Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 183–197 | Cite as

The Psychometric Evaluation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale Using a Nationally Representative Sample of China

  • Xinwen Bai
  • Chiahuei Wu
  • Rui Zheng
  • Xiaopeng RenEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in terms of internal consistency reliability, factorial validity, and measurement invariance across gender, age, residential region (metropolitan area/county town/rural area), educational level, and household income with a nationally representative sample of 4,795 participants in China. The percentages of male (47.0%) and female (53.0%) participants were about equal, and the mean age was 38.56 years (SD = 11.87). The results show that the SWLS has a high internal consistency reliability, a one-factor structure (with a wording effect on Items 4 and 5), strict invariance across gender, partial strict invariance across education (Items 1, 2 and 3), and partial strong invariance across age, income (Items 1, 2 and 3) and residential region (Items 1 and 2). The non-invariance of some items across age and region is discussed in terms of the rapid economic and social transitions of China in the past three decades.

Keywords

Measurement invariance Satisfaction with life scale Life satisfaction Subjective well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by the Young Scientists Fund of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. O8CX025002) and the Knowledge Innovation Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. KSCX2- YW-R-130; KKCX1-YW-05). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  1. Arrindell, W. A., Heesink, J., & Feij, J. A. (1999). The satisfaction with life scale (SWLS): Appraisal with 1700 healthy young adults in The Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 815–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. L. (2003). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance across sexes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1255–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least square estimation in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busseri, M. A., Choma, B. L., & Sadava, S. W. (2009a). “As good as it gets” or “the best is yet to come”? How optimists and pessimists view their past, present, and anticipated future life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busseri, M. A., Choma, B. L., & Sadava, S. W. (2009b). Functional or fantasy? Examining the implications of subjective temporal perspective “trajectories” for life satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniel, H., & Petter, G. J. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the satisfaction with life scale in a Swedish nationwide sample of university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1070–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolan, C. V. (1994). Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and 7 response categories: A comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 309–326.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanbur, R., & Zhang, X. (2005). Fifty years of regional inequality in China: A journey through central planning, reform, and openness. Review of Development Economics, 9, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lu, L. (2001). Understanding happiness: A look into the Chinese folk psychology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.Google Scholar
  17. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  18. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1998). The temporal satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 340–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pons, D., Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. L. (2000). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance for adolescents and elderly persons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sachs, J. (2003). Validation of the satisfaction with life scale in a sample of Hong Kong University students. Psychologia, 46, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shevlin, M. E., Brunsden, V., & Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance, mean structures and reliability. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 911–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sicular, T., Yue, X., Gustafsson, B., & LI, S. (2007). The urban-rural income gap and inequality in China. Review of Income and Wealth, 53, 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tang, S., Meng, Q., Chen, L., Bekedam, H., Evans, T., & Whitehead, M. (2008). Tackling the challenges to health equity in China. The Lancet, 372, 1493–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. The National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2008). China statistical yearbook 2008. Beijing: China statistics press.Google Scholar
  27. Tucker, K. L., Ozer, D. J., Lyubomirsky, S., & Boehm, J. K. (2006). Testing for measurement invariance in the satisfaction with life scale: A comparison of Russians and North Americans. Social Indicators Research, 78, 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vassar, M. (2008). A note on the score reliability for the satisfaction with life scale: An RG study. Social Indicators Research, 86, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vitterso, J., Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2005). The divergent meanings of life satisfaction: Item response modeling of the satisfaction with life scale in Greenland and Norway. Social Indicators Research, 74, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu, C. H., Chen, L. H., & Tsai, Y. M. (2009). Longitudinal invariance analysis of the satisfaction with life scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006). Analysis of factorial invariance across gender in the Taiwan version of the satisfaction with life scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1259–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yao, G., & Wu, C. H. (2009). Similarities and differences among three Chinese versions of the WHOQOL-Questionnaire: Comparisons of Taiwan version to the China and Hong-Kong Versions. Social Indicators Research, 91, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang, X. B., & Kanbur, R. (2005). Spatial inequality in education and health care in China. China Economic Review, 16, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6, 21–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xinwen Bai
    • 1
  • Chiahuei Wu
    • 2
  • Rui Zheng
    • 1
  • Xiaopeng Ren
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Work PsychologyUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations