Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 949–956 | Cite as

Spanish Validation of the Flourishing Scale in the General Population

  • Irene ChecaEmail author
  • Jaime Perales
  • Begoña Espejo
Article

Abstract

Well-being research and its measurement have grown in the last two decades. The objective of this study was to adapt and validate the Flourishing Scale in a sample of Spanish adults. This was a cross-sectional study using a non-probabilistic sample of 999 Spanish general adult population participants. The psychometric properties of the scale were analysed from an exploratory and confirmatory perspective. Exploratory factor analysis showed a one-factor solution explaining 42.3% of the variance; an internal consistency of .846; temporal reliability correlation of .749; convergent validity with the Satisfaction with Life Scale of .521 and criterion validity with positive and negative affect (PANAS), pessimism and optimism (LOT-R) ranging from .270 to .488. Confirmatory factor analysis testing the one-factor solution showed a χ2 of 65.57 df = 20; CFI of .982, RMSEA of .06, average variance extracted index of .518 and composite reliability index of .841. Results showed that the Spanish version of the FS is a reliable and valid method for measuring high levels of well-being.

Keywords

Adaptation Validation Confirmatory factor analysis Psychometric properties Instrumental studies Flourishing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

J.P. would like to thank Emma Green for the English language advice.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

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.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Anderson, J. C., y Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antolikova, E. (2012). The European year for active ageing and solidarity between generations 2012. Kniznica, 13(2), 6–9 Retrieved from http://goo.gl/M7EYfa.Google Scholar
  3. Arafat, S. Y., Chowdhury, H. R., Qusar, M. S., & Hafez, M. A. (2016). Cross Cultural Adaptation & Psychometric Validation of research instruments: A methodological review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5, 129–136. doi: 10.5455/jbh.20160615121755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcı́a-Merita, M. L. (2003). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance across sexes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1255–1260. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00332-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babakus, E., Ferguson Jr., C. E., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1987). The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(2), 222–228. doi: 10.2307/3151512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software, Inc. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/szIGcN.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Caballero, F. F., Miret, M., Olaya, B., Perales, J., López-Ridaura, R., Haro, J. M., Chatterji, S., & Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. (2014). Evaluation of affect in mexico and spain: Psychometric properties and usefulness of an abbreviated version of the day reconstruction method. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 915–935. doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9456-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396 Retrieved from http://goo.gl/ftIgSk.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalal, D. K., Carter, N. T., & Lake, C. J. (2014). Middle response scale options are inappropriate for ideal point scales. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(3), 463–478. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9326-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins symptom checklist (HSCL): A self report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830190102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(3), 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duan, W., Ho, S. M. Y., Bai, Y., & Tang, X. (2013). Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese virtues questionnaire. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(3), 336–345. doi: 10.1177/1049731513477214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Esch, T., Jose, G., Gimpel, C., Von Scheidt, C., & Michalsen, A. (2013). Die Flourishing Scale (FS) von Diener et al. liegt jetzt in einer autorisierten deutschen Fassung (FS-D) vor: Einsatz bei einer Mind-Body-medizinischen Fragestellung. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 20(4), 267–275. doi: 10.1159/000354414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Extremera, N., Salguero, J. M., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2011). Trait meta-mood and subjective happiness: A 7-week prospective study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 509–517. doi: 10.1007/s10902-010-9233-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feicht, T., Wittmann, M., Jose, G., Mock, A., von Hirschhausen, E., & Esch, T. (2013). Evaluation of a seven-week web-based happiness training to improve psychological well-being, reduce stress, and enhance mindfulness and flourishing: A randomized controlled occupational health study. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013, 1–14. doi: 10.1155/2013/676953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferrando, P. J., Chico, E., & Tous, J. M. (2002). Propiedades psicométricas del test de optimismo Life Orientation Test. Psicothema, 14(3), 673–680 Retrieved from http://goo.gl/OMlGtS.Google Scholar
  21. Finney, A.J. y DiStefano C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: G. R. Hancock y R. O. Mueller (Eds). Structural equation modeling: A second course, 269–314. Greenwich: Information Age PublishingGoogle Scholar
  22. Gimpel, C., von Scheidt, C., Jose, G., Sonntag, U., Stefano, G. B., Michalsen, A., & Esch, T. (2014). Changes and interactions of flourishing, mindfulness, sense of coherence, and quality of life in patients of a mind-body medicine outpatient clinic. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 21(3), 154–162. doi: 10.1159/000363784.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. González-Romá, V., & Espejo, B. (2003). Testing the middle response categories" not sure"," in between" and"?" in polytomous items. Psicothema, 15(2), 278–284.Google Scholar
  24. Hartley, J. (2014). Some thoughts on likert-type scales. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14(1), 83–86. doi: 10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70040-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How's life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling, 20(2), 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2012). World happiness report [2012]. doi: 10.14288/1.0053622
  27. Hernández, A., Espejo, B., & González-Romá, V. (2006). The functioning of central categories middle level and sometimes in graded response scales: Does the label matter? Psicothema, 18(2), 300–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hone, L., Jarden, A., & Schofield, G. (2014b). Psychometric properties of the flourishing scale in a new zealand sample. Social Indicators Research, 119(2), 1031–1045. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0501-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G., & Duncan, S. (2014a). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62–90. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutchinson, S. R., & Olmos, A. (1998). Behavior of descriptive fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis using ordered categorical data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(4), 344–364. doi: 10.1080/10705519809540111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M. (1999). LISREL 8: New statistical features, chicago, IL: Scientific software international. Inc.[Links], Google Scholar
  32. Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 93–124. doi: 10.1080/026999300379003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered likert response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning in likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lai, M., Li, Y., & Liu, Y. (2010). Determining the optimal scale width for a rating scale using an integrated discrimination function. Measurement, 43(10), 1458–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. LimeSurvey Project Team, Schmitz, Carsten. (2012). LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. Germany: LimeSurvey Project Hamburg.Google Scholar
  38. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155. doi: 10.1023/A:1006824100041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manincor, M., Bensoussan, A., Smith, C. A., Barr, K., Schweickle, M., Donoghoe, L., Bourchier, S., & Fahey, P. (2016). Individualized yoga for reducing depression and anxiety, and improving well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Depression and Anxiety. doi: 10.1002/da.22502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McDonald, J. L. (2004). The optimal number of categories for numerical rating scales. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 1664.Google Scholar
  41. Muñiz, J., Elosúa, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: segunda edición. Psicothema, 25(2), 151–157. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2013.24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., Padilla, J., & Hambleton, R. K. (2016). Test adaptation standards for cross-lingual assessment. In C. S. Wells, & M. Faulkner-Bond (Eds.), Educational measurement: From foundations to future; educational measurement: From foundations to future (pp. 291-304, Chapter xvii, 494 Pages) Guilford Press, New York. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1828875838?accountid=14777
  43. Murray, A. L., Booth, T., & Molenaar, D. (2015). When middle really means “top” or “bottom”: An analysis of the 16PF5 using bock's nominal response model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1095197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Weems, G. (2004). Response categories on rating scales: Characteristics of item respondents who frequently utilize midpoint. Research in the Schools, 11(1), 50–59.Google Scholar
  45. Ortuño-Sierra, J., Santarén-Rosell, M., Albéniz, A. P. d., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2015). Dimensional structure of the spanish version of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS) in adolescents and young adults. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), e1–e9. doi: 10.1037/pas0000107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pozo-Muñoz, C., Garzón-Umerenkova, A., Bretones-nieto, B., & Ligia-Charry, C. (2016). Psychometric properties and dimensionality of the “flourishing scale” in Spanish-speaking population. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 14(1), 175–192.Google Scholar
  47. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. doi: 10.1177/01466216970212006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 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(1), 141–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2013). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. The exploration of happiness (pp. 117-139) Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  52. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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(6), 1063–1078. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  55. Silva, A. J., & Caetano, A. (2013). Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of positive and negative experience in Portugal. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 469–478. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9938-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. SPSS, I. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics 22. New York: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  57. Sumi, K. (2014a). Reliability and validity of japanese versions of the flourishing scale and the scale of positive and negative experience. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 601–615. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0432-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sumi, K. (2014b). Temporal stability of the japanese versions of the flourishing scale and the scale of positive and negative experience. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 4, 140. doi: 10.4172/2161-0487.1000140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tang, X., Duan, W., Wang, Z., & Liu, T. (2014). Psychometric evaluation of the simplified chinese version of flourishing scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(5), 591–599. 5. doi: 10.1177/1049731514557832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Villieux, A., Sovet, L., Jung, S. C., & Guilbert, L. (2016). Psychological flourishing: Validation of the French version of the flourishing scale and exploration of its relationships with personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang, J., Kelly, B. C., Liu, T., Zhang, G., & Hao, W. (2013). Factorial structure of the brief symptom inventory (BSI)-18 among chinese drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 133(2), 368–375. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.06.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 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(6), 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Metodología de las Ciencias del ComportamientoUniversitat de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Preventive Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations