Introduction:

Contemporary society is increasingly shaped by digital technologies (OECD, 2024; World Economic Forum, 2025), driving a sustained demand for qualified STEM professionals, as evidenced by labor market indicators across numerous countries (Jones et al., 2017; National Science Board, 2024). However, despite this demand, many countries are reporting declining student interest and retention in STEM fields (National Science Board, 2024; Truchly et al., 2019; World Economic Forum, 2025). Bridging this gap requires not only expanding STEM training capacity but also fostering student engagement and motivation within these pathways.

In Belgium, the VUB STEAM Academy, led by Vrije Universiteit Brussel, is developing two educational centers, one in Gooik and the other in Halle, both dedicated to STEM. The Academy offers camps, workshops and clubs for young people and their communities, with an emphasis on 21^st century skills, sustainability, accessible hands-on making and technology experiences. As part of its mission, the Academy aims to establish a baseline profile of students’ STEM interest, identity, motivation and satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence) in the Pajottenland and Zennevallei regions, given the documented role of these factors in shaping STEM trajectories and career intentions (e.g., Chiu, 2021; De Loof et al., 2022; Keith, 2018; Kim et al., 2018; Nadelson & Seifert, 2017; Pinxten et al., 2019; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). This baseline will identify youth subgroups requiring targeted interventions and enable rigorous evaluation of the impact of forthcoming Academy projects on participants’ STEM interest, identity, motivation and career intentions.

To conduct this mapping, as well as future impact evaluations, there is a need for a validated, integrated Dutch-language instrument that assesses STEM interest, motivation, identity and need-support (autonomy, relatedness, competence). Existing Dutch measures capture only parts of this construct space. For example, the Dutch version of the Science Motivation Questionnaire II focuses on science motivation rather than the broader STEM construct and is typically used as a subject-specific instrument (Glynn et al., 2011). For STEM interest, a Dutch adaptation of the STEM-LIT instrument exists, but it targets younger learners (Grimmon et al., 2020). Moreover, there are currently no Dutch instruments for assessing students’ STEM identities or their experiences of basic psychological need-support in STEM activities. Although international instruments are available (e.g., Chiu, 2021; Cohen et al., 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Stets et al., 2017; Tyler-Wood et al., 2010), much of their validation has been conducted in United States, raising cross-cultural and linguistic concerns for Flanders (Belgium) (Maric et al., 2023). In this context, the lack of a validated, integrated tool hampers intervention evaluation, the identification of subgroups needing tailored support and the monitoring of trends in STEM engagement.

Objectives: 

The present validation study aims to develop and psychometrically validate such an instrument, enabling multilevel analyses and testing measurement invariance across gender, socioeconomic status and migration background. In doing so, it addresses a gap identified by Moote et al. (2020), namely, the limited insight into why some groups remain excluded from STEM while others participate successfully.

This validation study focused on students in the final years of Flemish secondary education, a critical stage for the development of STEM studies and career preferences (Rosenzweig & Chen, 2023). The sample comprised 317 students from two schools. The mean age was 16.9 years (range 15-19); 46.4% identified as male and 53.6% as female; 59.9% were in year 5 and 40.1% were in year 6. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Human Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (approval code: ECHW_586). The survey consisted of four scales assessing STEM interest, STEM identity, STEM motivation and perceived teacher support for basic psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence). STEM interest (Tyler-Wood et al., 2010), STEM identity (Cohen et al., 2021) and basic need satisfaction (Chen et al., 2015) were translated from English to Dutch via a forward backward procedure by two independent language specialists; discrepancies were reconciled to ensure semantic and conceptual equivalence. STEM motivation was adapted from the Academic Self-Regulation Scale (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) to a STEM specific context, retaining four subdimensions: intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation and external regulation. All the items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The construct validity was examined via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in R (lavaan), given the a priori factor structures established in prior research. Models were estimated with full information maximum likelihood (FIML) and evaluated via multiple fit indices: χ², RMSEA, CFI, TLI and SRMR. Considering χ²’s sensitivity at larger samples (n > 250), model adequacy was primarily judged by commonly used thresholds (RMSEA ≤ .05; CFI/TLI ≥ .90; SRMR ≤ .08). Following selection of the best-fitting model, internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s α, with α ≥ .70 considered acceptable. This approach enables a rigorous test of the proposed multidimensional structure and the reliability of the Dutch-language scales in the context of Flemish upper-secondary STEM education.

Results: This study examined the psychometric properties of a Dutch survey designed to assess STEM related constructs, including interest, identity, motivational regulation and perceived teacher need support. The hierarchical model provided the best representation of the data with good fit (χ² = 1170.01, df = 571, χ²/df = 2.05, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .060) and satisfactory reliability (α = .84-.95; ω = .83-.95). This model comprises nine first-order latent variables (STEM interest, STEM identity, intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, autonomy support, relatedness support and competence support) organized under three second-order factors (STEM, motivation and basic psychological need support by mathematics teacher). In line with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020), the motivation factor was further differentiated into autonomous motivation (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation) and controlled motivation (introjected and external regulation). The convergent and discriminant validity were then evaluated. All first-order constructs demonstrated adequate convergent validity, with average variance extracted values ranging from .59 to .82 and composite reliabilities between .84 and .95, exceeding commonly recommended thresholds (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). The evidence for discriminant validity was more mixed: while most constructs met the Fornell-Larcker criterion, two notable exceptions emerged. Intrinsic motivation and identified regulation were highly correlated (r = .87) and the three basic psychological need dimensions (autonomy, relatedness, competence) showed strong intercorrelations (r = .81-.90). These overlaps are theoretically plausible: intrinsic and identified regulation are adjacent forms of internalization within self-determination theory, and the basic psychological needs frequently co-occur in practice (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020).

Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1 Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909 Cohen, S. M., Hazari, Z., Mahadeo, J., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2021). Examining the effect of early STEM experiences as a form of STEM capital and identity capital on STEM identity: A gender study. Science Education, 105(6), 1126-1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21670 De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2022). Engaging Students with Integrated STEM Education: A Happy Marriage or a Failed Engagement? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(7), 1291-1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10159-0 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Maric, D., Fore, G. A., Nyarko, S. C., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2023). Measurement in STEM education research: A systematic literature review of trends in the psychometric evidence of scales. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00430-x National Science Board. (2024). The Skilled Technical Workforce: Crafting America’s Science & Engineering Enterprise (p. 2). National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2024/STW-1-pager-2024.pdf Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd edition). McGraw-Hill. OECD. (2024). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 2): Strengthening Connectivity, Innovation and Trust. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3adf705b-en Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for Assessing Interest in STEM Content and Careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational Profiles From a Self-Determination Perspective: The Quality of Motivation Matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083 World Economic Forum. (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025 (p. 290). World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/digest/