The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity
- 77 Downloads
The tripartite model of mental well-being regards well-being as a three-dimensional concept encompassing correlated yet distinct dimensions of hedonic, psychological, and social well-being. This study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) to evaluate this model in an Iranian sample (N = 1435). It was found that the model was generally consistent with the data, although a few variables did not have strong loadings on their target factors. The ESEM model provided improved fit compared with the CFA model. The results illustrate the methodological advantages of ESEM over traditional CFA in this line of research.
KeywordsTripartite model Well-being Hedonic Eudaimonic Social ESEM
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed were in accordance with the conventional ethical standards applied in psychological research.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Ahmad, S. F. (2009). The Islamic personality: a sequential model. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 283–316). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.Google Scholar
- 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: Sage.Google Scholar
- Huq, M. (2009). The heart and personality development. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 159–181). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.Google Scholar
- Joshanloo, M. (2013). Mental well-being in Iran: the importance of comprehensive well-being in understanding the linkages of personality and values. In C. L. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: international contributions to the study of subjective well-being and positive mental health (pp. 177–207). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Joshanloo, M., Bobowik, M., & Basabe, N. (2016). Distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’s comprehensive scale of well-being. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 9, 35–51 (in Persian).Google Scholar
- Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). The subjective well-being of America’s youth: toward a comprehensive assessment. Adolescent & Family Health, 4(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Legatum Institute. (2012). The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index: Methodology and technical appendix. Retrieved from: http://www.prosperity.com
- Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar