“…Original findings regarding psychometric properties and structural validity of the instrument were further supported (Fledderus, Oude Voshaar, ten Klooster, & Bohlmeijer, 2012) across various cultural contexts, including Chinese (Zhang, Chung, Si, & Liu, 2014), Colombian (Ruiz et al, 2016), Dutch (Bernaerts, De Groot, & Kleen, 2012), French (Monestès, Villatte, Mouras, Loas, & Bond, 2009), German (Hummel et al, 2009), Greek (Karekla & Michaelides, 2017), Hungarian (Eisenbeck & Szabó-Bartha, 2018), Italian (Pennato, Berrocal, Bernini, & Rivas, 2013), Persian (Abasi, Fti, Molodi, & Zarabi, 2013), Polish (Kleszcz, Dudek, Białaszek, Ostaszewski, & Bond, 2018), Portuguese (Costa, Maroco, Pinto-Gouveia, & Galhardo, 2014), Romanian (Szabó, Vargha, Balázsi, Bartalus, & Bogdan, 2011), Spanish (Ruiz, Langer-Herrera, Luciano, Cangas, & Beltran, 2013), Swedish (Lundgren & Parling, 2016), Taiwanese (Chang, Chi, Shin-Huei, & Yun-Ci, 2017), and Turkish (Meunier et al, 2014), as well as amongst the Hispanic population living in the USA (Flynn, Berkout, & Bordieri, 2016). In most of these contexts, the instrument demonstrated a unidimensional structure as well as excellent psychometric properties.…”