A UK validation of a general measure of subjective well-being: the modified BBC subjective well-being scale (BBC-SWB)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Peter Kinderman³  Sara Tai²  Matthias Schwannauer¹  Eleanor Pontin³ 

[1] Clinical Psychology, School of Health in Social Science, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK;School of Psychological Science, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Waterhouse Building, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK

关键词: Validation;    Confirmatory factor analysis;    Measurement;    Subjective well-being;   

Others  :  823248
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-150

 received in 2012-12-19, accepted in 2013-08-31,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The BBC Subjective Well-being scale (BBC-SWB) is a recently developed questionnaire designed to measure people’s subjective experiences across the wide breadth of domains commonly included in definitions of well-being. Although it has previously been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of subjective well-being in the general population with good psychometric properties, a limitation of the initial version was that it was developed using responses on a 4-point Likert-style scale. This paper presents the psychometric properties, validity and reliability of a revised version of the scale conducted using 5-point Likert-style responses and tests the hypothesis that the scale measures three underlying dimensions of well-being; psychological; physical health; and relationships.

Methods

A sample of 23,341 participants completed the revised BBC-SWB as part of an on-line open-access battery of self-report measures. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the pre-hypothesised three factor structure, and internal consistency was investigated using Cronbach’s alpha. Concurrent validity was assessed through analysis of correlations with demographic variables, scores on the Goldberg Anxiety and Depression Scales, and the List of Threatening Experiences Questionnaire.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis supported three factor structure of the measure in the whole sample and for subsamples of males and females. Both the total 24-item scale and the three subscales had good internal consistency, showed no evidence of floor and ceiling effects and correlated significantly with measures of concurrent validity.

Conclusions

This study provided further confirmation of the validity and utility of the BBC Subjective Well-being scale. The modified version is a reliable and valid measure for the online assessment of subjective well-being in the general population with good psychometric properties.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Pontin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McGillivray M: Human well-being: issues, concepts and measures. In Human well-being: concept and measurement. Edited by McGillivray M. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2007:1-23.
• [2]Beddington J, Cooper CL, Field J, Goswami U, Huppert FA, Jenkins J, Jones HS, Kirkwood TBL, Sahakian BJ, Thomas SM: The mental wealth of nations. Nature 2008, 455:1057-1060.
• [3]Ryff CD, Keyes CLM: The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Perso Soc Psychol 1995, 69:719-727.
• [4]Kashdan TB: The assessment of subjective well-being (issues raised by the Oxford happiness questionnaire). Pers Indiv Differ 2004, 36:1225-1232.
• [5]Kahneman D, Krueger AB: Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. J Econ Perspect 2006, 20:3-24.
• [6]Diener E: Assessing well-being: defining and measuring subjective well-being (social indicators research series). New York: Springer; 2009.
• [7]New Economic Foundation: Measuring well-being: a guide for practitioners. London: New Economic Foundation; 2012.
• [8]Office for National Statistics: Spotlight on subjective well-being. Cardiff: Office for National Statistics; 2010.
• [9]Layard R: Happiness: lessons from a new science. London: Penguin; 2005.
• [10]New Economic Foundation: Well-being: evidence for policy. London: New Economic Foundation; 2012.
• [11]Easterlin R: The economics of happiness. Daedalus 2004, 133:26-33.
• [12]Group WHOQOL: The World Health Organisation Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Scic Med 1998, 46:1569-1585.
• [13]Group WHOQOL: Development of the World Heatlh Organisation WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998, 28:551-558.
• [14]The Euroqol Group: Euroqol- a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [15]Diener E, Emmons RA, Larson RJ, Griffin S: The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Asses 1985, 49:71-75.
• [16]Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS: A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Ind Res 1999, 46:137-155.
• [17]Kinderman P, Schwannauer M, Pontin E, Tai S: The development and validation of a general measure of well-being: the BBC well-being scale. Qual Life Res 2011, 20:1035-1042.
• [18]Ryff C: Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989, 57:1069-1081.
• [19]Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:63. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Beck AT: Depression: clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row; 1967.
• [21]Preston CC, Colman AM: Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2000, 104:1-15.
• [22]Osteras N, Gulbrandsen P, Garatt A, Benth JS, Dahl FA, Natvig B, Brage S: A randomised comparison of a four-and a five-point scale version of the Norwegian function assessment scale. Health Qual Life Out 2008, 6:14-22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]What is BBC lab UK?. http://www.bbc.co.uk/labuk/articles/ webcite
• [24]Goldberg D, Bridges K, Duncan-Jones P, Grayson D: Detecting anxiety and depression in general medical settings. BMJ 1988, 8(297):897-899.
• [25]Brugha TS, Cragg D: the list of threatening experiences: the reliability and validity of a brief life events questionnaire. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1990, 82:77-81.
• [26]Smith N Goldberg anxiety and depression inventory. http://www.alswh.org.au/images/content/pdf/InfoData/Data_Dictionary_Supplement/DDSSection2GADS.pdf webcite
• [27]Bentler PM: EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software; 2006.
• [28]Mardia KV: Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhya Series B 1974, 36:115-128.
• [29]Micceri T: The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychol Bull 1989, 105:156-166.
• [30]Bentler PM: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990, 107:256-259.
• [31]Byrne BM: Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. London: SAGE Publications Inc; 2001.
• [32]Browne MW, Cudeck R: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural equation models. Edited by Bollen K, Long JS. Newbury, CA: Sage; 1993:132-162.
• [33]Campell DT, Fiske DW: Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1995, 56:81-105.
• [34]Cronbach IJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica 1951, 16:297-334.
• [35]Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for windows version 20. Chicago, USA: SPSS Inc; 2012.