Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 233–239 | Cite as

Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Subjective Vitality Scale: evidence from Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong

  • Jing-Dong Liu
  • Pak-Kwong ChungEmail author



This study translates the Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS) into Chinese and examines its factor structure and measurement invariance in a sample of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong.


Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong were invited to participate in the study. Four models of the SVS (a 7-item model, two 6-item models and a 5-item model) were compared using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, and the criterion validity was assessed using bivariate correlations between subjective vitality and positive and negative affect. Finally, measurement invariance across genders and time points was examined to evaluate the invariance of the SVS model.


The results of the CFA analysis indicated that the 5-item measurement model fit the data better than the other three models. The Cronbach’s alpha was above 0.70 (0.92), revealing excellent internal consistency reliability, and the SVS was significantly associated with positive affect and negatively associated with negative affect, indicating criterion validity. Finally, the measurement invariance analysis of the 5-item model displayed strict invariance across genders and time points.


The results support the 5-item measurement model of the Chinese version of the SVS. This model has excellent internal consistency reliability, supports the criterion validity of the instrument and demonstrates strict invariance across genders and time points. In summary, the findings suggest that the 5-item Chinese version of the SVS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the subjective vitality of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong.


Subjective vitality Factor structure Measurement invariance Chinese adolescents Validity Reliability 



The authors would like to thank all students and their parents who gave their consent to participate in this study. Special thanks go to all physical education teachers and school principals who allow us to access to students in their classes and schools. Special thanks also go to the research assistants who helped to collect data for this study.


This study was supported by the General Research Fund, Research Grant Council, Hong Kong SAR, China (No. 12401814).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by Committee on the Use of Human and Animal Subjects in Teaching and Research, Hong Kong Baptist University. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants and their parents who participated in the study.


  1. 1.
    Hays, R. D., & Morales, L. S. (2001). The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirsch, J. K., Molnar, D., Chang, E. C., & Sirois, F. M. (2015). Future orientation and health quality of life in primary care: Vitality as a mediator. Quality of Life Research, 24, 1653–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 141–166). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-Being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Found.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 702–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Avlund, K. (2010). Fatigue in older adults: An early indicator of the aging process? Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 22(2), 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bjorner, J. B., Wallenstein, G. V., Martin, M. C., Lin, P., Blaisdell-Gross, B., Tak, P. C., & Mody, S. H. (2007). Interpreting score differences in the SF-36 Vitality scale: Using clinical conditions and functional outcomes to define the minimally important difference. Current Medical Research & Opinion, 23, 731–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buchwald, D., Pearlman, T., Umali, J., Schmaling, K., & Katon, W. (1996). Functional status in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, other fatiguing illnesses, and healthy individuals. American Journal of Medicine, 101, 364–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maynard, S., Keijzers, G., Hansen, A. M., et al. (2015). Associations of subjective vitality with DNA damage, cardiovascular risk factors and physical performance. Acta Physiology (Oxf), 213(1), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kawabata, M., Yamazaki, F., Guo, D. W., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2017). Advancement of the Subjective Vitality Scale: Examination of alternative measurement models for Japanese and Singaporeans. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(12), 1793–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castillo, I., Tomás, I., & Balaguer, I. (2017). The Spanish-version of the Subjective Vitality Scale: Psychometric properties and evidence of validity. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Couto, N., Antunes, R., Monteiro, D., Moutão, J., Marinho, D., & Cid, L. (2017). Validation of the Subjective Vitality Scale and study of the vitality of elderly people according to their physical activity. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano, 19(3), 261–269. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akin, U., Akin, A., & Ug˘ur (2016). Mediating role of mindfulness on the associations of friendship quality and subjective vitality. Psychological Report, 119(2), 516–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bostic, T. J., Rubio, D. M., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the Subjective Vitality Scale using structural equation modeling. Social Indicators Research, 52, 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan, R. M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Brown, K. W., Mistretta, L., & Gagne, M. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cordeiro, P., et al. (2016). The Portuguese validation of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale: Concurrent and longitudinal relations to well-being and ill-being. Psychologica Belgica, 56(3), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, J. D., & Chung, P. K. (2014). Development and initial validation of the psychological needs satisfaction scale in physical education. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 18(2), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, J. D., Bartholomew, K., & Chung, P. K. (2017). Perceptions of teachers’ interpersonal styles and well-being and ill-being in secondary school physical education students: The role of need satisfaction and need frustration. School Mental Health, 9, 360–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molina-García, J., Castillo, I., & Queralt, A. (2011). Leisure-time physical activity and psychological well-being in university students. Psychological Report, 109(2), 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor, I., & Lonsdale, C. (2010). Cultural differences in the relationships between autonomy support, psychological need satisfaction, subjective vitality, and effort in British and Chinese physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park, S., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Ntoumanis, N., Stenling, A., Fenton, S. A. M., & Veldhuijzen, J. J. C. S., & van Zanten. (2017). Profiles of physical function, physical activity, and sedentary behavior and their associations with mental health in residents of assisted living facilities. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 9(1), 60–80.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rouse, P. C., Van Zanten, J.J., Ntoumanis, N., Metsios, G. S., Chen, Y., George, D., Kitas, G. D., & Duda, J. L. (2015). Measuring the positive psychological well-being of people with rheumatoid arthritis: A cross-sectional validation of the subjective vitality scale. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 17, 312. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-Cultural adaptation of health-related qualify of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horn, J. L., & Mcardle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical EducationSun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Physical EducationHong Kong Baptist UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations