SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2024
Assessing basic/fundamental psychological need fulfillment: systematic mapping and review of existing scales to foster cumulative science.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of basic psychological satisfaction needs on resilience in patients with first acute myocardial infarction: the mediating role of family resilience and hope.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- The effect of exercise self-efficacy on basic psychological needs in flight cadets: the chain mediating role of psychological resilience and perceived social support.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Because the fulfillment of basic/fundamental psychological needs affects people's motivation and well-being, measuring the degree to which these needs are met is of interest to researchers across various domains. Although numerous self-assessment tools have been developed, no recent comprehensive reviews exist, hindering cumulative scientific progress. The present systematic review aimed to identify and analyze the main approaches to developing self-report scales for assessing basic/fundamental psychological need fulfillment. The objective is to inform readers interested in selecting instruments for their studies and those intending to develop new scales. Methods: Following PRISMA, we conducted a search of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest in August 2023. The following information was extracted from eligible studies: Scale name, abbreviation, theoretical basis, application domain, final scale construction, scale development and validation methodology, and citation count. Results: Our search identified 32 primary studies, in which 31 original scales were developed and validated, and 89 secondary studies that aimed to modify these original scales. The predominant theoretical basis was Self-Determination Theory, although eight scales were based on alternative need typologies. The scales were either domain-general or specific to contexts such as work, education, or exercise/sports contexts. While most were designed to measure need satisfaction, some also addressed need support, frustration, and thwarting. Conclusion: Despite significant efforts in developing, adapting, and applying scales to measure need fulfillment, we found several issues resulting from diverse perspectives on conceptualizing psychological needs and need typologies, discordant approaches in developing and validating measures, and other inconsistencies that should be acknowledged and addressed in future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.