Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1061–1074 | Cite as

The Value of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling in Identifying Factor Overlap in the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF): A Study with a New Zealand Sample

  • Mohsen JoshanlooEmail author
  • Paul E. Jose
  • Magdalena Kielpikowski
Research Paper

Abstract

This study is the first to investigate the factor structure of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) in New Zealand. Towards this end, traditional Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and the new method of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) were used. Both ESEM and CFA supported the tripartite model of mental well-being in comparison to the one- and two-factor models; however, ESEM provided better fit with the data. Moreover, interfactor correlations were considerably lower in ESEM than they were in CFA, indicating greater factor distinctiveness in ESEM. ESEM also revealed a number of important cross-loadings for items in the measurement model of the MHC-SF. The results supported full metric and full scalar invariance of the MHC-SF across gender. The attenuated correlations among well-being factors obtained by ESEM here provide an important insight about the ongoing controversy regarding the failure of empirical research to identify distinct eudaimonic and hedonic factors in well-being measures. An overreliance on CFA methods may have led the field to rely on inflated estimates of shared variance between eudaimonia and hedonia.

Keywords

Mental Health Continuum-Short Form MHC-SF ESEM Factor structure Measurement invariance Gender Keyes 

References

  1. Abbinnett, R. (2013). Politics of happiness: Connecting the philosophical ideas of Hegel, Nietzsche and Derrida to the political ideologies of happiness. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobowik, M., Basabe, N., & Páez, D. (2015). The bright side of migration: Hedonic, psychological, and social well-being in immigrants in Spain. Social Science Research, 51, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Bruin, G. P., & Du Plessis, G. A. (2015). Bifactor analysis of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Psychological Reports, 116(2), 438–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demirci, I., & Akin, A. (2015). The validity and reliability of the mental health continuum short form. Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi, 48(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
  11. Devettere, R. J. (2002). Introduction to virtue ethics: Insights of the ancient Greeks. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2015). National accounts of subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 70(3), 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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(2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482. doi: 10.1037/pas0000209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2015). World happiness report 2015. New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
  19. Hides, L., Quinn, C., Stoyanov, S., Cockshaw, W., Mitchell, T., & Kavanagh, D. J. (2016). Is the mental wellbeing of young Australians best represented by a single, multidimensional or bifactor model? Psychiatry Research, 241, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Well-being, 4, 62–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshanloo, M. (in press a). 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.Google Scholar
  25. Joshanloo, M. (in press b). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies. Google Scholar
  26. Joshanloo, M., & Lamers, S. M. A. (2016). Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: Contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’s comprehensive scale of well-being. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 9, 35–51. (in Persian).Google Scholar
  28. Joshanloo, M., Wissing, M. P., Khumalo, I. P., & Lamers, S. (2013). Measurement invariance of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) across three cultural groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 755–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jovanović, V. (2015). Structural validity of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form: The bifactor model of emotional, social and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karaś, D., Cieciuch, J., & Keyes, C. L. (2014). The Polish adaptation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). The subjective well-being of America’s youth: Toward a comprehensive assessment. Adolescent and Family Health, 4(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  35. Keyes, C. L., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keyes, C. L., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J. P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., & van Rooy, S. (2008). Evaluation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC–SF) in Setswana-speaking South Africans. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 15(3), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamers, S., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 701–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Minkov, M. (2009). Predictors of differences in subjective well-being across 97 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(2), 152–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 116–139. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.961800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Murray, A. L., & Johnson, W. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD. (2015). The better life index. . http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/.
  46. Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage: 2005–2015. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  47. Petrillo, G., Capone, V., Caso, D., & Keyes, C. L. (2014). The Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC–SF) as a measure of well-being in the Italian context. Social Indicators Research, 121(1), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Keyes’s model of mental health with personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predictor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosellini, A. J., & Brown, T. A. (2011). The NEO Five-Factor Inventory: latent structure and relationships with dimensions of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large clinical sample. Assessment, 18(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Singh, K., Bassi, M., Junnarkar, M., & Negri, L. (2015). Mental health and psychosocial functioning in adolescence: An investigation among Indian students from Delhi. Journal of Adolescence, 39, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohsen Joshanloo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul E. Jose
    • 2
  • Magdalena Kielpikowski
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKeimyung UniversityDaeguSouth Korea
  2. 2.School of PsychologyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations