Objectives
The Mental Health Continuum‐Short Form (MHC‐SF), measuring emotional, social, and psychological well‐being, has scarcely been validated in clinical populations. We evaluated MHC‐SF in 203 patients with affective disorders and 163 nonclinical participants.
Method
Traditional confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), bifactor CFA, three‐factor exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and bifactor ESEM models were compared. Convergent/discriminant validity was tested against classic well‐being validators and current mood state.
Results
All three subscales were significantly lower in patients. Test‐retest reliability in patients was moderate. Bifactor ESEM fitted data best and displayed full scalar gender and partial scalar invariance across groups. Factor strength indices suggested that MHC‐SF is primarily unidimensional, especially in patients. However, subscales differed considerably on size, internal consistency, distinctness, discriminant validity, and temporal stability.
Conclusions
MHC‐SF was valid and reliable for monitoring well‐being in both clinical and nonclinical samples, but further research is needed before safely concluding on its dimensionality.