In the realm of academic pursuit, the quest for effective learning strategies is perpetual. Among the evolving methodologies, study crafting emerges as a novel paradigm, adapted from the concept of job crafting in occupational health psychology (Tims et al., 2010). Defined as the proactive adaptation of study by students to optimize learning experiences, study crafting represents a transformative departure from conventional strategies centered on reactive adjustments to external demands (Körner et al., 2021). By empowering learners to curate their educational journey, study crafting imbues a sense of ownership, fostering personalized and engaging learning trajectories.

The significance of this proactive approach reverberates profoundly in academic circles, with implications spanning beyond mere scholastic achievements. Extant literature underscores its role in cultivating deeper comprehension, enhancing motivation, and fortifying resilience amidst academic challenges and adversities (Körner et al., 2023; Körner et al., 2021; Mülder et al., 2022). However, despite its potential, the conceptualization and empirical investigation of study crafting remain in nascent stages, warranting a comprehensive framework to elucidate its underpinnings.

In this context, the Integrative Needs Model of Crafting (de Bloom et al., 2020) was recently proposed as a theoretical framework that integrates crafting research. Rooted in the understanding that psychological needs play a pivotal role in the crafting process, this model provides a comprehensive lens through which to explore why and how individuals engage in crafting across various life domains. While extensively applied in occupational health research, the integration of this model into educational discourse remains conspicuously absent. Notably, the prevailing study crafting model (Körner et al., 2021) adopts a demands-resources-based approach, departing from the needs-centric perspective espoused by the Integrative Needs Model of Crafting.

Bridging this gap, the aim of this study is to extend the Integrative Needs Model of Crafting to the student context and develop an instrument to assess students’ needs-based study crafting, which we refer to students’ proactive and self-initiated changes in their study in order to achieve psychological needs satisfaction.

A new scale to assess six dimensions of needs-based study crafting (i.e., crafting for detachment from study, relaxation, autonomy, mastery, meaning, and affiliation) were created, referring to the Needs-Based Job Crafting Scale (Tušl et al., 2024). To rigorously evaluate the psychometric properties of this instrument, we conducted a pilot study among university students. Drawing participants from a local university in Japan, we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The survey booklet administered during class sessions included the Needs-Based Study Crafting Scale, alongside established measures assessing JD-R-based study crafting, proactive personality, DRAMMA needs satisfaction, study engagement, subjective vitality, and school life satisfaction. The Needs-Based Study Crafting Scale were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). JD-R-based study crafting was measured using an instrument used in Mülder et al. (2022). The items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (totally true). Proactive personality was assessed using four items from the Proactive Personality Scale (Bateman & Crant, 1993). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). DRAMMA needs satisfaction was assessed using the Recovery Experience Questionnaire for detachment and relaxation (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale for autonomy, mastery, and affiliation (Chen et al., 2015), and the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006) for meaning. All items were scored on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Not agree at all) to 5 (Fully agree). Study engagement was assessed using the 9-item version of the Work Engagement Scale for Students (Tayama et al., 2019). The items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Subjective vitality was assessed using the Subjective Vitality Scale (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or all the time). Finally, school life satisfaction was measured using a single item adapted from Van den Broeck et al. (2010): “How satisfied have you been with your school life over the past month?”. This item was scored on a scale, ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied).

The data showed high internal consistency of the scale (α = .96 for the global scale; α = .95 for crafting for detachment from study, α = .97 for crafting for relaxation, α = .86 for crafting for autonomy, α = .91 for crafting for mastery, α = .91 for crafting for meaning, and α = .94 for crafting for affiliation). The results of CFA confirmed the proposed six-factor structure of the scale. Correlation analysis revealed that the scale is meaningfully associated with theoretically relevant constructs, including the JD-R-based study crafting, proactive personality, study engagement, vitality, and school life satisfaction. Furthermore, the scale showed incremental validity in explaining variance in DRAMMA needs fulfillment, study engagement, vitality, and school life satisfaction over and above needs-based off-job crafting. Collectively, the results presented herein suggest the scientific utility of the developed scale, thereby advocating for its continued exploration and utilization in practical contexts. Its completion will enable researchers to reasonably evaluate students’ needs-based study crafting and encourage new research efforts to gain novel insight into the construct.

de Bloom, J., Vaziri, H., Tay, L., & Kujanpää, M. (2020). An identity-based integrative needs model of crafting: Crafting within and across life domains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1423–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000495 Körner, L. S., Mülder, L. M., Bruno, L., Janneck, M., Dettmers, J., & Rigotti, T. (2022). Fostering study crafting to increase engagement and reduce exhaustion among higher education students: A randomized controlled trial of the study coach online intervention. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12410 Körner, L. S., Rigotti, T., & Rieder, K. (2021). Study crafting and self-undermining in higher education students: A weekly diary study on the antecedents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 7090. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137090 Mülder, L. M., Schimek, S., Werner, A. M., Reichel, J. L., Heller, S., Tibubos, A. N., Schäfer, M., Dietz, P., Letzel, S., Beutel, M. E., Stark, B., Simon, P., & Rigotti, T. (2022). Distinct patterns of university students study crafting and the relationships to exhaustion, well-being, and engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:895930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895930 Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), a841. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841 Tušl, M., Bauer, G. F., Kujanpää, M., Toyama, H., Shimazu, A., & de Bloom, J. (in press). Needs-based job crafting: Validation of a new scale based on psychological needs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.