See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/279424035

Validity and Reliability of Basic Needs Questionnaire Based on Choice Theory

in Malaysia

Article · April 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 7,091

3 authors, including:

Karen M. S. Wong Ahmad Jazimin Jusoh

Tunku Abdul Rahman University Sultan Idris Education University
2 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 249 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Jazimin Jusoh on 30 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

Validity and Reliability of Basic Needs Questionnaire Based on

Choice Theory in Malaysia

Karen Wong Mei Sing

University of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Ipoh,
Perak, Malaysia.
Email: karenwong@[Link]

Ahmad Jazimin Jusoh

Department of Psychology and Counselling,
Faculty of Education and Human Development,
Sultan Idris Education University,
35900 Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia
Corresponding Author Email: ahmadjazimin@[Link]

Abstract

The aim of this study is to measure both the validity and reliability of Basic Needs
Questionaire based on Choice Theory. The instrument used in this study was a
questionnaire with 85 items covering five subscales: love and belonging, power, fun,
freedom, and survival. Five experts determined the validity of this questionnaire as a ,
measuring instrument indicating it had a high validity of 91%. Next, a total of 119
students from two schools were selected as a random sample to measure the reliability
of this instrument. The data was analyzed using Cronbach Alpha and test-retest, which
showed that only 47 items from 85 items instrument were significant. Overall, the
Cronbach Alpha realiability coefficient is in good working order with the value of
reliability .871.

Keywords: validity, realibility, basic needs, Choice Theory, Cronbach Alpha

164
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

1. Introduction

According to Choice Theory all human behavior, , is driven by attempts to satisfy

basic needs (Glasser, 1985; 1998; 2001). Knowledge of which needs are not being
met in an individuals’ life is important to understanding his/her behavior and
determining interventions to create a needs-satisfying environment for this particular
person. Glasser (1985; 1998; 2001) describes five basic needs that must be met for
physiological and psychological health. The physiological need for survival represents
the biological desires for food, water, shelter and reproduction, as well as safety and
security. Humans also attempt to satisfy the four psychological needs of power,
belonging, freedom, and fun. Power needs relate to status, dominance, respect, and
achievement, which are the most difficult to satisfy. Belonging refers to the need to be
with others, to feel cared for, and to be in cooperative relationships. Freedom, a need
which often conflicts with power and to some extent belonging, is the desire what one
wants to do and to be able to make choices. Finally, the need for fun is the desire to
play, laugh, and seek enjoyment, and is hypothesized to be linked with the ability to
learn (Glasser, 2001).

Based on previous studies, Burns et al. (2006) built an instrument known as

the Students Needs Survey (SNS) to measure the psychological and physiological
basic needs of young adults as outlined in Choice Theory. The instrument consisted of
25 items, every 5 items measuring one of the basic needs of survival, love and
belonging, power, freedom, and fun. Validity and reliability of this instrument was
tested on students at three public schools. The results showed that these instruments
have high validity and can effectively to measure the basic needs of the students. In
addition, the reliability of the instrument was high, with an alpha value of 0.92, while
the test-retest reliability also had an alpha value of 0.96. Overall, Burns et al. (2006),
found that the SNS is a psychometric tool based on the philosophy of Choice Theory
that is useful to evaluate students psychology needs, especially in schools. Teachers or
individuals working in school settings can use SNS to identify the extent to which the
needs of students are met individually or in groups.

Lafond (2000) also conducted a study to assess the validity of an instrument

that measures the basic requirements of Choice Theory: Choice Theory Basic Needs
Scale (CTBNS). There were 9 items in the instrument and each of these items
included five basic needs in Choice Theory. These items were then approved by
experts in Reality Therapy. Lafond conducted a survey with a total of 265 respondents.
Results showed that the CTBNS had low correlation between the items, clearly
unauthorizing use. Clearly shows that CTBNS unauthorizing this instrument for use.
Lafond concluded that the items in CTBNS needed to be restyled and re-scaled before
assessing the needs of individuals.

165
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

The five basic needs are the core of an individual’s identity. By understanding the
degree of importance that each individual has for these needs, counsellors and
specialist can assist and support a client. This study was conducted to determine
whether those measurement instruments SNS and CTBNS have psychometric
qualities that enable them to be used in the context Malaysian culture.

1.1 Choice Theory

Glasser (1998) states that Choice Theory provides explanations for most behaviors:
we choose everything we do, including the misery we feel. In theory, other people
cannot make us miserable or happy. All we can get from them or give to them is
information. But by itself, information cannot make us do or feel anything, can only
go into our brains where we process those details and then decide what to do with
them. According to Glasser (1998), Choice Theory is based in internal control
psychology that explains why and how we make the choices that determine the course
of our lives. While external control psychology seems to determine or affect our
bahavior, Choice Theory states that we are driven entirely by internal control
psychology, which responds to or deals with external control psychology.

James & Gilliland (2003) noted that Choice Theory explains the development
of human personality and attempts to fullfill our five basic innate needs of love and
belonging, power, freedom, fun and survival. Each person is born with varying needs.
For instance, one person may possess an innately high need for power and a low need
for love and belonging, whereas another person may possess a low need for power
and a very high need for love and belonging. In essence, each person is born with his
or her own individual needs noted by Glasser.

Glasser (1998), said survival described the desire to work hard, carry on, do
whatever it takes to ensure survival, and go beyond survival to eventually security.
The other aspects of survival-the survival of the species-is based on sexual pleasure
and, from a genetic standpoint, has been highly successful. Based on Glasser’s
opinion, survival consist of desires for food, drink, shelter, comfort, risk-taking,
financial, health, safety, sex and convenienced. A requirement for survival differs
between humans and animals. Humans are constantly aware of his/her desire and will.
Humans can also control desires, whereas animals cannot.

Archer and McCarthy (2007) claimed that love and belonging are felt when
humans belong to social groups, including families, work groups, social clubs,
schools, neighborhoods, and religious organizations. Glasser (1998) states, “Both love
and relationships are two way streets. Accepting love is also an art. To learn to
receive it graciouslyis of great help any relationships” (p.36). In fact most of Glasser’s
clients’ concerns centered around lacks for satisfying relationships (Archer and

166
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

McCarthy 2007). Glasser used the term “disconnected” to refer to such individuals
and believed that in the majority of cases they attempted to meet their needs for
connection by trying to place externals to external controls over other persons.
However, Glasser believed, that such attempts to control another persons only lead to
further disconnection were doomed to fail. According to Wubbolding (2000), need for
belonging occupies a central place in human motivation. In other words, a wide range
of behaviors springs from people’s desire to connect to one another. Also, the
development of healthy human relationships provides the basis for a healthy society.

Power refers to the need for achievement, competence and accomplishment

(Archer and McCarthy 2007). Glasser (1998) wrote that the need for power is unique
to human beings. Other animals attempt to gain dominance over each other to assure
survival and the ability to reproduce, but humans alone seek power even when it is no
longer needed for survival. Instead for human, power as an internal quality points to
our need to feel begin control of our lives. If our lives are overly regulated from the
outside, we begin to rebel through antisocial behaviour, apathy, or other negative
symthoms. However, too much power in one self can be detrimental for everyone. By
finding a power balance between internal and external psychologies, we can gain
personal empowerment that enables us to contribute to society and lead happy,
creative, and productives lives.

The next psychological needs are for detrimental to freedom: to be creative,

not afraid, independent, decisive and autonomous. Glasser (1998, p.40) believes that
the need for freedom is evolution’s attempt to provide the correct balance between
others’ desires and our own need. This balance is best expressed by the golden rule:
do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Whenever we lose freedom, we
may be losing a defining human characteristic: our ability to be contructive and
creative. When we don’t feel free to express ourselves, or if we are ignored, our
creativity may reversely cause us pain or even make us sick by restraining us. The
more we are free and able to satisfy our needs in a way that does not stop another
person from satisfying his or hers -- the golden rule again -- the more we able to use
our creativity not only for our own benefit but for others as well. Creative people who
feel free to create are rarely selfish; they gain much pleasure from sharing their gifts.

Glasser (1998, p. 41) defined fun as a genetic reward for learning. Fun is often
represented by laughter. People who fall in love and learning about one another
themselves laughing almost countinually. Glasser firmly states that, laughing and
learning are foundations of all successful long-term relationships; for instance when a
marriage begins to sour, fun is the first casualty. James & Gilliland (2003) noted that
alongside laughter, play, creativity, the joy of discovery, and the experience of
novelty are rewarding to people. The need for fun is stronger in some individuals than
in others, but we all have the need for relief. Glasser states that fun is the easiest need

167
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

to satisfy, because there are many things we can do for fun, and rarely does anyone
stand in our way.

1.2 Statement of Problem

There are significant differences between Western and Asian cultures, thus valid
measurement tools used in Western countries are not necessarily valid for use in Asian
countries. Therefore, a cross-cultural study of psychological measurement instruments
in the context of two different cultures is indispensable. (Fouad & Bracken 1986).

Cross-cultural issues in testing and evaluation, as suggested by Marsella and

Leong (1995), include difficulty in establishing cross-cultural equivalence, the
differences in responses between varying cultures, and differences in cultural attitudes
toward a testing. To ensure that appropriate measurements instruments are used, the
validity and reliability of the measurements shall be reviewed and determined. It is
mandatory for researchers to study the validity and reliability of an instrument of
cross-cultural angle (Geisinger 1994).

Issues of validity and reliability of measurement instruments arise from the

fact that almost all existing measurement instruments in Malaysia come from a
foreign place with significantly different cultures. This statement, leads into the
question: how then, is a measurement tool for validity and reliability tested? To
formulate an answer, this study was undertaken to assess the validity and reliability of
measuring instruments used in Malaysia.

1.3 Purpose of study

This study aims to measure the coefficient of validity and reliability of the Basic
Needs Questionnaire. Conceptual framework was built on Choice Theory founded by
William Glasser in 1996. Glasser (2001) explained the development of human
personality as an attempt to fullfill the five basics needs of love and belonging, power,
fun, freedom and survival.

1.4 Conceptual Framework

This study began by building items based on five basic needs that are addressed by
Glasser (see Figure 1). Items will be built according to the steps in the Brown Model
(1970). There are eight steps in this model that should be followed to construct a
questionnaire. Such measures include specific purposes, change goals into operational
definitions of the trait, write item, conduct test and item analysis, compose and write
the final form, assess standards, and complete technical analysis. A total of 17 items
were constructed for each sub constructs for a total of 85 items in the measurement.

168
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

Once the items have been completed, researchers will send questionnaires to the five
experts to assess the validity of the instruments. After that, the questionnaire will be
sent to students to assess its reliability. When the questionnaire had high validity and
reliability, then the instruments will be available and valid.

Choice Theory

Basic needs
1) Survival
2) Love & Belonging Brown Model
3) Power (1983)
4) Freedom
5) Fun

Build item

Validity

Realibility

Measurement ready to use

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of study

2. Methodology

The design of the study is descriptive research. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2010) define
descriptive research as the collection an analysis of quantitative data in order to
develop a precise representation of a sample’s behaviour or personal characteristic
with respect to predetermined variables.

2.1 Sampling

169
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

The respondents of this study were divided into two sections:

2.1.1 Expert Panels’

In this study, the researcher was seeking opinions from five expert panel members
relating to the instrument to determine the content validity of each sub-scale essential
in the Choice Theory. Selection is done by expert panels because of their expertise in
Choice Theory and Reality Therapy as well as their expertise in the field of
counselling.

2.1.2 Student’s

The second subject is analyzed to obtain the coefficient of reliability of a sample of

119 students of form four groups (9th grade) from day schools in Perak, Malaysia. In
this study, the researcher has developed a survey questionnaire to examine reliability
of basic needs based on the Choice Theory.

2.2 Research Procedure

Researcher has carried out a test in 3 phases to examine the validity and reliability of
the instrument.

2.2.1 Phase 1:

The first phase is using document analysis with cited an important key words on
related previous literature. To review the literature, the researcher has sought
information from primary materials reading from the writings of Glasser (1985, 1998),
Sapora (2008), Burns (2006) and LaFond (2000). The books referred to include
Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom (1998), Theory of
Counselling and Psychotherapy (2008) and Counselling with choice theory: The new
reality therapy (2001). Studies conducted by Burns et al. (2006) and LaFond (2000)
also referred to by the researcher.

2.2.2 Phase 2:

The second phase study is using quantitative methods. In phase 2, the researcher
intends to assess the content validity of the instrument that was built by five experts.
Content validity of a measurement tool refers to the extent of the survey instrument is
in accordance with the principles of Choice Theory. A measurement device is said to
have high content validity if the measurement device can measure all the content and
content areas investigated effectively (Mohd Majid 2004; Thorndike 1997 &
Tuckman 1975; Wiersma & Jurs 1990). Murphy and Davidshover (1998) state that

170
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

the procedure to predict the content validity of the measurement device consists of
three steps that are describe the contents, determine the contents of which will be
measured by comparing each measurement items, and measurement structure to
structure content.

In this study to obtain the content validity, the formula that is used is the total
score filled by an expert (x) divided by the total overall score (y) and multiplied by
one hundred. A measuring instrument is verified to have high validity when it scored
more than 70 percent (Tuckman & Waheed, 1981).

Total expert score (x)

____________________ X 100 = Content Validity Score
Total score (y)

Figure 2: Content validity formula by Sidek & Jamaludin (2005)

2.2.3 Phase 3:

After getting the validity of the survey instrument of Choice Theory, the researcher
will carry out the reliability of the survey instrument. Researcher will use the test-
retest methods to find the reliability of the capitalize instrument. The researcher
distributed questionnaires to a sample of 119 form four students two times at different
times in two secondary schools in Perak. After getting the coefficient of reliability of
both these tests, researchers once again distribute the questionnaire to Form Four
students in the same two schools. Questionnaires were distributed the third time only
including items with acceptable alpha scores. Acceptable items were a total of
forty-seven questions. Reliability testing took six months to complete.

Valette (1997) states that the value of the coefficient of reliability of the
minimum size that can be adopted is .50. Frankel and Wallen (1997) states that the
acceptable reliability coefficient was .70. Edward and Richard (1979), and Ebel (1972)
noted that the coefficient of reliability of measurement instruments that can be
adopted is .80. Hopkins (1998) noted that the size of the coefficient of reliability
is .90. Othman (2001) noted that the coefficient of reliability that can be adopted is
between .65 to .85, while Syaharom (1990) noted that the coefficient of reliability that
can be adopted is .60 to .85.

In this study researchers have used the view Othman (2001) and Syaharom
(1990) as the cut off point reliability coefficient item.

171
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

3. Results

3.1 Validity

The following table shows the views and comments from the five experts. Overall,
the experts gave a positive outlook in the questionnaire that was built. See Table 1.

Table 1: Improvement of Content Validity Basic Needs Questionnaire

Experts Improvement
Expert 1 All appropriate items, except that I mark *. These items are extreme, or
double-bind (not positive or negative). There may be out-liers in the data
later. This is only a suggestion. May be appropriate if the sample
consists of students with discipline problems.
Items marked * by the panel 1:
Sub-scale Survival
Item 14: I take a drink.
Item 15: I have been having sex.
Belonging sub-scale
Item 2: My parents are divorced.
Sub-scale Freedom
Item 1: Students can set the rules of the school.
Item 2: I can select the tasks to be performed.
Item 6: I can complete freedom from the family.

Expert 2: There are several items I have mentioned to the amendments to suit the
sub-constructs and appropriate to the age of the respondents. On the
whole, item can be used. However, please express that to the item rating
7 and below.
Items that are rating 7 and below:
Sub-scale Survival
Item 4: I work hard to earn my living.
Item 5: I like to hang out with friends of the opposite sex.
Item 7: I want to stay alive.
Belonging sub-scale
Item 3: I live in a happy family.
Item 6: I feel disappointed if they do not get the love of family.
Sub-scale power
Item 15: I feel that I am a competent work.
Sub-scale Freedom
Item 11: I hate to work individually.
Sub-scale Fun
172
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

Item 12: I learned to achieve our ambitions.

Item 13: I will stay in school.
Item 14: I completed all the exercises at home.

Expert 3: On the whole the items are good but there are some terms that can be
improved. A good effort to produce quality instruments to measure
CTRT in Malaysia.

Expert 4: Generally, items can be used to measure constructs and sub-constructs in

Choice Theory.

Expert 5: I suggest not making changes to the questionnaire.

3.2 Reliability

Item analysis was conducted to identify the quality of the items contained in the Basic
Needs Questionnaire. Items of quality are significant items. Significant items are
items that have the alpha of the item deleted less than the standardized item alpha,
whereas insignificant items are the items that have the alpha of the item deleted larger
than the standardized item alpha. Significant items are items that can discriminate
between individuals or groups of individuals responding that have different
backgrounds (Sidek, 2005).

The findings reliability of the first study of the 85 items was found when
standardized item alpha for Basic Needs Questionnaire was an alpha value of .885.
The sub constructs for survival .688, for love and belonging is .526, for power is .828,
for freedom is .552 and for fun is .731. Next, the second study of the findings
reliability of the 85 items was conducted with the standardized item alpha for Basic
Needs Questionnaire set at an alpha value of .899. The sub constructs for survival
is .617, for love and belonging is .482, for power is .806, for freedom is .572 and for
fun is .825. In addition, the findings of the third study of the reliability of the 47 items
were found when standardized item alpha for Basic Needs Questionnaire is an alpha
value (.871). The sub constructs for survival is.780, for love and belonging is .653,
for power is .845, for freedom is .762 and for fun is.793.

There are 38 items (alpha if item deleted) identified that have been removed
because the item is seen to be insignificant and low in quality. These items are item
numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 35, 41, 48, 52, 57, 58,
60, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 84 and 85. The 47 items that were
not removed were reviewed once again to form four students in the same two schools.

173
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

These items number are 3, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65,
72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 82 and 83 (see Table 2). The result shows that the standardized
item alpha for 47 items with Cronbach Alpha is .871.
Table 2: Quality items in Basics Needs Qustionnaire

Item Cronbach’s Basic Needs

Alpha
3. I have enough facilities at school .735 Survival
9. I feel comfortable at school .707 Survival
16. This school is clean and neat .709 Survival
17. This school is clean and neat .753 Survival
20. I live in a happy family .625 Love & Belonging
21. Teachers care about me .648 Love & Belonging
22. I have many friends .578 Love & Belonging
24. I never get enough love .648 Love & Belonging
25. Friendship is vital for me .631 Love & Belonging
27. I appreciate all my friends. .624 Love & Belonging
28. I have close relationships with all my
friends. .593 Love & Belonging
29. I feel myself highly regarded by other
students. .647 Love & Belonging
30. All teachers in this school know me. .635 Love & Belonging
31. Sense of belonging is vital for me .615 Love & Belonging
32. Maintaining friendships in life is
something that is easy for me. .616 Love & Belonging
33. I really love the members of my family .638 Love & Belonging
34. I have close relationship members with
my family .610 Love & Belonging
36. I am very important in school .839 Power
37. I like to be a leader .833 Power
38. I love to give instructions to other students .833 Power
39. I work hard to succeed .836 Power
40. I always want to win .827 Power
42. Teachers have high expectations of me .839 Power
43. I am able to put forward my ideas in class .844 Power
44. I love getting involve in all competitions .829 Power
45. Victory is very important to me .825 Power
46. I always want my decision is accepted .837 Power
47. I have high ambitions .830 Power
49. I feel myself an efficient worker .826 Power
50. All people must respect me .833 Power
174
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

51. My view is always correct .836 Power

53. I can choose the tasks to be performed .737 Freedom
54. I can choose my own team members .744 Freedom
55. I learn something of my interest in school .749 Freedom
56. I can choose my own way to do my work .747 Freedom
59. I like to share my creativity with others .753 Freedom
61. I like to express my idea freely .725 Freedom
63. I am striving to live independently .739 Freedom
64. I should be free to make choices .741 Freedom
65. My desire to be free is very high .725 Freedom
72. I enjoy myself while learning in the .788 Fun
classroom
73. I can carry out any activities that I like .768 Fun
75. I am interested in all things .749 Fun
78. My interest to learn is growing .751 Fun
80. I am learning to achieve my goal .777 Fun
82. I completed all my homework at home .768 Fun
83. I have my particular ambition .765 Fun

A Basic Needs Questionnaire consisting of 85 items and 5 subscales was used to

measure an individual's basic needs. The results were obtained through the analysis of
items and reliability using Cronbach Alpha. The results showed 47 items of quality
and significance. Validity of the five panels shows a score of 91 percent and the
reliability showed an alpha stadardized item of .871. Based on these findings the
Basic Needs Questionnaire had high validity and reliability.

4. Discussion

This study helped many individuals to detect the basic needs of the individual.
Mishler & Cherry (1999) in Burns et al. (2006) have explained that Choice Theory
can be used to help individuals find the basic needs that have not been found. In
addition, counsellors can also use this study as a tool to determine a client’s needs
before a running a session. In addition, counsellors can focus on key client issues
during the counselling session. Thus, a total of 47 valid items in this study can be used
to help each individual detect their basic needs, especially school counsellors for their
clients.

4.1 The validity coefficient values Basic Needs Questionnaire

The Basic Needs Questionnaire showed a high validity rate of 91 percent. It meets the
Tuckman & Waheed (1981) standard, which states that a measuring instrument is

175
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

verified to have high validity when it scores 70 percent and above. The five experts
gave high scores to the five basic needs resulting in average scores between 8 and 10.
This clearly shows that the experts agree with the items that were created. This can be
proved by observations or comments from experts. Experts have confirmed that the
items built accurately measure the constructs and sub-constructs in the theory of
choice. Experts also commented that the overall sub-constructs item is good and
praise researchers who have attempted to produce a good quality instrument for
measuring instrument oriented Choice Theory and Reality Therapy in Malaysia.

The findings of this study have high validity in accordance with the study by
Burns et al. (2006). There are several items designed by the researcher in conjunction
with the study by Burns et al. (2006). However, experts also give suggestions for
changes to some of the items in the five basic needs. Overall, experts have agreed that
the Basic Needs Questionnaire has an appropriate validity coefficient.

4.2 The Coefficient Value Reliability Basic Needs Questionnaire

Findings indicate that the Basic Needs Questionnaire has standardized item alpha for
47 items. Those items had .871 and .878 alpha value. This finding shows that only 47
of an item is really fine and significant.

Therefore, the high alpha in this study proves that 47 items in the Basic Needs
Questionnaire are acceptable and reliable for use in the context of Malaysia. These
items meet the views of Mohd Majid (2004) who stated that the reliability coefficients
greater than .60 can be used and accepted.

However, these findings contrary to the findings Lafond (2000) show that the
results are of low correlation. These findings together with the findings of Burns et al.
(2006), measure the five basic needs in Choice Theory. The questionnaire was used in
the study and the students were taken as respondents. The test-retest method was also
used in the study. The results showed high reliability coefficient value.

These findings coincide with the findings of researcher Ahmad Jazimin (2008)
who analyzed the validity and reliability of the Questionnaire Counsellor Profile
Reality Therapy. The results show the items in the questionnaire with the coefficient
of reliability are very high.

These findings coincide with done by studies Pei Pei Cheng and Eng (2009),
and Sidek & Wan Marzuki (2007), both sets of researchers who used a questionnaire
to measure the coefficient of reliability. These studies also take students as
respondents. Sidek & Wan Marzuki’s study aims to identify the validity and

176
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

reliability of Inventory Valuation Counsellors of Supervisors. The results showed

high reliability similar to that found by this researcher.

The findings of researchers in conjunction with Lee Lay Wah et al. (2008)
study that conducted two tests involving the construction process test and found the
validity and reliability tests. Both tests are reviewed with the student to assess his
credibility. The results shows are high quality and can be used to identify problem
students.
In conclusion, the coefficient of reliability of a measuring instrument should
be sought to ensure consistency in the measurement device. Accordingly, Abu Bakar
Nordin (1987), Mohd. Majid (2004), Sidek (2007) and Othman (2000) states that a
measurement tool is considered strong and steady when there is evidence of its
reliability.

4.3 Research implication

This instrument helps counsellors to detect the basic needs of individuals, especially
in counselling sessions. Counsellors can distribute a questionnaire related to the basic
needs of these measurement tools to understand and explore the client’s problems
before the counselling session. At the same time, the person who uses this
questionnaire receives benefits. In the context of education, there are various ways to
detect human problems. The need for psychological testing tools is very necessary to
detect individual psychology, particularly of fundemental human needs. The Basic
Needs Questionnaire can be used to analyze physiological and psychological needs
based on Choice Theory.

4.4 Recommendations

Based on the findings obtained from this instrument, some specific recommendations
are suggested to future creators of this instrument. Futher studies seek to improve the
weak items in the basic measuring tools so that all items reach high validity and
reliability. Researchers are advised to use other methods such as methods for testing
the reliability using two different basic measuring tools to see whether these findings
are consistent. This method is not only convenient, but also cheaper, faster and more
practical (Sidek, 2005).

In addition, practitioners of psychology and counselling are recommended to

review the instrument from overseas to evaluate the appropriateness of its use in
Malaysia. Practitioners of psychology and counselling are also recommended to
develop an instrument that will benefit the human development in Malaysia.

Practitioners of psychology and counselling in schools in particular can use

177
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

the instrument of basic needs to see the needs of students so that communication can
be improved, thereby reducing the problems that occur in school or outside school.
Finally, future research is recommended to focus on the validity of this instrument
by using a larger sample to measure validity and reliability of these basic needs to
improve adoption in Malaysia.

5. Conclusion

Overall, this study has discussed the instrument of basic needs and has determined the
validity and reliability of this instrument. The findings also show that this test
instrument suitable for use in the context of Malaysia as this survey instrument has
good validity and reliability.

References

Abu Bakar Nordin (1987). Basic Evaluation in Education. Petaling Jaya: Longman.
Ahmad Jazimin Jusoh. (2008). The pattern of application of Reality Therapy among
counsellors in Malaysia. PhD Thesis Unpublished: Universiti of Kebangsaan
Malaysia.
Archer, J. & McCarthy (2007). Theories of counselling and psychotherapy
contemporary applications. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Brown, F.G. (1970). Principles of Educational and Psychological Testing. Amerika
Syarikat, The Dryden Press Inc.
Burns, M.K., Vance, D., Szadokierski, I. & Stockwell, C. (2006). Students Needs
Survey: A Psychometrically Sound Measure of the five basic needs.
International Journal of Reality Therapy. Vol. XXV, num 2.
Ebel, R.L. (1972). Essential of educational measurement. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Edward, G. C., & Richard, A. Z. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. United
States of America: Sage Publication, Inc.
Fouad, N. A., & Bracken, B.A. (1986). Cross-cultural Translation and Validation of
Two US Psychoeducational Assessment instruments. School Psychology
International.
Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen, N.E (1997). How To Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. [Link]. New York: Mc. Graw. Hill, Inc.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2010). Applying Educational Research. USA:
Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural Normative Assessment: Translation and
Adaptation Issues Imfluencing The Normative Interpretation of Assessment
Instruments. Psychologycal Assessment.
Glasser, W. (1985). Control Theory. New York: HarperCollins,
Glasser, W. (1998) Choice Theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York:

178
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

HarperCollins.
Glasser, W. 2001. Counselling with choice theory : The new reality therapy. New
York: HarperCollins.
Hopkins, K.D. 1998. Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Ed.
ke-8. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
James, R.K. & Gilliland, B.E. (2003). Theories and strategies in counselling and
psychotherapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
LaFond, B. A. G. (2000). Glasser’s Reality Therapy approach to relationships:
Validation of a Choice Theory Basic Needs Scale (Doctoral Dissertation, St.
Mary’s University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences & Engineering, 60, 3615.
Lee Lay Wah, Manisah Mohd. Ali and Noraini Salleh (2008). Pembinaan dan
Pengesahan Ujian Membaca Perkataan dan Ujian Mengeja untuk Tujuan
Mengenal Pasti Disleksia: satu kajian rintis. Jurnal Pendidikan dan
Pendidikan, Jil. 23, 151-162.
Marsella, A.J., & Leong, F.T.L. (1995). Cross-cultural Issues in Personality and
Career Assessment. Journal of career assessment.
Mohd Majid Konting (2004). Research Method in Education 7th. Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Murphy, K. R & Davidshover, C.O. (1998). Psychological Testing. Principle and
Application. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Othman Mohamed (2000). Principles of Psychotherapy and Counselling in
management. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Othman Mohamed (2001). Thesis Writing in the Field of Applied Social Sciences.
Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Pei Cheng & Pei Eng (2009). Determination of Validity and Reliability Measurement
Metacognitive With Rasch Model Analysis. Pulau Pinang: Universiti Teknologi
MARA.
Sapora Sipon (2008). Counselling Theories and Psychoterapies. Negeri Sembilan
Darul Khusus: Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.
Sidek Mohd Noah dan Jamaludin Ahmad (2005). Construction Module: How to Build
Module Training and Academic Module. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Sidek Mohd Noah dan Wan Marzuki Wan Jaafar (2007). Validity and Reliability
Analysis of Inventory Valuation Counsellors of Supervisors (IPKtP). Jurnal
PERKAMA, 13:1-13.
Sidek Mohd Noah (2005). Testing and Evaluation Counselling Theory and
Applications. Serdang: Ampang Press Sdn. Bhd.
Sidek Mohd Noah (2005). Research design: Philosophy, Theory and Practice.
Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Sidek Mohd Noah (2007). Validity and Reliability Tool Size Vocational Preference
Inventory by John L. Holland. Jurnal PERKAMA, 13:59-73.
Sunday Star (2010, Januari 3). Students caught abusing drugs., 16.

179
 International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015
(ISSN: 2308-1365) [Link]

Syaharom Abdullah (1990). Practical Guide To Educational Research. Kuala Lumpur:

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Edisi Terjemahan.
Thorndike, R. M. (1997). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education.
(ed. Ke-6). New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
Tuckman, B.W. (1975). Measuring Educational Outcomes: Fundamentals of Testing.
New York, Harcout Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Tuckman, B.W., Waheed, MA. (1981). Evaluating an Individualized Science
Programme for Community College Students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. 18, 489-495.
Vallette, R.M. 1997. Modern Language Testing: A Hand Book. Ed. ke-2. New York:
Harcourt Brace Javanovich.
Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S.G. (1990). Educational Measurement and Testing. (Ed. ke-2).
United States of America, Allyn and Bacon.
Wubbolding, R.E. (2000). Reality Therapy for the 21st century. New York:
HarperCollins.

180

View publication stats