Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 759–775 | Cite as

Personal Wellbeing Index: A Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance Study Across Four Countries

  • Veljko JovanovićEmail author
  • Robert A. Cummins
  • Melissa Weinberg
  • Ljiljana Kaliterna
  • Zvjezdana Prizmic-Larsen
Research Paper


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.


Measurement 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.

Supplementary material

10902_2018_9966_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Blore, J. D., Stokes, M. A., Mellor, D., Firth, L., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Comparing multiple discrepancies theory to affective models of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 100, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  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. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 1005–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Davern, M., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective-cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E. (2012). New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American Psychologist, 67, 590–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E., Helliwell, J. F., & Kahneman, D. (2010a). International differences in well-being. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. (2010b). Wealth and happiness around the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychological prosperity predicts positive feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Gallup, Inc. (2015). State of global well-being: Results of the Gallup-Healthways Global Well-being Index. Retrieved 10 Jan 2015.
  20. Gasper, D. (2005). Subjective and objective well-being in relation to economic inputs: Puzzles and responses. Review of Social Economy, 63, 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. He, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2015). World happiness report. New York: Earth Institute, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  24. Helliwell, J. F. K., & Putnam, R. D. K. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1435–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008). Development, freedom, and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index—Adult (PWI-A). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.Google Scholar
  29. International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index (5th ed.). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.Google Scholar
  30. Jovanović, V., Joshanloo, M., Đunda, D., & Bakhshi, A. (2017). Gender differences in the relationship between domain-specific and general life satisfaction: A study in Iran and Serbia. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Kaliterna, Lj., & Prizmic-Larsen, Z. (2014). Personal Wellbeing Index in Croatia. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1351–1354). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klarin, M., Pororoković, A., Šimić Šašić, S., & Arnaudova, V. (2012). Some characteristics of social interactions among adolescents in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 5, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Longo, Y. (2015). The simple structure of positive affect. Social Indicators Research, 124, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matica srpska. (2007). Rečnik srpskog jezika [The Dictionary of Serbian language]. Novi Sad.Google Scholar
  40. Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Brian, M. R. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oishi, S. (2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2012). Progressive taxation and the subjective well-being of nations. Psychological Science, 23, 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Portela, M., Neira, I., & Salinas-Jiménez, M. (2013). Social capital and subjective wellbeing in Europe: A new approach on social capital. Social Indicators Research, 114, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saraiva, C., & Jamrisko, M. (2017). These economies are getting more miserable this year. Retrieved 10 April 2017.
  47. 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
  48. Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and happiness: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring, 1–87.Google Scholar
  49. Tay, L., Herian, M., & Diener, E. (2014). Detrimental effects of corruption on subjective well-being: Whether, how, and when. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 751–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tomyn, A. J., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Subjective wellbeing and homeostatically protected mood: Theory validation with adolescents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 897–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tomyn, A. J., Fuller Tyszkiewicz, M., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). The Personal Wellbeing Index: Psychometric equivalence for adults and school children. Social Indicators Research, 110, 913–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Transparency International. (2016). Corruption Perceptions Index. Retrieved 5 Jan 2015.
  53. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2015). Human development report 2015: Work for human development. New York: UNDP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2012). Measurement of and target-setting for well-being. Second meeting of the expert group, Paris, 2526 June 2012. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  55. Wills, E. (2009). Spirituality and subjective well-being: Evidences for a new domain in the Personal Wellbeing Index. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFaculty of Philosophy, University of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia
  2. 2.School of PsychologyDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Ivo Pilar Institute of Social SciencesZagrebCroatia
  4. 4.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations