Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: Contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 97, Issue , 2016, Pages 8-12

  Joshanloo, Mohsen ^a   Lamers, Sanne M A ^b  

^a Keimyung University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

ESEM; Eudaimonic; Hedonic; Mental well being; MHC SF; Psychological well being; Social well being

Indexed keywords

EID: 84960845931     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.089     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arrindell W.A., Heesink J., Feij J.A. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS): Appraisal with 1700 healthy young adults in The Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences 1999, 26(5):815-826.
2. Asparouhov T., Muthen B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 2009, 16:397-438.
3. Asparouhov T., Muthén B., Morin A.J. Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances comments on Stromeyer et al. Journal of Management 2015, 41(6):1561-1577.
4. Bentler P.M. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 1990, 107:238-246.
5. Brown T.A. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research 2015, Guilford Press, New York.
6. Browne M.W., Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 136-162. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds.).
7. Chen F.F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 2007, 14(3):464-504.
8. Cheung G.W., Rensvold R.B. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 2002, 9:233-255.
9. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 1984, 95:542-575.
10. Disabato D.J., Goodman F.R., Kashdan T.B., Short J.L., Jarden A. Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment 2016, (in press).
11. Fabrigar L.R., Wegener D.T., MacCallum R.C., Strahan E.J. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 1999, 4(3):272.
12. Fredrickson B.L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 2001, 56(3):218.
13. Furnham A., Guenole N., Levine S.Z., Chamorro-Premuzic T. The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised: Factor structure and gender invariance from exploratory structural equation modeling analyses in a high-stakes setting. Assessment 2013, 20(1):14-23.
14. Graham C., Chattopadhyay S. Gender and well-being around the world. International Journal of Happiness and Development 2013, 1(2):212-232.
15. Huta V., Waterman A.S. Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies 2014, 15(6):1425-1456.
16. Joshanloo M. A new look at the factor structure of the MHC-SF in Iran and the United States using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2016, (in press).
17. Joshanloo M. Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies 2016, (in press).
18. Joshanloo M., Wissing M.P., Khumalo I.P., Lamers S. Measurement invariance of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) across three cultural groups. Personality and Individual Differences 2013, 55(7):755-759.
19. Karaś D., Cieciuch J., Keyes C.L. The Polish adaptation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Personality and Individual Differences 2014, 69:104-109.
20. Kashdan T.B., Biswas-Diener R., King L.A. Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology 2008, 3(4):219-233.
21. Keyes C.L., Annas J. Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology 2009, 4(3):197-201.
22. Keyes C.L.M. Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly 1998, 121-140.
23. Keyes C.L.M. The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 2002, 43(2):207-222.
24. Keyes C.L., Wissing M., Potgieter J.P., Temane M., Kruger A., van Rooy S. Evaluation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) in Setswana-speaking South Africans. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 2008, 15(3):181-192.
25. Kline R.B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 2011, Guilford Press, New York. 3rd ed.
26. Lamers S.M.A., Glas C.A.W., Westerhof G.J., Bohlmeijer E.T. Longitudinal evaluation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2012, 28(4):290-296.
27. Lamers S., Westerhof G.J., Bohlmeijer E.T., ten Klooster P.M., Keyes C.L. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology 2011, 67(1):99-110.
28. Legatum Institute The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index Retrieved from. http://www.prosperity.com.
29. Lieberman M.D. Social: why our brains are wired to connect 2013, Crown, New York, NY.
30. MacCallum R.C., Browne M.W., Sugawara H.M. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1996, 1:130-149.
31. Marsh H.W., Lüdtke O., Muthén B., Asparouhov T., Morin A.J., Trautwein U., Nagengast B. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment 2010, 22(3):471.
32. Marsh H.W., Muthén B., Asparouhov T., Lüdtke O., Robitzsch A., Morin A.J., Trautwein U. Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2009, 16(3):439-476.
33. Marsh H.W., Nagengast B., Morin A.J., Parada R.H., Craven R.G., Hamilton L.R. Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology 2011, 103(3):701-732.
34. Marsh H.W., Morin A.J.S., Parker P.D., Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2014, 10(1):85-110.
35. Morin A.J.S., Marsh H.W., Nagengast B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling: A second course 2013, Information Age Publishing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, (2013). G.R. Hancock, R.O. Mueller (Eds.).
36. Pett M., Lackey N., Sullivan J. Making sense of factor analysis 2003, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.
37. Rosellini A.J., Brown T.A. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory: Latent structure and relationships with dimensions of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large clinical sample. Assessment 2011, 18(1):27-38.
38. Ryff C.D. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2014, 83(1):10-28.
39. Sheldon K.M. Individual daimon, universal needs, and subjective well-being: Happiness as the natural consequence of a life well lived. The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonic functioning 2013, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. A. Waterman (Ed.).
40. Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. Using multivariate statistics 2007, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.