Social Indicators Research

, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 243–256 | Cite as

International Well-being Index: The Austrian Version

  • Daniela Renn
  • Nicole Pfaffenberger
  • Marion Platter
  • Horst Mitmansgruber
  • Robert A. Cummins
  • Stefan HöferEmail author


The International Well-being Index (IWI) measures both personal and national well-being. It comprises two subscales: the Personal Well-being Index (PWI) and the National Well-being Index (NWI). The aim of this paper is to test the psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of the translated scale in Austria. Convergent validity is assessed using the Scales of Psychological Well-Being, the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale. In addition, a Visual–Analog Scales capturing “satisfaction with life as a whole” was applied. The participants were 581 students of the Medical University Innsbruck (female: 47.7%; age: 23.2 ± 3.7). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the IWI was for both scales > .70 (PWI: .85; NWI: .83). The exploratory factor analysis of the IWI identified a 2-factor-structure identical with the two scales of the IWI explaining 54.2% of the variance. The convergent validity hypotheses were confirmed, construct validity was partly confirmed for the PWI being a deconstruction of a first factor called “satisfaction with life” (38.1% explained variance). Happy participants scored higher on the PWI (84.3 ± 7.9 vs. 68.7 ± 13.7; p < .001) and NWI (64.3 ±  15.8 vs. 57.9 ±  15.1; p < .001) scores than unhappy participants. It is concluded that the Austrian version of the IWI is a reliable and valid instrument to assess personal and national well-being. Further studies including a representative sample should be carried out on a recurring basis to use the IWI as an indicator for social science research in Austria.


Quality of life IWI International Well-being Index Austria Social indicators research Subjective Well-being Satisfaction with life Psychological Well-being 



This study was supported by an EU-Marie Curie Reintegration Grant (ERG-012844) and a grant by the “Tiroler Wissenschaftsfonds” of the local government of the Tyrol/Austria (UNI-0404/108) to Dr. Stefan Höfer. Dr. Daniela Renn was supported by a Research Fellowship of the Medical University Innsbruck (FS-2007-3-3).


  1. Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conferences, Association of European Universities. (2000). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999.Google Scholar
  2. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003a). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cummins, R. A., Hunter, B., Davern, M., Eckersley, R., Lo, S. K., & Okerstrom, E. (2003b). The Australian unity wellbeing index: An overview. Social Indicators Network News, 76, 1–4.Google Scholar
  4. Cummins, R. A., Walter, J., & Woerner, J. (2007a). Australian unity wellbeing index: Report 16.1—“The wellbeing of Australians—groups with the highest and lowest wellbeing in Australia”. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  5. Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Tomyn, A., Gibson, A., & Knapp, T. (2007b). Australian unity wellbeing index: Report 17.0 The wellbeing of Australians? Work, wealth and happiness. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  6. Davern, M., & Cummins, R. A., Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective/cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 429–449. doi:  10.1007/s10902-007-9066-1.
  7. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. The American Psychology, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., Sharpe, A., Sirgy, J., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and Agenda for Research. Social Indicators Research, 55, 1–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1988). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  12. International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal wellbeing index. Australian centre on quality of life. Melburne: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  13. International Wellbeing Group. (2007). Translations. Available from: Cited 7 Sep 2007.
  14. Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Form der Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Diagnostica, 42, 139–156.Google Scholar
  16. Michalos, A. C. (1980). North American Social Report (Vol. 1): Foundations, Population and Health. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. O’Boyle, C., Höfer, S., & Ring, L. (2005). Individualised quality of life in clinical trials. In R. Hays & P. Fayers (Eds.), Quality of life assessment in clinical trials (pp. 225–242). Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Prutkin, J. M., & Feinstein, A. R. (2002). Quality-of-life measurements: Origin and pathogenesis. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 75, 79–93.Google Scholar
  19. Ring, L., Höfer, S., McGee, H., Hickey, A., & O’Boyle, C. A. (2007). Individual quality of life: Can it be accounted for by psychological or subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 82, 443–461. doi:  10.1007/s11205-006-9041-y.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schumacher, J. (2003). Satisfaction with life scale. In J. Schumacher, A. Klaiberg & E. Brähler (Eds.), Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden (pp. 305–309). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  23. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Staudinger, U., Lopez, F., & Baltes, P. (1997). The Psychometric location of wisdom-related performance: Intelligence, personality and more? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1200–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tiliouine, H., Cummins, R. A., & Davern, M. (2006). Measuring wellbeing in developing countries: The case of Algeria. Social Indicators Research, 75, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Renn
    • 1
  • Nicole Pfaffenberger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marion Platter
    • 1
  • Horst Mitmansgruber
    • 1
  • Robert A. Cummins
    • 3
  • Stefan Höfer
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medical Psychology and PsychotherapyMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.School of PsychologyDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations