Social Indicators Research

, Volume 141, Issue 3, pp 1369–1385 | Cite as

Evaluation of Domain Satisfaction Measure in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence from Austria and Four Countries of the Former Yugoslavia

  • Veljko JovanovićEmail author


Previous studies have rarely examined the cross-national equivalence of instruments aimed at assessing domain-specific life satisfaction. The present study evaluated the cross-national measurement invariance of the Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult (PWI-A), an instrument designed to measure levels of satisfaction with seven domains of life: standard of living, health, achieving in life, relationships, safety, community-connectedness, and future security. In addition, we investigated (a) the mean country differences in both global and domain-specific satisfaction; (b) the contribution of domain satisfactions to global life satisfaction across countries; (c) the associations between both individual domains and the total PWI-A score with measures of global life satisfaction. A total sample consisted of 1153 undergraduate students (age range 18–35 years) from five European countries: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia. The results provided support for the full scalar invariance of the PWI-A across countries. Satisfactions with standard of living, achieving in life, and personal relationships were significant predictors of global life satisfaction in each country. Significant differences in global life satisfaction, and satisfactions with standard of living, safety, community, and future security were found between the countries. Strong correlations between the total PWI-A score and measures of global life satisfaction (r range from .58 to .83) obtained across all five countries support the use of the total PWI-A score as an indicator of overall life satisfaction. In sum, our findings support the use of the PWI-A as a measure of domain-specific life satisfaction in a cross-national perspective.


Life satisfaction Domain satisfaction Well-being Measurement invariance Culture 



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

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11205_2018_1879_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)


  1. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Bjørnskov, C. (2003). The happy few: Cross-country evidence on social capital and life satisfaction. Kyklos, 56, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10, 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvo, R., Zheng, Y., Kumar, S., Olgiati, A., & Berkman, L. F. (2012). Well-being and social capital on planet Earth: Cross-national evidence from 142 countries. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camfield, L. (2012). Quality of life in developing countries. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 399–432). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2809–2818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins, R. A. (2016). The theory of subjective wellbeing homeostasis: A contribution to understanding life quality. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A life devoted to quality of life—Festschrift in Honor of Alex C. Michalos (Vol. 60, pp. 61–79). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidov, E., Dülmer, H., Schlüter, E., Schmidt, P., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Using a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural measurement noninvariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 558–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E. (2009). Culture and well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (Vol. 38)., Social indicators research series Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2015). Subjective well-being and human welfare around the world as reflected in the Gallup World Poll. International Journal of Psychology, 50, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emerson, S. D., Guhn, M., & Gadermann, A. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Quality of Life Research, 26, 2251–2264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eurofound. (2012). Third European Quality of Life Survey—Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the crisis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  21. Gnambs, T., & Buntins, K. (2017). The measurement of variability and change in life satisfaction: A comparison of single-item and multi-item instruments. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33, 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graham, C., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2013). Gender and well-being around the world. International Journal of Happiness and Development, 1, 212–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenberg, R. D. (2008). Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2015). World happiness report. New York: Earth Institute, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  25. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult (PWI–A). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.Google Scholar
  29. International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index (5th ed.). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.Google Scholar
  30. Jorm, A. F., & Ryan, S. M. (2014). Cross-national and historical differences in subjective well-being. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43, 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jovanović, V. (2016). The validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in adolescents and a comparison with single-item life satisfaction measures: A preliminary study. Quality of Life Research, 25, 3173–3180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. La Placa, V., McNaught, A., & Knight, A. (2013). Discourse on wellbeing in research and practice. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3, 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lau, A. L. D., Cummins, R. A., & McPherson, W. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the Personal Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 72, 403–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Legatum Institute. (2015). The 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
  37. Lorenzo-Seva, U., Ferrando, P. J., & Chico, E. (2010). Two SPSS programs for interpreting multiple regression results. Behaviour Research Methods, 42, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAdams, K. K., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). The role of domain satisfaction in explaining the paradoxical association between life satisfaction and age. Social Indicators Research, 109, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ng, W., & Diener, E. (2014). What matters to the rich and the poor? Subjective well-being, financial satisfaction, and post-materialistic needs across the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ngamaba, K. (2017). Determinants of subjective well-being in representative samples of nations. European Journal of Public Health, 27, 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Renn, D., Pfaffenberger, N., Platter, M., Mitmansgruber, H., Cummins, R. A., & Hofer, S. (2009). International Well-being Index: The Austrian version. Social Indicators Research, 90, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Richardson, J., Khan, M., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2013). Subjective wellbeing, utility and quality of life: Results from the Multi Instrument Comparison Project. Retrieved from
  47. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steinmetz, H., Schmidt, P., Tina-Booh, A., Wieczorek, S., & Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: Differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Quality & Quantity, 43, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  50. Tiliouine, H. (2014). Algeria, Personal Well-Being Index. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 133–140). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2014). Human development report 2014: Sustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. New York.Google Scholar
  52. Van Beuningen, J., & de Jonge, T. (2011). The Personal Wellbeing Index: Construct validity for the Netherlands. Discussion paper (201124). The Hague: Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  53. Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 37–41.Google Scholar
  54. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2012). Measurement of and target-setting for well-being. Second meeting of the expert group, Paris, June 25–26, 2012. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  56. Zemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J. P., Cieciuch, J., Adams, B. G., Osin, E. N., Rahkman, A., et al. (2017). Measurement invariance of Personal Well-Being Index (PWI-8) across 26 countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1697–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations