plus ou moins
d'accord

D'accord

Relatedness Satisfaction
b4*

Ik voel niet echt een band met de andere mensen op mijn werk
Je ne me sens pas vraiment li(e) aux autres personnes au travail.
I dont really feel connected with other people at my job

b6

Ik voel me een deel van een groep op het werk

Jai le sentiment de faire partie du groupe au travail.
At work, I feel part of a group

b7*

Ik ga niet echt met de andere mensen op mijn werk om

Totalement d'accord

Need satisfaction at work 29

Je nai pas vraiment de contact avec les autres mon travail
I dont really mix with other people at my job
b9

Ik kan met anderen op het werk praten over wat ik echt belangrijk vind
Je puis parler avec dautres au travail de ce que je trouve vraiment important
At work, I can talk with people about things that really matter to me

b10* Ik voel me vaak alleen als we onder collegas zijn

Je me sens souvent seul(e) lorsque nous sommes entre collgues
I often feel alone when I am with my colleagues
b13

De mensen op mijn werk zijn echte vrienden

Quelques personnes mon travail sont de vrais amis
Some people I work with are close friends of mine

Competence Satisfaction
c1*

Ik voel me niet echt competent in mijn job.

Je ne me sens pas vraiment comptent(e) dans mon travail
I dont really feel competent in my job.

c2

Ik heb de taken op mijn werk goed onder de knie

Je comprends bien les tches accomplir dans mon travail
I really master my tasks at my job

c3

Ik voel me bekwaam in mijn werk

Je me sens capable dans mon travail.
I feel competent at my job

c4*

Ik twijfel eraan of ik mijn werk goed kan uitvoeren

Je doute de pouvoir bien excuter mon travail.
I doubt whether I am able to execute my job properly

c5

Ik ben goed in mijn job

Je suis bon(ne) dans mon travail.
I am good at the things I do in my job

c8

Ik heb het gevoel dat ik ook de moeilijke taken op mijn werk tot een goed einde kan brengen
Jai limpression de pouvoir mener aussi les tches difficiles bonne fin dans mon travail
I have the feeling that I can even accomplish the most difficult tasks at work

Autonomy Satisfaction
a3

Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mezelf kan zijn in mijn job

Jai limpression de pouvoir tre moi-mme au travail
I feel like I can be myself at my job

a5*

Op mijn werk heb ik vaak het gevoel dat ik moet doen wat anderen mij bevelen.
Au travail jai souvent limpression de devoir faire ce que dautres me commandent de faire
At work, I often feel like I have to follow other peoples commands

a8*

Als ik mocht kiezen, dan zou ik mijn werk anders aanpakken

Si jen avais le choix, jentreprendrais mon travail diffremment
If I could choose, I would do things at work differently

a9

Mijn taken op het werk stemmen overeen met wat ik echt wil doen

Need satisfaction at work 30

Mes tches au travail correspondent ce que je veux faire vraiment.
The tasks I have to do at work are in line with what I really want to do
a11

Ik voel me vrij mijn werk te doen zoals ik denk dat het goed is
Je me sens libre dexcuter mon travail comme je crois quil est bon de le faire
I feel free to do my job the way I think it could best be done

a12* Op mijn werk, voel ik me gedwongen dingen te doen die ik niet wil doen
Au travail, je me sens forc(e) de faire des choses que je ne veux pas faire.
In my job, I feel forced to do things I do not want to do