Personal Wellbeing Index: A Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance Study Across Four Countries
- 530 Downloads
The comparison of subjective well-being scores across countries is increasingly being used as an indicator of societal progress. In this study we examined measurement invariance for the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI), which measures subjective well-being, across Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia. The sample included a total of 5275 adult participants. Initially, the single-factor model of the PWI showed an adequate fit to the data only in Australia. Due to a poor fit in the remaining three countries we decided to test the single-factor structure on an abbreviated version of the scale. In order to shorten the PWI, we excluded two items (satisfactions with community-connectedness and future security) which demonstrated the lowest unique value in predicting global life satisfaction. The single-factor structure of the 5-item PWI (PWI-5) was supported in all four countries. Measurement invariance testing supported the partial scalar invariance of the PWI-5, thus allowing for latent mean comparisons. Latent mean analysis indicated higher life satisfaction in Australia, as compared with the other three countries. The PWI-5 correlated highly with the full scale. These findings suggest that the 5-item version of the PWI may be more suitable for cross-cultural comparisons.
KeywordsMeasurement invariance Personal Wellbeing Index Life satisfaction Domain satisfaction Cross-cultural comparison
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 179006).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361–379). New York: 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
- Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. L. D. (2010). Wellbeing across cultures: Issues of measurement and the interpretation of data. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology: A contemporary reader (pp. 365–379). New York: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Dimitrov, V. D. (2006). Comparing groups of latent variables: a structural equation modeling approach. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 26, 429–439.Google Scholar
- Gallup, Inc. (2015). State of global well-being: Results of the Gallup-Healthways Global Well-being Index. Retrieved 10 Jan 2015. http://info.healthways.com/hubfs/Well-Being_Index/2014_Data/Gallup-Healthways_State_of_Global_Well-Being_2014_Country_Rankings.pdf.
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
- Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2015). World happiness report. New York: Earth Institute, Columbia University.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
- 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
- Kaliterna Lipovčan, Lj., & Prizmic-Larsen, Z. (2006). What makes Croats happy? Predictors of happiness in representative sample. In A. Delle Fave (Ed.), Dimensions of well-being. Research and intervention (pp. 53–59). Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Matica srpska. (2007). Rečnik srpskog jezika [The Dictionary of Serbian language]. Novi Sad.Google Scholar
- Saraiva, C., & Jamrisko, M. (2017). These economies are getting more miserable this year. Retrieved 10 April 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-03/these-countries-are-getting-more-miserable-this-year.
- Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.Google Scholar
- Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and happiness: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring, 1–87.Google Scholar
- Transparency International. (2016). Corruption Perceptions Index. Retrieved 5 Jan 2015. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2016/results.
- WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2012). Measurement of and target-setting for well-being. Second meeting of the expert group, Paris, 25–26 June 2012. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar