Quality of Life Research

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 1035–1042 | Cite as

The development and validation of a general measure of well-being: the BBC well-being scale

Article

Abstract

Purpose

The concept of maximising well-being, as opposed to merely treating mental disorder, is a powerful current theme in the area of mental health. Clearly this emphasises the need for appropriate valid and reliable measures of general well-being. This paper examines the appropriateness of a number of measures in this area and concludes that existing assessment tools fail to address the full range of aspects of personal well-being. This paper therefore presents the psychometric properties, validity and reliability of a new measure of well-being—the BBC Well-being Scale.

Methods

A total of 1,940 participants completed the new measure, the Goldberg scales of anxiety and depression, the ‘List of Threatening Experiences’ life events scale, a modified version of the Response Styles Questionnaire and a modified version of the Internal, Personal and Situational Attributions Questionnaire presented via the internet.

Results

Exploratory factor-analysis suggested a three-factor solution including themes of psychological well-being, physical health and well-being and relationships. The total 24-item scale had good internal consistency (α = .935) and correlated significantly with key demographic variables and measures of concurrent validity.

Conclusions

The new measure—the BBC Well-being Scale—is recommended for research and clinical purposes.

Keywords

Well being Mental health Measurement Quality of life Self-esteem Questionnaire 

References

  1. 1.
    Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, J., et al. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455(23), 1057–1060.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organisation. (1946). Constitution of the world health organisation. New York: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organisation. (2003). Investing in mental health. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department of Health. (2009). New horizons: Towards a shared vision for mental health. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective well-being (issues raised by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire). Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1225–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diener, E. (Ed.). (2009). Assessing well-being: Defining and measuring subjective well-being (Social indicators research series). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    WHOQOL Group. (1994). The development of the world health organization quality of life assessment instrument (the WHOQOL). In J. Orley & W. Kuyken (Eds.), Quality of life assessment: International perspectives (pp. 41–57). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    WHOQOL Group. (1998). The world health organisation quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Scientific Medicine, 46(12), 1569–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    WHOQOL Group. (1998). Development of the world heatlh organisation WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The euroqol Group. (1990). Euroqol-a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooks, R. (1996). Euroqol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu, Y., Stewart-Brown, S., Twigg, L., & Weich, S. (2007). Can the 12 item general health questionnaire be used to measure positive mental health? Psychological Medicine, 37(7), 1005–1013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larson, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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, 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., et al. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huppert, F. A., Baylis, N., & Keverne, B. (2005). The science of well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldberg, D., Bridges, K., Duncan-Jones, P., & Grayson, D. (1988). Detecting anxiety and depression in general medical settings. British Medical Journal, 8:297(6653), 897–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brugha, T. S., & Cragg, D. (1990). The list of threatening experiences: The reliability and validity of a brief life events questionnaire. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 82, 77–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1993). Effects of rumination and distraction on naturally occurring depressed mood. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kinderman, P., & Bentall, R. P. (1996). A new measure of causal locus: The internal, personal and situational attributions questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bentler, P. M. (1995). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bowerman, B. L., & O’Connell, R. T. (1990). Linear statistical models: An applied approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). New features in LISREL8. Chicago: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 77–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Kinderman
    • 1
  • M. Schwannauer
    • 1
  • E. Pontin
    • 1
  • S. Tai
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, Health and SocietyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations