A bifactor model of subjective well-being: A re-examination of the structure of subjective well-being

Jovanović, Veljko

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.026

Cited by 48 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These five domains of SWB are theorized to be orthogonal to each other; for example, people who enjoy high levels of social well-being can have either high or low levels of eudaimonic well-being and hedonic well-being. Consistent with emerging evidence, this organization of SWB suggests a bifactor structure of this variable, in which a general factor of overall well-being as well as five domain-specific factors can be extracted (Chen, Bai, Lee, & Jing, 2016;de Bruin & du Plessis, 2015;Jovanovic´, 2015;Longo et al, 2016). Conceptually, such a complex representation of SWB implies that the construct can be conceptualized not only as a broad representation of people's overall psychological functioning but that it also can manifest in several domains of people's lives.…”

Section: Multidimensional Conceptualization and Measurement Of Swbsupporting

confidence: 69%

Development and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Scale Assessing Subjective Well-Being: The Well-Being Scale (WeBS)

Lui

Fernando

2017

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous scales currently exist that assess well-being, but research on measures of well-being is still advancing. Conceptualization and measurement of subjective well-being have emphasized intrapsychic over psychosocial domains of optimal functioning, and disparate research on hedonic, eudaimonic, and psychological well-being lacks a unifying theoretical model. Lack of systematic investigations on the impact of culture on subjective well-being has also limited advancement of this field. The goals of this investigation were to (1) develop and validate a self-report measure, the Well-Being Scale (WeBS), that simultaneously assesses overall well-being and physical, financial, social, hedonic, and eudaimonic domains of this construct; (2) evaluate factor structures that underlie subjective well-being; and (3) examine the measure's psychometric properties. Three empirical studies were conducted to develop and validate the 29-item scale. The WeBS demonstrated an adequate five-factor structure in an exploratory structural equation model in Study 1. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that a bifactor structure best fit the WeBS data in Study 2 and Study 3. Overall WeBS scores and five domain-specific subscale scores demonstrated adequate to excellent internal consistency reliability and construct validity. Mean differences in overall well-being and its five subdomains are presented for different ethnic groups. The WeBS is a reliable and valid measure of multiple aspects of well-being that are considered important to different ethnocultural groups.

show abstract

Section: Multidimensional Conceptualization and Measurement Of Swbsupporting

confidence: 69%

Development and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Scale Assessing Subjective Well-Being: The Well-Being Scale (WeBS)

Lui

Fernando

2017

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We conducted bifactor modeling to evaluate the proportion of total and common variance attributable to a general factor and specific factors (i.e., perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns), as well as to determine whether using a general factor score is justified. Thus, the present study was not merely focused on finding the model with the best fit, but also in using several indices such as omega hierarchical to provide information on the strength of the general factor, and reliability of specific factors (i.e., perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) after controlling for variance attributable to the general factor (Jovanović, 2015).…”

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, the two-factor model with correlated errors was used as the baseline model upon which the bifactor model was compared (Betts, Pickart, & Heistad, 2011;Jovanović, 2015).…”

Section: Confirmatory Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Structure of Multidimensional Perfectionism: Support for a Bifactor Model With a Dominant General Factor

Smith

Saklofske

2016

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence suggests perfectionism is a multidimensional construct composed of 2 higher order factors: perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. However, the substantial overlap between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns is problematic, as are the unanswered questions regarding the structure of perfectionism following removal of common variance. This research addressed this through bifactor modeling. Three student samples (N = 742) completed Hewitt and Flett's ( 1991 ) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate's ( 1990 ) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, and Ashby's ( 2001 ) Almost Perfect Scale-Revised. Greater support was consistently found for the bifactor model, relative to the 2-factor model. Results suggest the bifactor model best represents the structure of perfectionism and provide preliminary support for the use of a general factor score. Researchers are cautioned that removal of general variance may render the reliability of specific factors (i.e., perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) suspect.

show abstract

“…Notwithstanding, the substantive interpretation of some indices of such bifactor models could be developed further, as it has been done for other measures of well-being or quality of life [ 18 , 19 ]. This has implied an underutilization of the potentials of bifactor modelling which allows for (a) studying the partitioning of variance when an instrument assesses both general and domain-specific sources of variance, (b) contrasting if the measure is “essentially unidimensional” but with nuisance dimensions, (c) judging whether multidimensional item response data have a strong enough general factor to justify a unidimensional measurement model, and (d) determining the adequacy of a total score and what, if anything, one might gain by scoring subscales [ 18 , 19 ]. These questions are pertinent to the MHC-SF since its scores are intended to measure both general and domain-specific measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring positive mental health and flourishing in Denmark: validation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) and cross-cultural comparison across three countries

Santini

Torres-Sahli

Hinrichsen

et al. 2020

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF) is a measure of positive mental health and flourishing, which is widely used in several countries but has not yet been validated in Denmark. This study aimed to examine its qualitative and quantitative properties in a Danish population sample and compare scores with Canada and the Netherlands. Methods Three thousand five hundred eight participants aged 16–95 filled out an electronic survey. Both the unidimensional and multidimensional aspects of the Danish MHC-SF were studied through bifactor modelling. Cognitive interviews examined face validity and usability. Results The general score of the Danish MHC-SF was reliable for computing unit-weighted composite scores, as well as using a bifactor model to compute general factor scores or measurement models in an SEM context. Nonetheless, subscale scores were unreliable, explaining very low variance beyond that explained by the general factor. The participants of the qualitative interviews observed problems with wording and content of the items, especially from the social subscale. The general score correlated with other scales as expected. We found substantial variation in flourishing prevalence rates between the three cultural settings. Conclusions The Danish MHC-SF produced reliable general scores of well-being. Most of the issues observed regarding the subscale scores have been shown in previous research in other contexts. The further analysis of indices of the bifactor model and the inclusion of qualitative interviews allowed for a better understanding of the possible sources of problems with the questionnaire’s subscales. The use of subscales, the substantive understanding of the general score, as well as the operationalization of the state of flourishing, require further study.

show abstract

A bifactor model of subjective well-being: A re-examination of the structure of subjective well-being

Cited by 48 publications

References 25 publications

Development and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Scale Assessing Subjective Well-Being: The Well-Being Scale (WeBS)

Development and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Scale Assessing Subjective Well-Being: The Well-Being Scale (WeBS)

The Structure of Multidimensional Perfectionism: Support for a Bifactor Model With a Dominant General Factor

Measuring positive mental health and flourishing in Denmark: validation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) and cross-cultural comparison across three countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About