Social Indicators Research

, 85:447 | Cite as

Life satisfaction in persons with schizophrenia living in the community

Validation of the satisfaction with life scale
  • Chia-Huei Wu
  • Chin-Yu WuEmail author


Subjective well-being is an increasingly common indicator of adequacy of psychiatric services. An easy-to-administer assessment tool of subjective well-being that is conceptually sound, valid, and reliable is needed for use in persons with schizophrenia. The purpose of this paper was to validate the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)-Taiwan version for persons with schizophrenia living in the community. Specifically, the internal consistency reliability, construct validity and criterion-related validity were examined. Data were obtained from a total of 443 patients with schizophrenia at multiple areas of Taiwan. Item analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were performed. The results revealed that the SWLS had good international consistency reliability and suggested a single-factor structure in life satisfaction among this patient group. The SWLS has good criterion-related validity with the brief World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL-BREF). It is concluded that the SWLS is a sound measurement to be used with persons with schizophrenia living in the community.


Psychometric analysis Outcome measure Quality of life Subjective well-being 



The second author would like to thank all participating hospitals and patients for their support and cooperation. This paper is partly based on the results of research projects funded by the National Science Council (NSC93-2413-H-002-015-SSS) and the Department of Health (DOH95-TD-M-113-045), Executive Yuan, Taiwan.


  1. Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 977–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrindell, W. A., Heesink, J., & Feij, J. A. (1999). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Appraisal with 1700 health young adults in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 815–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrindell, W. A., Meeuwesen, L., & Huyse, F. J. (1991). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties in a non-psychiatric medical outpatients sample. Personality and Individual Differences 12, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. L. (2003). Satisfaction with Life Scale analysis of factorial invariance across sexes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1255–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auquier P., Simeoni, M. C., Sapin, C., Reine, G., Aghababian, V., Cramer, J., & Lancon, C. (2003). Development and validation of a patient-based health related quality of life questionnaire in schizophrenia: The S-QoL. Schizophrenia Research, 63, 137–s149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becchi, A., Rucci, P., Placentino, A., Neri, G., & de Girolamo, G. (2004). Quality of life in patients with schizophrenia-comparison of self-report and proxy assessments. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bobes, J., Garcia-Portilla, P., Saiz, P. A., Bascaran, T., & Bousono, M. (2005). Quality of life measures in schizophrenia. European Psychiatry, 20, S313–S317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Chan, G. W. L., Ungvari, G. S., Shek, D. T .L., & Leung, J. J. P. (2003a). Hospital and community-based care for patients with chronic schizophrenia in Hong Kong: Quality of life and its correlates. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, G. W. L., Ungvari, G. S., Shek, D. T. L., & Leung, J. P. (2003b) Impact of deinstitutionalisation on the quality of life of Chinese patients with schizophrenia: A longitudinal pilot study. Hong Kong Journal of Psychiatry 13, 2–5.Google Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dijkers, M. P. (2003). Individualization in quality of life measurement: Instruments and approaches. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, S3–S14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frisch, M. B. (1992). Use of the Quality of Life Inventory in problem assessment and treatment planning for cognitive therapy of depression. In A. Freeman & F. M. Dattlio (Eds.), Comprehensive casebook of cognitive therapy. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goffin, R. D. (2007). Assessing the adequacy of structural equation models: Golden rules and editorial policies. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 831–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayduk L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! testing! one, two, three—testing the theory in structural equation models!. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 841–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinrichs, D. W., Hanlon, T. E., & Carpenter, W. T. (1984). The Quality of Life Scale: An instrument for rating the schizophrenic deficit syndrome. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 10, 388–398.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Leung, J. P., & Leung, K. (1992). Life satisfaction, self-concept, and relationship with parents in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, C. A., Shevlin, M. E., Bunting, B. P., & Joseph, S. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the satisfaction with life scale: Replication and methodological refinement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 304–306.Google Scholar
  25. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 851–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of Golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McIntosh, C. N. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modeling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 859–867.Google Scholar
  29. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 869–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Millsap, R. E. (2007). Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 875–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mulaik, S. (2007). There is a place for approximate fit in structural equation modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 883–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Boyle, C. (1994). The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL). International Journal of Mental Health, 23, 3–23.Google Scholar
  33. Örsel S., Akdemir, A., & Dag, I. (2004). The sensitivity of Quality of Life Scale WHOQOL-100 to psychopathological measures in schizophrenia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 45, 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prieto, L., Sacristán, J. A., Hormaechea, J. A., Casado, A., Badía, X., & Gómez, J. C. (2003). Psychometric validation of a generic health-related quality of life measure (EQ-5D) in a sample of schizophrenic patients. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 6, 827–835.Google Scholar
  37. Pukrop R., Schlaak, V., Möller-Leimkühler, A. M., Albus, M., Czernik, A., Klosterköter, J., & Möller, H. (2003). Reliability and validity of quality of life assessed by the Short-Form 36 and the Modular System for Quality of Life in patients with schizophrenia and patients with depression. Psychiatry Research, 119, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sachs, J. (2003). Validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in a sample of Hong Kong University students. Psychologia, 46, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shevlin, M. E., Brunsden, V., & Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Satisfaction with Life Scale: Analysis of factorial invariance, mean structures and reliability. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 911–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shevlin, M. E., & Bunting, B. P. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis of the satisfaction with life scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1316–1318.Google Scholar
  41. Sim, K., Mahendran, R., Siris, S. G., Heckers, S., & Chong, S. A. (2004). Subjective quality of life in first episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders with comorbid depression. Psychiatry Research, 129, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Glasziou, P., & Haynes, R. B. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  44. Westaway, M. S., Maritz, C., & Golele, N. J. (2003). Empirical testing of the satisfaction with life scale: A South African pilot study. Psychological Reports, 92, 551–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Health Organization (1993). WHOQOL study protocol. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO (MNH/PSF/93.9).Google Scholar
  46. World Health Organization (1995). Resources for New WHOQOL Centers. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO (MNH/PSF/95.3).Google Scholar
  47. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006). Analysis of factorial invariance across genders in the Taiwan version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1259–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (in press). Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models. Social Indicators Research.Google Scholar
  49. Wu, H. C. (2002). The study of leisure satisfaction and subjective well-being: An example of Taipei metropolitan area. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar
  50. Yao, G., Chung, C. W., Yu, C. F., & Wang, J. D. (2002). Development and verification of reliability and validity of the WHOHR-QOL-BREF Taiwan version. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 101, 342–351.Google Scholar
  51. Yao, G., Wang, J. D., Chen, C. M., & Tsai, Y. J. (manuscript) Normative analyses of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan Version.Google Scholar
  52. Yuan, K. H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, R.O.C
  2. 2.Department of Occupational TherapyNova Southeastern UniversityFt LauderdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations