Advertisement

Exploring the Relationships among Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration, Agentic Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination in Adolescents with Disabilities

  • Karrie A. Shogren
  • Sheida K. Raley
  • Michael L. Wehmeyer
  • Elizabeth Grandfield
  • Julie Jones
  • Leslie A. Shaw
ORIGINAL PAPER
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Researchers have separately explored applications and implications of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Causal Agency Theory in the school context; however, limited attention has been directed to examining the relations between constructs emerging from SDT (agentic engagement, motivation, and basic needs satisfaction and frustration) and the Causal Agency Theory (self-determination and its essential characteristics—volitional action, agentic action, and action-control beliefs), as well as the use of measures developed to assess these constructs in adolescents with disabilities. We examined the reliability of measures emerging from both theories in adolescents with disabilities, and explored the pattern of means, correlations, and predictive relations among the constructs. We found adequate reliability, and unique patterns of correlations and predictive relationships among the constructs. Adolescents with disabilities showed higher levels of need satisfaction than frustration, as well as moderately high levels of self-determination and agentic engagement, consistent with other research with students with and without disabilities. The findings highlight the role of constructs from positive psychology in the lives of students with and without disabilities and the need for more research that includes students with disabilities and explores their experiences alongside their peers without disabilities in developing causal agency.

Keywords

Causal Agency Theory Self-Determination Theory Adolescence Disability Measurement Schools 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A130065 to the University of Kansas. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author Contributions

KAS: designed and executed the study, assisted with the data analyses, and wrote the paper. SKR: supported data collection, generated descriptive statistics, and assisted in writing the paper. MLW: collaborated on the design of the study and collaborated on editing the paper. EG: conducted the data analyses and edited the paper. JJ: supported study implementation and data collection. LAS: supported data collection and editing the paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Statement

All procedures undertaken in this study were approved in advance by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Kansas.

Informed Consent

IRB approved informed consent and assent procedures were followed for all participants in this study.

References

  1. Balcazar, F. E., Taylor-Ritzler, T., Dimpfl, S., Portillo-Peña, N., Guzman, A., Schiff, R., & Murvay, M. (2012). Improving the transition outcomes of low-income minority youth with disabilities. Exceptionality, 20, 114–132.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.670599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, R., Durham, J., & Little, T. D. (in press). Enhancing students’ motivation with autonomy-supportive classrooms. In M. L. Wehmeyer, K. A. Shogren, T. D. Little, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook on the development of self-determination. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., et al. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cordeiro, P., Paixão, P., Lens, W., Lacante, M., & Sheldon, K. (2016). Factor structure and dimensionality of the balanced measure of psychological needs among portuguese high school students. Relations to well-being and ill-being. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 51–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Naeghel, J., Valcke, M., De Meyer, I., Warlop, N., van Braak, J., & Van Keer, H. (2014). The role of teacher behavior in adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1547–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: a self-determination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, A. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43–70). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: an overview of Self-Determination Theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., Hodges, R., Pierson, L., & Tomassone, J. (1992). Autonomy and competence as motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional handicaps. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frielink, N., Schuengel, C., & Embregts, P. J. C. M. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale–Intellectual Disability (BPNSFS-ID). European Journal of Psychological Assessment.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000366.
  13. Houghton, J., Bronicki, G. B., & Guess, D. (1987). Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12(1), 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1175–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Little, T. D., Snyder, C. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). The agentic self: on the nature and origins of personal agency across the lifespan. In D. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), The hanbook of personality development (pp. 61–79). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133–144.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nishimura, T., & Suzuki, T. (2016). Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration in Japan: controlling for the big five personality traits. Japanese Psychological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12131.
  19. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Reeve, J. (2002a). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  22. Reeve, J. (2002b). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In Handbook of self-determination research. (pp. 183–203): University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
  23. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: the concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing student’s engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2011). A self-determination theory perspective on social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their importance for well-being. In V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan, & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Human autonomy in cross-cultural context. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Shogren, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2016). Relationship between basic psychological needs, motivation, causal action, and self-determination. Lawrence: Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
  29. Shogren, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2017). Self-Determination Inventory: student-report. Lawrence: Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
  30. Shogren, K. A., Kennedy, W., Dowsett, C., & Little, T. D. (2014a). Autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization: exploring data on self-determination from NLTS2. Exceptional Children, 80, 221–235.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291408000206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Forber-Pratt, A., Little, T. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2014b). Self-Determination Inventory: student-report [pilot version]. Lawrence: Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
  32. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Little, T. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2015a). Causal agency theory: reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 251–263.Google Scholar
  33. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Rifenbark, G. G., & Little, T. D. (2015b). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 53, 30–41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913489733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Little, T. J., & Seo, H. (2017). Preliminary validity and reliability of scores on the Self-Determination Inventory: student report version. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 92–103.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415594335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., et al. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22, 431–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward, M. J. (2005). An historical perspective of self-determination in special education: accomplishments and challenges. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 108–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992). Self-determination and the education of students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27(4), 302–314.Google Scholar
  39. Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of self-determination: describing development and implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). A functional theory of self-determination: model overview. In M. L. Wehmeyer, B. Abery, D. E. Mithaug, & R. Stancliffe (Eds.), Theory in self-determination: foundations for educational practice (pp. 182–201). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  41. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2017a). Applications of the self-determination construct to disability. In M. L. Wehmeyer, K. A. Shogren, T. D. Little, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook on the development of self-determination. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2017b). The development of self-determination during adolescence. In M. L. Wehmeyer, K. A. Shogren, T. D. Little, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook on the development of self-determination. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D. E., & Martin, J. E. (2000). Promoting causal agency: the self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66, 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Little, T. D., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook on the development of self-determination. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Julie Jones TherapyHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations