Global Self-Worth among Adolescents: The Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in Physical Education

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations and Cronbach’s alpha for the overall sample (all subsamples combined).

Variable		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	GSW	–	.33*	.41*	.38*	.27*	.33*	.25*	.26*	.31*	.31*
2	Autonomy PE		–	.81*	.61*	.30*	.30*	.27*	.28*	.30*	.29*
3	Competence PE			–	.78*	.42*	.46*	.39*	.43*	.45*	.41*
4	Relatedness PE				–	.41*	.43*	.46*	.41*	.42*	.45*
5	Autonomy OS					–	.87*	.80*	.47*	.47*	.41*
6	Competence OS						–	.80*	.49*	.51*	.44*
7	Relatedness OS							–	.41*	.43*	.42*
8	Autonomy SO								–	.90*	.75*
9	Competence SO									–	.75*
10	Relatedness SO										–
M		2.95	4.41	4.88	5.10	5.90	5.93	5.91	5.74	5.70	5.56
SD		.70	1.44	1.35	1.31	1.08	1.04	1.10	1.22	1.18	1.34
Cronbach’s alpha		.84	.89	.90	.87	.89	.92	.86	.90	.92	.89

Note. Bootstrapped bivariate correlations, *p < .01 (two tailed); GSW = Global self-worth; PE = Physical education; OS = Organized sport; SO = Self-organized movement activity; M = Mean; SD = Standard deviations. Due to missing data and the fact that not all students participated in (and thus, reported basic need satisfaction in) all movement contexts, the N for bootstrapped bivariate correlations ranged from 886 to 2535 and the N for descriptive statistics ranged from 1352 to 2639.

Table 2. Model test fit indices for the invariance testing.

	Model tested	X^2	p	df	CFI	ΔCFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	ΔRMSEA	SRMR	ΔSRMR
GSW	Model 1	125.66	<.001	20	.971		.087 (.072, .101)		.034
	Model 2	162.02	<.001	32	.964	.007	.076 (.065, .088)	.011	.060	.026
	Model 3	186.64	<.001	44	.960	.004	.068 (.058, .078)	.008	.067	.007
Autonomy PE	Model 1	17.48	.03	8	.997		.042 (.014, .068)		.010
	Model 2	32.91	.01	17	.994	.003	.037 (.017, .056)	.005	.029	.019
	Model 3	43.41	.02	26	.994	.000	.031 (.013, .047)	.010	.038	.008
Competence PE	Model 1	33.81	<.001	8	.990		.069 (.046, .094)		.016
	Model 2	52.98	<.001	17	.986	.004	.056 (.039, .073)	.013	.030	.014
	Model 3	70.70	<.001	26	.983	.003	.050 (.036, .064)	.006	.028	.002
Relatedness PE	Model 1	64.28	<.001	8	.978		.102 (.079, .125)		.020
	Model 2	77.53	<.001	17	.976	.002	.072 (.056, .089)	.030	.030	.010
	Model 3	92.97	<.001	26	.974	.002	.062 (.048, .075)	.010	.038	.008
Autonomy OS	Model 1	7.44	.11	4	.997		.035 (.000, .073)		.009
	Model 2	11.67	.11	7	.996	.001	.030 (.000, .060)	.005	.035	.026
	Model 3	21.47	.02	10	.990	.006	.040 (.016, .063)	.010	.044	.009
Competence OS	Model 1	4.45	.35	4	1.00		.012 (.000, .059)		.006
	Model 2	6.62	.47	7	1.00	.000	.000 (.000, .044)	.012	.019	.013
	Model 3	10.08	.43	10	1.00	.000	.003 (.000, .041)	.003	.023	.004
Relatedness OS	Model 1	20.65	<.001	4	.985		.076 (.046, .110)		.016
	Model 2	25.73	<.001	7	.983	.002	.061 (.037, .087)	.015	.027	.011
	Model 3	32.14	<.001	10	.979	.004	.055 (.035, .077)	.006	.028	.001
Autonomy SO	Model 1	5.03	.28	4	.999		.017 (.000, .054)		.007
	Model 2	8.49	.29	7	.999	.000	.015 (.000, .045)	.002	.028	.021
	Model 3	15.65	.11	10	.996	.003	.024 (.000, .047)	.009	.033	.005
Competence SO	Model 1	9.92	.04	4	.996		.040 (.007, .072)		.009
	Model 2	12.37	.09	7	.997	.001	.029 (.000, .054)	.011	.012	.003
	Model 3	21.58	.02	10	.993	.004	.035 (.014, .056)	.006	.020	.008
Relatedness SO	Model 1	4.05	.40	4	1.00		.004 (.000, .050)		.007
	Model 2	8.85	.26	7	.998	.002	.017 (.000, .046)	.013	.031	.024
	Model 3	12.72	.24	10	.998	.000	.017 (.000, .042)	.000	.035	.004

Note. GSW = Global self-worth; PE = Physical education; OS = Organized sport; SO = Self-organized movement activity; Model 1 = Configural; Model 2 = Metric; Model 3 = Scalar.

Table 3. Global self-worth and basic psychological need satisfaction among adolescents participating in different movement contexts.

	M (SD)				Effect size (d) for the difference, (X^2, p)
	Subsample PE-only	Subsample PE/OS	Subsample PE/SO	Subsample PE/OS/SO	PE-only vs. PE/OS	PE-only vs. PE/SO	PE-only vs. PE/OS/SO	PE/OS vs. PE/SO	PE/OS vs. PE/OS/SO	PE/SO vs. PE/OS/SO
GSW	2.84 (.71)	3.05 (.67)	2.83 (.72)	3.06 (.67)	−.31 (18.20, <.001)	.01^† (.03, <.87)	−.33 (32.41, <.001)	.31 (24.20, <.001)	−.02^† (.24, <.62)	−.28 (54.49, <.001)
Autonomy PE	3.85 (1.48)	4.50 (1.39)	4.16 (1.42)	4.77 (1.38)	−.47 (38.35, <.001)	−.22 (11.49, <.001)	−.67 (107.67, <.001)	.24 (16.33, <.001)	−.20 (8.40, <.01)	−.44 (91.24, <.001)
Autonomy OS	–	5.67 (1.17)	–	5.96 (1.05)	–	–	–	–	−0.28^a (<.001)	–
Autonomy SO	–	–	5.56 (1.28)	5.87 (1.16)	–	–	–	–	–	−0.27^b (<.001)
Competence PE	4.06 (1.44)	5.05 (1.23)	4.55 (1.35)	5.33 (1.19)	−.81 (98.73, <.001)	−.36 (34.03, <.001)	−1.07 (232.71, <.001)	.37 (37.01, <.001)	−.24 (15.47, <.001)	−.66 (174.10, <.001)
Competence OS	–	5.72 (1.10)	–	5.99 (1.06)	–	–	–	–	−.26^c (<.001)	–
Competence SO	–	–	5.50 (1.25)	5.83 (1.13)	–	–	–	–	–	−.29^d (<.001)
Relatedness PE	4.39 (1.44)	5.19 (1.26)	4.91 (1.34)	5.44 (1.16)	−.64 (63.52, <.001)	−.39 (37.23, <.001)	−.91 (149.22, <.001)	.21 (11.75, <.001)	−.22 (10.53, <.001)	−.46 (76.64, <.001)
Relatedness OS	–	5.74 (1.21)	–	5.96 (1.07)	–	–	–	–	−.21^e (= .001)	–
Relatedness SO	–	–	5.31 (1.39)	5.72 (1.31)	–	–	–	–	–	−.31^f (<.001)
n	395	362	922	1175
Girls/boys, %	52/48%	43/57%	63/37%	47/53%
LSS/USS, %	35/65%	61/39%	32/68%	67/33%

Note. Latent mean comparisons between the four subsamples. GSW = Global self-worth; PE = Physical education; OS = Organized sport; SO = Self-organized movement activity; LSS/USS refers to the students’ school level and thus, students’ age. LSS = Lower secondary school (age 13); USS = Upper secondary school (age 16); M (SD) = Mean (standard deviations); – = No measures available; † = Difference is statistically non-significant. Cohen’s d, small ≥ .20, medium ≥ .50, large ≥ .80; (Cohen, 1988). df = 1 for all Wald’s tests. For the models with two groups, the difference between the latent mean scores was tested by a z-test.^{. a}z-value = 3.906, ^bz-value = 5.144, ^cz-value = 3.763, ^dz-value = 5.527, ^ez-value = 3.423, ^fz-value = 6.349.

Table 4. Relationship between context-specific autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction and global self-worth

	Subsample PE-only			Subsample PE/OS			Subsample PE/SO			Subsample PE/OS/SO
	Aut	Comp	Rel	Aut	Comp	Rel	Aut	Comp	Rel	Aut	Comp	Rel
CFI	.98	.99	.96	.97	.97	.95	.98	.97	.96	.98	.97	.91
RMSEA [90% CI]	.04 [.02, .06]	.03 [.00, .05]	.06 [.04, .07]	.04 [.03, .05]	.04 [.03, .06]	.06 [.05, .07]	.04 [.03, .05]	.04 [.04, .05]	.05 [.04, .06]	.03 [.03, .04]	.04 [.03, .04]	.06 [.06, .07]
SRMR	.04	.05	.05	.06	.06	.06	.05	.05	.04	.04	.04	.05
X^2 (p-value)	65.53 (.01)	54.85 (.08)	91.93 (<.001)	138.06 (<.001)	145.43 (<.001)	193.30 (<.001)	202.48 (<.001)	239.54 (<.001)	279.68 (<.001)	332.07 (<.001)	409.42 (<.001)	810.04 (<.001)
Sex ON Self-worth	.24 (<.001)	.23 (<.001)	.22 (<.001)	.34 (<.001)	.29 (<.001)	.32 (<.011)	.29 (<.001)	.26 (<.001)	.29 (<.001)	.31 (<.001)	.28 (<.001)	.31 (<.001)
Age ON Self-worth	.09 (.06)	.10 (.05)	.11 (.03)	.03 (.62)	.04 (.48)	.04 (.41)	.16 (<.001)	.17 (<.001)	.17 (<.001)	.07 (.01)	.08 (.01)	.10 (<.001)
BPN in SO ON Self-worth	–	–	–	–	–	–	.16 (<.001)	.11 (.01)	.14 (<.001)	.17 (<.001)	.12 (.01)	.15 (<.001)
BPN in OS ON Self-worth	–	–	–	.26 (<.001)	.18 (.01)	.19 (.01)	–	–	–	.16 (<.001)	.12 (.01)	.10 (.02)
BPN in PE ON Self-worth	.25 (<.001)	.25 (<.001)	.31 (<.001)	.21 (.01)	.30 (<.001)	.28 (<.001)	.24 (<.001)	.34 (<.001)	.30 (<.001)	.18 (<.001)	.30 (<.001)	.23 (<.001)
BPN in SO WITH BPN in OS	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	.51 (<.001)	.55 (<.001)	.45 (<.001)
BPN in SO WITH BPN in PE	–	–	–	–	–	–	.27 (<.001)	.48 (<.001)	.52 (<.001)	.30 (<.001)	.50 (<.001)	.46 (<.001)
BPN in PE WITH BPN in OS	–	–	–	.38 (<.001)	.48 (<.001)	.54 (<.001)	–	–	–	.29 (<.001)	.52 (<.001)	.51 (<.001)
X^2 (p) for pairwise comparisons
BPN in PE vs. BPN in OS				1.13 (.29)	.83 (.36)	.71 (.40)				.33 (.06)	5.01 (.03)	3.05 (.08)
BPN in PE vs. BPN in SO							1.04 (.31)	10.81 (.00)	4.09 (.04)	.00 (.99)	8.01 (.01)	3.21 (.07)
BPN in OS vs. BPN in SO										.20 (.65)	.11 (.74)	.09 (.77)
Adj.R^2 Self Worth	.13	.13	.16	.27	.26	.27	.21	.26	.27	.25	.29	.26

Note. Aut = Autonomy; Comp = Competence; Rel = Relatedness; Sex = girls (1), boys (2); Age = distinguishes between students in upper secondary school, age 16 (1), and students in lower secondary school, age 13 (2); BPN in SO = Basic psychological need satisfaction in self-organized movement activity; BPN in OS = Basic psychological need satisfaction in organized sport; BPN in PE = Basic psychological need satisfaction in physical education; – = No measures available; df = 1 for all for all pairwise comparisons (Wald’s tests). Standardized coefficients are reported. Sensitivity analyses were performed using a two-level setup, and the potential differences between the one-level model and the two-level model were investigated. As the inclusion of a two-level setup did not improve model fit nor substantially change the results, results from the one level setup are presented.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 Google Scholar