Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Domain Satisfaction Measure in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence from Austria and Four Countries of the Former Yugoslavia

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies have rarely examined the cross-national equivalence of instruments aimed at assessing domain-specific life satisfaction. The present study evaluated the cross-national measurement invariance of the Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult (PWI-A), an instrument designed to measure levels of satisfaction with seven domains of life: standard of living, health, achieving in life, relationships, safety, community-connectedness, and future security. In addition, we investigated (a) the mean country differences in both global and domain-specific satisfaction; (b) the contribution of domain satisfactions to global life satisfaction across countries; (c) the associations between both individual domains and the total PWI-A score with measures of global life satisfaction. A total sample consisted of 1153 undergraduate students (age range 18–35 years) from five European countries: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia. The results provided support for the full scalar invariance of the PWI-A across countries. Satisfactions with standard of living, achieving in life, and personal relationships were significant predictors of global life satisfaction in each country. Significant differences in global life satisfaction, and satisfactions with standard of living, safety, community, and future security were found between the countries. Strong correlations between the total PWI-A score and measures of global life satisfaction (r range from .58 to .83) obtained across all five countries support the use of the total PWI-A score as an indicator of overall life satisfaction. In sum, our findings support the use of the PWI-A as a measure of domain-specific life satisfaction in a cross-national perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskov, C. (2003). The happy few: Cross-country evidence on social capital and life satisfaction. Kyklos, 56, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10, 107–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, R., Zheng, Y., Kumar, S., Olgiati, A., & Berkman, L. F. (2012). Well-being and social capital on planet Earth: Cross-national evidence from 142 countries. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camfield, L. (2012). Quality of life in developing countries. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 399–432). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2809–2818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (2016). The theory of subjective wellbeing homeostasis: A contribution to understanding life quality. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A life devoted to quality of life—Festschrift in Honor of Alex C. Michalos (Vol. 60, pp. 61–79). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davidov, E., Dülmer, H., Schlüter, E., Schmidt, P., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Using a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural measurement noninvariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 558–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (2009). Culture and well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (Vol. 38)., Social indicators research series Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112, 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2015). Subjective well-being and human welfare around the world as reflected in the Gallup World Poll. International Journal of Psychology, 50, 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, S. D., Guhn, M., & Gadermann, A. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Quality of Life Research, 26, 2251–2264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurofound. (2012). Third European Quality of Life Survey—Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the crisis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnambs, T., & Buntins, K. (2017). The measurement of variability and change in life satisfaction: A comparison of single-item and multi-item instruments. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33, 224–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2013). Gender and well-being around the world. International Journal of Happiness and Development, 1, 212–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, R. D. (2008). Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2015). World happiness report. New York: Earth Institute, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult (PWI–A). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index (5th ed.). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorm, A. F., & Ryan, S. M. (2014). Cross-national and historical differences in subjective well-being. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43, 330–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanović, V. (2016). The validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in adolescents and a comparison with single-item life satisfaction measures: A preliminary study. Quality of Life Research, 25, 3173–3180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Placa, V., McNaught, A., & Knight, A. (2013). Discourse on wellbeing in research and practice. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3, 116–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, A. L. D., Cummins, R. A., & McPherson, W. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the Personal Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 72, 403–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legatum Institute. (2015). The 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from http://www.prosperity.com/download_file/view_inline/2833.

  • Lorenzo-Seva, U., Ferrando, P. J., & Chico, E. (2010). Two SPSS programs for interpreting multiple regression results. Behaviour Research Methods, 42, 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, K. K., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). The role of domain satisfaction in explaining the paradoxical association between life satisfaction and age. Social Indicators Research, 109, 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, W., & Diener, E. (2014). What matters to the rich and the poor? Subjective well-being, financial satisfaction, and post-materialistic needs across the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 326–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngamaba, K. (2017). Determinants of subjective well-being in representative samples of nations. European Journal of Public Health, 27, 377–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, D., Pfaffenberger, N., Platter, M., Mitmansgruber, H., Cummins, R. A., & Hofer, S. (2009). International Well-being Index: The Austrian version. Social Indicators Research, 90, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., Khan, M., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2013). Subjective wellbeing, utility and quality of life: Results from the Multi Instrument Comparison Project. Retrieved from http://www.aqol.com.au/documents/MIC/Subjective_Wellbeing_Brochure_V8.pdf.

  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmetz, H., Schmidt, P., Tina-Booh, A., Wieczorek, S., & Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: Differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Quality & Quantity, 43, 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiliouine, H. (2014). Algeria, Personal Well-Being Index. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 133–140). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2014). Human development report 2014: Sustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. New York.

  • Van Beuningen, J., & de Jonge, T. (2011). The Personal Wellbeing Index: Construct validity for the Netherlands. Discussion paper (201124). The Hague: Statistics Netherlands.

  • Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2012). Measurement of and target-setting for well-being. Second meeting of the expert group, Paris, June 25–26, 2012. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

  • Zemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J. P., Cieciuch, J., Adams, B. G., Osin, E. N., Rahkman, A., et al. (2017). Measurement invariance of Personal Well-Being Index (PWI-8) across 26 countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1697–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 179006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Dr Zorana Đinđića 2, Novi Sad, 21 000, Serbia

    Veljko Jovanović

Authors
  1. Veljko Jovanović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veljko Jovanović.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

The Personal Wellbeing Index items in English

How satisfied are you with…?

1. Your standard of living?

2. Your health?

3. What you are achieving in life?

4. Your personal relationships?

5. How safe you feel?

6. Feeling part of your community?

7. Your future security?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jovanović, V. Evaluation of Domain Satisfaction Measure in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence from Austria and Four Countries of the Former Yugoslavia. Soc Indic Res 141, 1369–1385 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1879-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1879-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation