Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 1095–1104 | Cite as

Psychometric Evaluation of a Serbian Version of the Subjective Happiness Scale

  • Veljko JovanovićEmail author
Article

Abstract

The main aim of this research was to examine the psychometric properties of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky and Lepper in Soc Indic Res 46:137–155, 1999) in a sample of young adults in Serbia (N = 605, mean age = 21.99). The SHS demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability and homogeneity. Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analyses supported the unidimensional structure of the SHS. The results provided support for the convergent validity of the SHS, by significant correlations with measures of subjective well-being (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, emotional distress), positive expectations (optimism and self-efficacy), meaning in life and personality traits (extraversion and neuroticism). As compared to the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the SHS showed significantly higher correlations with measures of emotional states and personality traits. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that the SHS had incremental validity over and above subjective well-being and personality traits in predicting emotional distress and meaning in life.

Keywords

Subjective happiness Subjective well-being Reliability Convergent validity Incremental validity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 179006).

References

  1. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program model. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
  2. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandstätter, M., Baumann, U., Borasio, G. D., & Fegg, M. J. (2012). Systematic review of meaning in life assessment instruments. Psycho-Oncology, 21, 1034–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryant, F. B., King, S. P., & Smart, C. M. (2007). Multivariate statistical strategies for construct validation in positive psychology. In A. G. Ong & M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 61–82). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., et al. (2009). New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doğan, T., & Totan, T. (2013). Psychometric properties of Turkish version of the Subjective Happiness Scale. The Journal of Happiness and Well-Being, 1(1), 21–28.Google Scholar
  11. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2013). World happiness report. New York: Earth Institute, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  12. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1073–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3, 76–83.Google Scholar
  14. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jovanović, V., & Gavrilov-Jerković, V. (2013). Dimensionality and validity of the Serbian version of the Life Orientation Test-Revised. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 771–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jovanović, V., Gavrilov-Jerković, V., Žuljević, D., & Brdarić, D. Psihometrijska evaluacija Skale depresivnosti, anksioznosti i stresa-21 (DASS-21) na uzorku studenata u Srbiji [Psychometric evaluation of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a sample of Serbian students]. Psihologija (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective well-being (issues raised by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire). Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1225–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). How small is too small? The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Unpublished paper, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  19. Keyes, C. L. M., 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
  20. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.). Sydney: Psychology Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moghnie, L., & Kazarian, S. (2012). Subjective happiness of Lebanese college youth in Lebanon: Factorial structure and invariance of the Arabic Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research, 109, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Novović, Z., & Mihić, Lj. (2008). Srpski inventar afekata baziran na Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-X (SIAB-PANAS). Unpublished manuscript. Novi Sad: University of Novi Sad.Google Scholar
  25. Novović, Z., Mihić, Lj., Tovilović, S., & Jovanović, V. (2008). Relations among positive and negative affect, dysphoria and anxiety. Psihologija, 41(4), 413–435.Google Scholar
  26. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152.Google Scholar
  28. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scholz, U., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 242–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  32. Shimai, S., Otake, K., Utsuki, N., Ikemi, A., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2004). Development of a Japanese version of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS), and examination of its validity and reliability. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi, 51, 845–853.Google Scholar
  33. Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D., & Čolović, P. (2010). Velikih pet plus dva: Primena i interpretacija (Big Five Plus Two: Manual for administration and interpretation). Beograd: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.Google Scholar
  34. Spagnoli, P., Caetano, A., & Silva, A. (2012). Psychometric properties of a Portuguese version of the Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research, 105, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society. Iowa City: Iowa.Google Scholar
  38. Swami, V. (2008). Translation and validation of the Malay Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research, 88, 347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swami, V., Stieger, S., Voracek, M., Dressler, S. G., Eisma, L., & Furnham, A. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the Tagalog and German Subjective Happiness Scale and a cross-cultural comparison. Social Indicators Research, 93, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  41. 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, 47, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations