Dimensionality, Invariance, and Nomological Network of the Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (NSFS): An Extensive Psychometric Investigation in a Swedish Work Cohort

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the study sample.

	n	Gender	Age
T1
Offered study participation	5,213	19.6% men 80.4% women	61.7% 20–29 years 31.3% 30–39 years 6.0% 40–69 years
Responded	2,580 (rr = 48.2%)	15.8% men 84.2% women	61.7% 20–29 years 31.3% 30–39 years 6.0% 40–69 years
Included in the present study	2,123	16.4% men 82.9% women 0.5% other/dnwr 0.1% missing	Mean age (SD) = 29.77(5.74) years Range 22–60
T2
Offered study participation	4,876	19.0% men 81.0% women	61.7% 20–29 years 30.6% 30–39 years 7.7% 40–69 years
Responded	1,819 (rr = 37.1%)	15.5% men 84.5% women	62.1% 20–29 years 31.0% 30–39 years 6.0% 40–59 years
Included in the present study	1,506	15.5% men 83.5% women 0.8% other/dnwr 0.1% missing	Mean age (SD) = 29.72 (5.74) years Range 21–56
Combined sample of participants with baseline at T1 and T2 used for gender invariance analyses
Included in the present study	2,947	16.1% men 83.1% women 0.8% other/dnwr/missing	Mean age (SD) = 29.68 (5.63) Range 22–60 years

Note. dnwr: do not wish to respond; rr: response rate; SD: standard deviation.

Table 2. Models evaluated in the present study.

Model	Description
1	Three-factor CFA (autonomy, competence, and relatedness)
2	Three-factor ESEM model (autonomy, competence, and relatedness)
3a–3i	Three-factor CFA (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) with methods corrections for potential reversed item bias.
4a–4i	Three-factor ESEM (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) with methods corrections for potential reversed item bias.
5	Six-factor CFA (autonomy satisfaction and frustration, competence satisfaction and frustration, and relatedness satisfaction and frustration)
6	Six-factor ESEM (autonomy satisfaction and frustration, competence satisfaction and frustration, and relatedness satisfaction and frustration)
7	Bi-factor CFA with three specific factors (autonomy, relatedness, competence) and one global factor (global need fulfillment)
8	Bi-factor ESEM with three specific factors (autonomy, relatedness, competence) and one global factor (global need fulfillment)
9	Bi-factor CFA with three specific factors (autonomy, relatedness, competence) and two global factors (global need satisfaction and global need frustration)
10	Bi-factor ESEM with three specific factors (autonomy, relatedness, competence) and two global factors (global need satisfaction and global need frustration)
11	Bi-factor CFA with six specific factors (autonomy satisfaction and frustration, competence satisfaction and frustration, and relatedness satisfaction and frustration) and one global factor (global need fulfillment)
12	Bi-factor ESEM with six specific factors (autonomy satisfaction and frustration, competence satisfaction and frustration, and relatedness satisfaction and frustration) and one global factor (global need fulfillment)
13	Bi-factor CFA with six specific factors (autonomy satisfaction and frustration, competence satisfaction and frustration, and relatedness satisfaction and frustration) and two global factors (global need satisfaction and global need frustration).
14	Bi-factor ESEM with six specific factors (autonomy satisfaction and frustration, competence satisfaction and frustration, and relatedness satisfaction and frustration) and two global factors (global need satisfaction and global need frustration).

Note. Corrections for potential reversed item bias: (a) Correlated uniqueness between negatively worded items within each need; (b) Correlated uniqueness between negatively worded items across all needs; (c) Correlated uniqueness between positively worded items within each need; (d) Correlated uniqueness between positively worded items across all needs; (e) Correlated uniqueness between positively and negatively worded items, respectively, within each need; (f) Correlated uniqueness between positively and negatively worded items, respectively, across all needs; (g) One latent method factor for all negatively worded items; (h) One latent method factor for all positively worded items; (i) Two latent method factors, one for all negatively worded items and one for all positively worded items.

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the estimated models on the need satisfaction and frustration scale in T1 (n = 2,123).

Model nr	Description	χ^2	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	RMSEA 90% CI	SRMR	AIC	BIC	aBIC
1	CFA 3F	2473.593***	132	0.840	0.814	0.091	[0.088–0.095]	0.058	122,960.8	123,283.4	123,102.3
2	ESEM 3F	2357.699***	102	0.846	0.768	0.102	[0.099–0.106]	0.051	122,809.7	123,302.2	123,025.8
3a	CFA 3F CU neg within same need	834.314***	123	0.951	0.939	0.052	[0.049–0.056]	0.053	121,066.9	121,440.5	121,230.8
3b	CFA 3F CU neg all	462.761***	96	0.975	0.960	0.042	[0.039–0.046]	0.029	120,689.3	121,215.8	120,920.3
3c	CFA 3F CU pos within same need	977.362***	123	0.942	0.927	0.057	[0.054–0.061]	0.043	121,227.5	121,601.1	121,391.4
3d	CFA 3F CU pos all	658.513***	96	0.961	0.939	0.053	[0.049–0.056]	0.033	120,921.4	121,447.8	121,152.3
3e	CFA 3F CU pos neg within same need	Unidentified
3f	CFA 3F CU pos neg all	Unidentified
3g	CFA 3F LMF neg	1160.637***	123	0.929	0.912	0.063	[0.060–0.066]	0.040	121,422.6	121,796.2	121,586.5
3h	CFA 3F LMF pos	1397.19***	123	0.913	0.892	0.070	[0.067–0.073]	0.056	121,689.7	122,063.3	121,853.7
3i	CFA 3F 2-LMF pos neg	788.205***	114	0.954	0.938	0.053	[0.049–0.056]	0.040	121,017.2	121,441.7	121,203.4
4a	ESEM 3F CU neg within same need	704.247***	93	0.958	0.931	0.056	[0.052–0.060]	0.037	120,976.7	121,520.1	121,215.1
4b	ESEM 3F CU neg all	351.654***	66	0.980	0.955	0.045	[0.041–0.050]	0.016	120,623.3	121,319.6	120,928.8
4c	ESEM 3F CU pos within same need	886.662***	93	0.946	0.911	0.063	[0.060–0.067]	0.038	121,167.6	121,711.0	121,406.0
4d	ESEM 3F CU pos all	557.852***	66	0.966	0.922	0.059	[0.055–0.064]	0.023	120,861.8	121,558.0	121,167.3
4e	ESEM 3F CU pos neg within same need	Unidentified
4f	ESEM 3F CU pos neg all	Unidentified
4g	ESEM 3F LMF neg	1021.427***	93	0.936	0.895	0.069	[0.065–0.072]	0.026	121,320.1	121,863.5	121,558.5
4h	ESEM 3F LMF pos	1129.366***	93	0.929	0.883	0.072	[0.069–0.076]	0.030	121,438.6	121,982.0	121,677.0
4i	ESEM 3F 2-LMF pos neg	642.249***	84	0.962	0.930	0.056	[0.052–0.060]	0.021	120,894.0	121,488.4	121,154.8
5	CFA 6F	785.168***	120	0.954	0.942	0.051	[0.048–0.055]	0.031	121,016.4	121,407.0	121,187.8
6	ESEM 6F	326.443***	60	0.982	0.953	0.046	[0.041–0.051]	0.012	120,545.7	121,275.9	120,866.0
7	B CFA 3SF 1GF	1504.976***	117	0.905	0.876	0.075	[0.071–0.078]	0.103	121,771.6	122,179.1	121,950.4
8	B ESEM 3SF 1GF	998.819***	87	0.938	0.890	0.070	[0.066–0.074]	0.026	121,306.1	121,883.5	121,559.4
9	B CFA 3SF 2GF	992.115***	116	0.940	0.921	0.060	[0.056–0.063]	0.071	121,238.3	121,651.5	121,419.6
10	B ESEM 3SF 2 GF	625.619***	83	0.963	0.932	0.055	[0.051–0.060]	0.020	120,869.7	121,469.7	121,133.0
11	B CFA 6SF 1GF	2243.816***	117	0.854	0.810	0.093	[0.089–0.096]	0.111	122,619.8	123,027.4	122,798.7
12	B ESEM 6SF 1 GF	122.572***	48	0.995	0.984	0.027	[0.021–0.033]	0.007	120,378.7	121,176.8	120,728.9
13	B CFA 6SF 2GF	Unidentified
14	B ESEM 6SF 2 GF	Unidentified

Note. CFA: confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM: exploratory structural equation modeling; LMF: latent method factor; pos: positively worded items; neg: negatively worded items; CU: correlated uniqueness; B: bifactor model; F: factor; GF: global factor estimated as part of a bifactor model; SF: specific factor estimated as part of a bifactor model; χ²: robust chi-square test of exact fit; df: degrees of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; 90% CI: 90% confidence interval of the RMSEA; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; AIC: Akaike information criteria; BIC: Bayesian information criteria; aBIC: sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criteria.

***p < 0.001.

Table 4. Need satisfaction and frustration scale (NSFS) subscales predicting outcomes of life satisfaction and cognitive weariness (n = 2,947).

Basic need factor	Life satisfaction			Cognitive weariness
	Standardized path coefficient	SE	p-value (two-tailed)	Standardized path coefficient	SE	p-value (two-tailed)
Autonomy satisfaction	0.169***	0.040	<0.001	−0.041	0.039	0.287
Autonomy frustration	0.006	0.041	0.878	0.170***	0.042	<0.001
Relatedness satisfaction	0.171***	0.030	<0.001	−0.022	0.030	0.476
Relatedness frustration	−0.104***	0.032	0.001	0.120***	0.033	<0.001
Competence satisfaction	0.028	0.040	0.477	−0.004	0.043	0.932
Competence frustration	−0.195***	0.039	<0.001	0.409***	0.042	<0.001

Note. SE: standard error.

*** p < 0.001.

Data availability statement

Requests to access the datasets should be directed to [email protected].