Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 2809–2818 | Cite as

Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from three large samples

  • Felix CheungEmail author
  • Richard E. Lucas



The present paper assessed the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures by comparing single-item measures to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)—a more psychometrically established measure.


Two large samples from Washington (N = 13,064) and Oregon (N = 2,277) recruited by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a representative German sample (N = 1,312) recruited by the Germany Socio-Economic Panel were included in the present analyses. Single-item life satisfaction measures and the SWLS were correlated with theoretically relevant variables, such as demographics, subjective health, domain satisfaction, and affect. The correlations between the two life satisfaction measures and these variables were examined to assess the construct validity of single-item life satisfaction measures.


Consistent across three samples, single-item life satisfaction measures demonstrated substantial degree of criterion validity with the SWLS (zero-order r = 0.62–0.64; disattenuated r = 0.78–0.80). Patterns of statistical significance for correlations with theoretically relevant variables were the same across single-item measures and the SWLS. Single-item measures did not produce systematically different correlations compared to the SWLS (average difference = 0.001–0.005). The average absolute difference in the magnitudes of the correlations produced by single-item measures and the SWLS was very small (average absolute difference = 0.015–0.042).


Single-item life satisfaction measures performed very similarly compared to the multiple-item SWLS. Social scientists would get virtually identical answer to substantive questions regardless of which measure they use.


Life satisfaction Single-item measure Satisfaction with Life Scale Validity Measurement 



This research was supported by a Graduate Research Fellowship from the National Science Foundation awarded to the first author and by funding from the National Institute on Aging (AG040715) awarded to the second author.

Supplementary material

11136_2014_726_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. 1.
    Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 3(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Howell, R. T., & Howell, C. J. (2008). The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 536–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagner, G. G., Joachim, R. F., & Jürgen, S. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP)–scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 127(1), 139–169.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor, M. F., Brice, J., Buck, N., & Prentice-Lane, E. (2009). British Household Panel Survey user manual volume A: Introduction, technical report, and appendices. Colchester: University of Essex.
  7. 7.
    Voorpostel, M., Tillmann, R., Lebert, F., Kuhn, U., Lipps, O., Ryser, V.-A., et al. (2012). Swiss Household Panel Userguide (1999–2011), Wave 13, October 2012. Lausanne: FORS.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    “Gallup Daily: U.S. Life Evaluation.” (2013). Retrieved November 11, 2013 from
  9. 9.
    “Gallup World Poll Knowledge Center.” (2013). Retrieved November 11, 2013 from
  10. 10.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from four national panel studies. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 323–331.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (1995). The trait–state–error model for multi-wave data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 52–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (2001). The trait–state models for longitudinal data. In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 243–263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobau, R., Sniezek, J., Zack, M. M., 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
  18. 18.
    Kobau, R., Bann, C., Lewis, M., Zack, M. M., Boardman, A. M., Boyd, R., et al. (2013). Mental, social, and physical well-being in New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington, 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: Implications for public health research and practice related to Healthy People 2020 foundation health measures on well-being. Population Health Metrics, 11(19), 1–16.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    del Mar Salinas-Jiménez, M., Artés, J., & Salinas-Jiménez, J. (2011). Education as a positional good: A life satisfaction approach. Social Indicators Research, 103(3), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schimmack, U., & Oishi, S. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 395–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. DIW Research Notes, 4, 1–36.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2, 102–138.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations