Diagnostics of personal agency: Theoretical model and psychometric validation of a new instrument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33910/2686-9527-2026-8-3-419-431Keywords:
agency, questionnaire, meaning of life, autonomy, self-confidence, social openness, internal responsibility, agency profilesAbstract
Introduction. The problem of personal agency is fundamental to psychological science and holds crucial implications for educational practice and psychological counseling in today’s uncertain environment. Despite the rich tradition of studying the ‘agent’ in Russian psychology (S. Rubinstein, A. Brushlinsky, K. Abulkhanova, et al.) and the active development of the agency concept in international research, there remains a shortage of valid instruments that integrate these approaches and assess agency as a structurally organized quality. The objective of the present study is to develop and psychometrically validate a diagnostic toolkit for personal agency (ODS-5, Questionnaire for the Diagnosis of Agency) based on a theoretical five-factor model, and to empirically substantiate a typology of agency profiles.
Materials and Methods. The study comprised an expert review stage, a pilot study (N = 52), and a main psychometric study conducted on a sample of adult respondents aged 18–25 (N = 298, 65.4% female). Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability analysis (Cronbach’s α, Gutmann’s λ₆), Pearson’s correlation, k-means cluster analysis, and MANOVA. Convergent validity was tested using the General Self-Efficacy Scale and the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale.
Results. The five-factor structure of the questionnaire (meaning of life, autonomy, self-confidence, social openness, internal responsibility) was confirmed: χ²/df = 2.26; CFI = 0.905; RMSEA = 0.065. Four scales demonstrated good reliability (α from 0.75 to 0.85), while the ‘social openness’ scale showed satisfactory reliability (α = 0.64). Test-retest reliability after four weeks (n = 57) ranged from r = 0.68 to 0.81 (p < 0.001). Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations with self-efficacy (up to r = 0.68) and need satisfaction (up to r = 0.75). Cluster analysis revealed four distinct agency profiles: harmonious (35.4% of the sample), moderate (28.6%), deficient (19.5%), and disharmonious (16.5%).
Conclusion. The ODS-5 questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument meeting psychometric standards. It integrates the Russian tradition of understanding the ‘agent’ with contemporary research on agency. The identified agency profiles hold practical significance for educational practice and psychological counseling.
References
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
Абульханова, К. А., Брушлинский, А. В. (1989) Философско-психологическая концепция С. Л. Рубинштейна: к 100-летию со дня рождения. М.: Наука, 248 с.
Божович, Л. И. (1968) Личность и ее формирование в детском возрасте. Психологическое исследование. М.: Просвещение, 464 с.
Волкова, Е. Н. (1998) Субъектность педагога: теория и практика. Диссертация на соискание степени доктора психологических наук. М., Психологический институт РАО, 308 с.
Волкова, Е. Н. (2026) Методическое руководство к опроснику диагностики субъектности личности. СПб.: Издательско-полиграфическая ассоциация высших учебных заведений, 44 с.
Дворецкая, М. Я., Коржова, Е. Ю. (2005) Психологическая диагностика здоровья личности: субъектные и духовные аспекты. Журнал прикладной психологии, № 6, с. 11–28. EDN: YJYJCV
Знаков, В. В. (2016) Психология понимания мира человека. М.: Изд-во Института психологии РАН, 488 с.
Коржова, Е. Ю. (2006) Психология жизненных ориентаций человека. СПб.: Изд-во Русской христианской гуманитарной академии, 383 с.
Коржова, Е. Ю. (ред.). (2016) Интегративная психология жизненного пути личности. СПб.: Стикс, 230 с.
Левитова, Д. Ю., Савенышева, С. С. (2022) Субъектность в младшем школьном и младшем подростковом возрасте: анализ уровневых и структурных характеристик. Мир науки. Педагогика и психология, т. 10, № 3. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/30PSMN322.pdf (дата обращения 13.12.2025).
Леонтьев, Д. А. (2010) Что дает психологии понятие субъекта: субъектность как измерение личности. Эпистемология и философия науки, т. 25, № 3, с. 135–153. EDN: NCJXAR
Панов, В. И., Капцов, А. В. (2021) Структура стадий становления субъектности обучающихся: связность, целостность, формализация. Психологическая наука и образование, т. 26, № 4, с. 91–103. https://www.doi.org/10.17759/pse.2021260408
Панов, В. И., Капцов, А. В., Колесникова, Е. И. (2017) Методика оценки стадий становления субъектности участников образовательного процесса. В кн.: Эффективность личности, группы, организации. Материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции. М.: КРЕДО, с. 294–297.
Петровский, В. А. (1996) Личность в психологии: парадигма субъектности. Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс, 509 с.
Сергиенко, Е. А. (2024) Субъектно-бытийный подход к личности в системе координат современных научных подходов. Южно-российский журнал социальных наук, т. 25, № 2, с. 46–62. https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-25-2-46-62
Чернышева, А. А., Беспалова, Т. М. (2025) О субъектности личности в современном цифровом мире. Вестник Тверского государственного университета. Серия: Педагогика и психология, № 3, с. 44–53. https://doi.org/10.26456/vtpsyped/2025.3.044
Шварцер, Р., Ерусалем, М., Ромек, В. (1996) Русская версия шкалы общей самоэффективности Р. Шварцера и М. Ерусалема. Иностранная психология, № 7, с. 71–76.
Щукина, М. А. (2005) Опросник «Уровень развития субъектности личности (УРСЛ)». Руководство по применению. Тюмень: Изд-во ТюмГУ, 35 с.
Щукина, М. А. (2015) Психология саморазвития личности. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ, 346 с.
Bandura, A. (2008) An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In: S. J. Lopez (ed.). Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people. Vol. I. Discovering human strengths. Westport: Greenwood Publ., pp. 167–196.
Barlas, Z. (2019) When robots tell you what to do: Sense of agency in human- and robot-guided actions. Consciousness and Cognition, vol. 75, article 102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102819
Bolt, N. K., Loehr, J. D. (2017) The predictability of a partner’s actions modulates the sense of joint agency. Cognition, vol. 161, pp. 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.004
Carstensen, M. W., Jacquet, P., Cohen, D. et al. (2025) Do locus of control and big five personality traits account for individual differences in social influence on agency judgments? Journal of Personality, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13030
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W. et al. (2014) Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, vol. 39, pp. 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1
Cordeiro, P., Paixão, M. P., Lens, W. et al. (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, vol. 47, pp. 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.010
Costa, S., Ntoumanis, N., Bartholomew, K. J. (2015) Predicting the brighter and darker sides of interpersonal relationships: Does psychological need thwarting matter? Motivation and Emotion, vol. 39, pp. 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9427-0
de Charms, R. (1968) Personal causation. The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York; London: Academic Press, 424 p.
Deci, E. L. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press, 345 p.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Nishimura, T., Suzuki, T. (2016) Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration in Japan: Controlling for the big five personality traits. Japanese Psychological Research, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12131
Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publ., 728 p.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., Viechtbauer, W. (2006) Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Ryan, R. M., Vansteenkiste, M. (2020) Manual of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS). Gent: Ghent University Publ. [Online]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346791370_Manual_of_the_Basic_Psychological_Need_Satisfaction_and_Frustration_Scale_BPNSFS (accessed 10.03.2026).
REFERENCES
Abulkhanova, K. A., Brushlinsky, A. V. (1989) Philosophical and psychological concept of S. L. Rubinstein: On the 100th anniversary of his birth. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 248 p. (In Russian)
Bandura, A. (2008) An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In: S. J. Lopez (ed.). Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people. Vol. I. Discovering human strengths. Westport: Greenwood Publ., pp. 167–196. (In English)
Barlas, Z. (2019) When robots tell you what to do: Sense of agency in human- and robot-guided actions. Consciousness and Cognition, vol. 75, article 102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102819 (In English)
Bolt, N. K., Loehr, J. D. (2017) The predictability of a partner’s actions modulates the sense of joint agency. Cognition, vol. 161, pp. 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.004 (In English)
Bozhovich, L. I. (1968) Personality and its formation in childhood. Psychological research. Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publ., 464 p. (In Russian)
Carstensen, M. W., Jacquet, P., Cohen, D. et al. (2025) Do locus of control and big five personality traits account for individual differences in social influence on agency judgments? Journal of Personality, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13030 (In English)
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W. et al. (2014) Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, vol. 39, pp. 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1 (In English)
Chernysheva, A. A., Bespalova, T. M. (2025) On the personality subjectivity in the modern digital world. Vestnik Tver State University. Series: Pedagogy and Psychology, no. 3, pp. 44–53. (In Russian)
Cordeiro, P., Paixão, M. P., Lens, W. et al. (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, vol. 47, pp. 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.010 (In English)
Costa, S., Ntoumanis, N., Bartholomew, K. J. (2015) Predicting the brighter and darker sides of interpersonal relationships: Does psychological need thwarting matter? Motivation and Emotion, vol. 39, pp. 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9427-0 (In English)
de Charms, R. (1968) Personal causation. The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York; London: Academic Press, 424 p. (In English)
Deci, E. L. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press, 345 p. (In English)
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 (In English)
Dvoretskaya, M. Ya., Korzhova, E. Yu. (2005) Psychological diagnostics of personal health: Subjective and spiritual aspects. Journal of Applied Psychology, no. 6, pp. 11–28. (In Russian)
Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 (In English)
Korjova, E. Yu. (2006) Psychology of human life orientations. Saint Petersburg: Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy Publ., 383 p. (In Russian)
Korjova, E. Yu. (ed.). (2016) Integrative psychology of a person’s life path. Saint Petersburg: Stiks Publ., 230 p. (In Russian)
Levitova, D. Yu., Savenysheva, S. S. (2022) Subjectness in primary school and young adolescence: Analysis of level and structural characteristics. World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3. [Online]. Available at: https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/30PSMN322.pdf (accessed 13.12.2025). (In Russian)
Leontiev, D. A. (2010) What gives psychology the concept of a subject: subjectivity as a dimension of personality. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 135–153. (In Russian)
Nishimura, T., Suzuki, T. (2016) Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration in Japan: Controlling for the big five personality traits. Japanese Psychological Research, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12131 (In English)
Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publ., 728 p. (In English)
Panov, V. I., Kaptsov, A. V. (2021) Structure of agency formation stages in students: Consistency, integrity, formalization. Psychological Science and Education, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 91–103. https://www.doi.org/10.17759/pse.2021260408 (In Russian)
Panov, V. I., Kaptsov, A. V., Kolesnikova, E. I. (2017) Methodology for assessing the stages of formation of subjectivity of participants in the educational process. In: Effectiveness of personality, group, organization. Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference. Moscow: CREDO Publ., pp. 294–297. (In Russian)
Petrovsky, V. A. (1996) Personality in psychology: A paradigm of subjectivity. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix Publ., 509 p. (In Russian)
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., Viechtbauer, W. (2006) Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 (In English)
Schwarzer, R., Yerusalem, M., Romek, V. (1996) The Russian version of the scale of general self-efficacy by R. Schwarzer and M. Yerusalem. Foreign Psychology, no. 7, pp. 71–76. (In Russian)
Sergienko, E. A. (2024) Subjective- existential approach to personality within the system of coordinates of modern scientific approaches. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 46–62. https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-25-2-46-62 (In Russian)
Shchukina, M. A. (2005) Questionnaire “The level of development of personality subjectivity (URSL)”. Application guide. Tyumen: Tyumen State University Publ., 35 p. (In Russian)
Shchukina, M. A. (2015) Psychology of personality self-development. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University Publ., 346 p. (In Russian)
Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Ryan, R. M., Vansteenkiste, M. (2020) Manual of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS). Gent: Ghent University Publ. [Online]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346791370_Manual_of_the_Basic_Psychological_Need_Satisfaction_and_Frustration_Scale_BPNSFS (accessed 10.03.2026). (In English)
Volkova, E. N. (1998) Teacher subjectivity: theory and practice. PhD dissertation (Psychology). Moscow, Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 308 p. (In Russian)
Volkova, E. N. (2026) Methodological guide to the questionnaire for the diagnosis of personality subjectivity. Saint Petersburg: “Publishing and Printing Association of Higher Educational Institutions” Publ., 44 p. (In Russian)
Znakov, V. V. (2016) Psychology of understanding the human world. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ., 488 p. (In Russian)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Elena N. Volkova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The work is provided under the terms of the Public Offer and of Creative Commons public license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
This license permits an unlimited number of users to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use.
This license retains copyright for the authors but allows others to freely distribute, use, and adapt the work, on the mandatory condition that appropriate credit is given. Users must provide a correct link to the original publication in our journal, cite the authors' names, and indicate if any changes were made.
Copyright remains with the authors. The CC BY 4.0 license does not transfer rights to third parties but rather grants users prior permission for use, provided the attribution condition is met. Any use of the work will be governed by the terms of this license.
