Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 205–215 | Cite as

Assessing psychological well-being: self-report instruments for the NIH Toolbox

  • John M. Salsman
  • Jin-Shei Lai
  • Hugh C. Hendrie
  • Zeeshan Butt
  • Nicholas Zill
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
  • Christopher Peterson
  • Catherine M. Stoney
  • Pim Brouwers
  • David Cella
Article

Abstract

Objective

Psychological well-being (PWB) has a significant relationship with physical and mental health. As a part of the NIH Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function, we developed self-report item banks and short forms to assess PWB.

Study design and setting

Expert feedback and literature review informed the selection of PWB concepts and the development of item pools for positive affect, life satisfaction, and meaning and purpose. Items were tested with a community-dwelling US Internet panel sample of adults aged 18 and above (N = 552). Classical and item response theory (IRT) approaches were used to evaluate unidimensionality, fit of items to the overall measure, and calibrations of those items, including differential item function (DIF).

Results

IRT-calibrated item banks were produced for positive affect (34 items), life satisfaction (16 items), and meaning and purpose (18 items). Their psychometric properties were supported based on the results of factor analysis, fit statistics, and DIF evaluation. All banks measured the concepts precisely (reliability ≥0.90) for more than 98 % of participants.

Conclusion

These adult scales and item banks for PWB provide the flexibility, efficiency, and precision necessary to promote future epidemiological, observational, and intervention research on the relationship of PWB with physical and mental health.

Keywords

Psychological assessment Well-being Positive affect Life satisfaction Meaning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the Blueprint for Neuroscience Research and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHS-N-260-2006-00007-C. Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by NIH grants KL2RR025740 from the National Center for Research Resources and 5K07CA158008-01A1 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors would like to thank the subdomain consultants, Felicia Huppert, Ph.D., Alice Carter, Ph.D., Marianne Brady, Ph.D., Dilip Jeste, MD, Colin Depp, Ph.D., and Bruce Cuthbert, Ph.D., and members of the NIH project team, Gitanjali Taneja, Ph.D., and Sarah Knox, Ph.D., who provided critical and constructive expertise during the development of the NIH Toolbox Emotion measurement battery.

References

  1. 1.
    Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aspinwall, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2010). The value of positive psychology for health psychology: Progress and pitfalls in examining the relation of positive phenomena to health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39(1), 4–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 804–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huppert, F., & Whittington, J. (2003). Evidence for the independence of positive and negative well-being: Implications for quality of life assessment. British Journal of Health Psychology, 8(1), 107–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaillant, G. E. (2002). Aging well: Surprising guideposts to a happier life from the landmark Harvard study of adult development. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ostir, G. V., Markides, K. S., Black, S. A., & Goodwin, J. S. (2000). Emotional well-being predicts subsequent functional independence and survival. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(5), 473–478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chida, Y., & Steptoe, A. (2008). Positive psychological well-being and mortality: A quantitative review of prospective observational studies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(7), 741–756.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salovey, P., Rothman, A. J., Detweiler, J. B., & Steward, W. T. (2000). Emotional states and physical health. American Psychologist, 55(1), 110–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen, S., & Pressman, S. D. (2006). Positive affect and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fava, G. A., & Ruini, C. (2003). Development and characteristics of a well-being enhancing psychotherapeutic strategy: Well-being therapy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 34(1), 45–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 925–971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 616–628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Measuring meaning in life: An examination of three scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(3), 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steger, M., & Kashdan, T. (2007). Stability and specificity of meaning in life and life satisfaction over one year. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(2), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gershon, R. C., Cella, D., Fox, N. A., Havlik, R. J., Hendrie, H. C., & Wagster, M. V. (2010). Assessment of neurological and behavioural function: The NIH Toolbox. Lancet Neurology, 9(2), 138–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nowinski, C. J., Victorson, D., Debb, S. M., & Gershon, R. (2013). Surveying the end user research community: Input on NIH Toolbox criteria. Neurology, 80(11 Supplement 3), S7–S12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salsman, J. M., Butt, Z., Pilkonis, P. A., Cyranowski, J. M., Zill, N., Hendrie, H. C., et al. (2013). Emotion assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology, 80(11 Supplement 3), S76–S86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Choi, S. W., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodolou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10 Supplement), S20–S27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klem, M., Saghafi, E., Abromitis, R., Stover, A., Dew, M., & Pilkonis, P. (2009). Building PROMIS item banks: Librarians as co-investigators. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 881–888.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roster, C. A., Rogers, R. D., Albaum, G., & Klein, D. (2004). A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 46(3), 359–374.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., et al. (2010). Representativeness of the PROMIS internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research, 18(4), 447–460.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores (Psychometrika Monograph No. 17). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society. Retrieved from http://www.psychometrika.org/journal/online/MN17.pdf
  33. 33.
    Thissen, D. (2003). MULTILOG (Version Windows 7.0). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further examination of the performance of S-X2, an item fit index for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2009). A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(3), 288–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). Lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lai, J. S., Crane, P. K., & Cella, D. (2006). Factor analysis techniques for assessing sufficient unidimensionality of cancer related fatigue. Quality of Life Research, 15(7), 1179–1190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the student’s life satisfaction scale. School Psychology International, 12(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burgdorf, J., & Panksepp, J. (2006). The neurobiology of positive emotions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(2), 173–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Christie, I. C., & Friedman, B. H. (2004). Autonomic specificity of discrete emotion and dimensions of affective space: A multivariate approach. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 51(2), 143–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heller, D., Watson, D., & Hies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 574–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kobau, R., Zack, M. M., Sniezek, J., Lucas, R. E., & Burns, A. (2010). Well-being assessment: An evaluation of well-being scales for public health and population estimates of well-being among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(3), 272–297.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reker, G. T., & Chamberlain, K. (2000). Exploring existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the life span. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Scheier, M., Wrosch, C., Baum, A., Cohen, S., Martire, L., Matthews, K., et al. (2006). The life engagement test: Assessing purpose in life. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(3), 291–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gallup Inc. (2011). Gallup world poll: Wellbeing. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/wellbeing.aspx.
  50. 50.
    OECD. (2011). Better life initiative: Measuring well-being and progress. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/document/0/0,3746,en_2649_201185_47837376_1_1_1_1,00.html.
  51. 51.
    Office for National Statistics. (2007). Working paper: Measuring societal wellbeing in the UK. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Measuring-Societal-Wellbeing.pdf.
  52. 52.
    Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. -P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://www.stat.si/doc/drzstat/Stiglitz%20report.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Salsman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Jin-Shei Lai
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Hugh C. Hendrie
    • 3
  • Zeeshan Butt
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Nicholas Zill
    • 6
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
    • 7
  • Christopher Peterson
    • 8
  • Catherine M. Stoney
    • 9
  • Pim Brouwers
    • 10
  • David Cella
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer CenterNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Center for Aging ResearchIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.Comprehensive Transplant CenterNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Center for Patient-Centered OutcomesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  6. 6.Westat, Inc.RockvilleUSA
  7. 7.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  8. 8.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  9. 9.National Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  10. 10.Division of AIDS ResearchNational Institute of Mental HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations