Support for a general factor of well-being

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 100, Issue , 2016, Pages 68-72

  Longo, Ylenio ^a   Coyne, Iain ^a   Joseph, Stephen ^b   Gustavsson, Petter ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Eudaimonic well being; Factor analysis; Flourishing; Hedonic well being; Positive feeling; Positive functioning; Structure of well being; Unidimensionality

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MODEL; RATING SCALE; WELLBEING;

EID: 84964374831     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.082     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Eisenberg, N., Łaguna, M., On the factor structure of the Rosenberg (1965) General Self-Esteem Scale. Psychological Assessment 27 (2015), 621–635.
2. Bachman, J.G., O'Malley, P.M., Self-concepts, self-esteem, and educational experiences: The frog pond revisited (again). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:1 (1986), 35–46.
3. Bentler, P.M., EQS 6 structural equations program manual. 2006, Multivariate Software, Inc., Encino, CA.
4. Brown, T.A., Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2015, The Guilford Press, London.
5. de Bruin, G.P., du Plessis, G.A., Bifactor analysis of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF). Psychological Reports 116:2 (2015), 438–446.
6. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6:1 (2011), 3–5.
7. Chen, F.F., Jing, Y., Hayes, A., Lee, J.M., Two concepts or two approaches? A bifactor analysis of psychological and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 14:3 (2013), 1033–1068.
8. Core Team, R., R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2015, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (URL http://www.R-project.org/).
9. Diener, E., Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 95 (1984), 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, 10.1037/pas0000209 (in press).
11. European Social Survey Round 3 Data, Data file edition 3.5. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. 2006.
12. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1981), 39–50.
13. Gallagher, M.W., Lopez, S.J., Preacher, K.J., The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality 77:4 (2009), 1025–1050.
14. Graham, J.W., Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009), 549–576.
15. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. 2010, Pearson, New York.
16. Holzinger, K.J., Swineford, F., The bi-factor method. Psychometrika 2 (1937), 41–54.
17. Huppert, F.A., So, T.T., Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research 110:3 (2013), 837–861.
18. Jovanović, V., Structural validity of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form: The bifactor model of emotional, social and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015), 154–159.
19. Keyes, C.L., The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 43:2 (2002), 207–222.
20. Keyes, C.L., Shmotkin, D., Ryff, C.D., Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82:6 (2002), 1007–1022.
21. Kim, J.O., Mueller, C.W., Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. 1978, Sage, London.
22. Kline, P., The handbook of psychological testing. 2000, Routledge, New York.
23. Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Wood, A.M., Osborne, G., Hurling, R., Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personality and Individual Differences 47:8 (2009), 878–884.
24. Maniaci, M.R., Rogge, R.D., Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality 48 (2014), 61–83.
25. Marsh, H.W., Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:4 (1996), 810–819.
26. Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., Acquisti, A., Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 46:4 (2014), 1023–1031.
27. Rosseel, Y., lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 48:2 (2012), 1–36.
28. Russell, J.A., A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:6 (1980), 1161–1178.
29. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology 52:1 (2001), 141–166.
30. Ryan, R.M., Frederick, C., On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality 65:3 (1997), 529–565.
31. Ryff, C.D., Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57:6 (1989), 1069–1081.
32. Schmitt, N., Stults, D.M., Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of careless respondents?. Applied Psychological Measurement 9:4 (1985), 367–373.
33. Woods, C.M., Careless responding to reverse-worded items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 28:3 (2006), 186–191.
34. Zinbarg, R.E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., Li, W., Cronbach's α, Revelle's β, and McDonald's ωh: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika 70 (2005), 123–133.