Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1697–1711 | Cite as

Measurement Invariance of Personal Well-Being Index (PWI-8) Across 26 Countries

  • Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska
  • Jarosław P. Piotrowski
  • Jan Cieciuch
  • Byron G. Adams
  • Evgeny N. Osin
  • Rahkman Ardi
  • Sergiu Bălţătescu
  • Arbinda Lal Bhomi
  • Amanda Clinton
  • Gisela T. de Clunie
  • Carla Esteves
  • Valdiney Gouveia
  • Ashraf Hosseini
  • Hooria Seyedhosseini Ghaheh
  • Narine Khachatryan
  • Shanmukh Vasant Kamble
  • Anna Kawula
  • Kadi Liik
  • Eva Letovancova
  • Sara Malo Cerrato
  • Carles Alsinet Mora
  • Sofya Nartova-Bochaver
  • Marija Nikolic
  • Joonha Park
  • Elena Paspalanova
  • Győző Pék
  • Joanna Różycka-Tran
  • Ha Truong Thi Khanh
  • Takashi Tsubakita
  • Christin-Melanie Vauclair
  • Anna Włodarczyk
  • John Maltby
Research Paper

Abstract

This report examines the measurement invariance of the Personal Well-being Index with 8 items (PWI-8). University students (N = 5731) from 26 countries completed the measure either through paper and pencil or electronic mode. We examined uni-dimensional structure of PWI and performed a Multi-group CFA to assess the measurement invariance across the 26 countries, using conventional approach and the alignment procedure. The findings provide evidence of configural and partial metric invariance, as well as partial scalar invariance across samples. The findings suggest that PWI-8 can be used to examine correlates of life satisfaction across all included countries, however it is impossible to compare raw scores across countries.

Keywords

Personal well-being index Cross-cultural studies Measurement invariance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work of Jarosław P. Piotrowski was supported by research Grant rewarded by University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poznan Faculty. The work of Jan Cieciuch was supported by grants 2014/14/M/HS6/00919 from the National Science Centre, Poland.

Supplementary material

10902_2016_9795_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32 kb)

References

  1. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.919210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltatescu, S. (2014). Romanian-Hungarian cross-border region, Personal well-being index. In Alex C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 5598–5605). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bricker-Katz, G., Lincoln, M., & McCabe, P. (2009). A Life-time of stuttering: How emotional reactions to stuttering impact activities and participation in older people. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31, 1742–1752. doi: 10.1080/09638280902738672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, B. N. (2012). Structural Equation modelling with mplus. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Casas, F., González, M., Figuer, C., & Malo, S. (2009). Satisfaction with spirituality and with religion, and personal well-being among Spanish adolescents and young university students. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 4(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casas, F., Bello, A., González, M., & Aligué, M. (2012). Personal well-being among Spanish adolescents. Journal of Social Research and Policy, 3, 19–45. doi: 10.1007/s11482-009-9066-x.Google 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, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian unity wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190. doi: 10.1023/A:1024704320683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55–75. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Horowitz, J., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Happiness of the very wealthy. Social Indicators Research, 16, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engel, L., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Impact of dose adjustment for normal eating in Australia (OzDAFNE) on subjective wellbeing, coping resources and negative affect in adults with type 1 diabetes: A prospective comparison study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 91, 271–279. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.11.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forjaz, F. M., Prieto-Flores, M. E., Ayala, A., Rodriguez-Blazquez, C., Fernandez-Mayoralas, G., Rojo-Perez, F., et al. (2011). Measurement properties of the community wellbeing index in older adults. Quality of Life Research, 20, 733–743. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9794-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and remaking of world order. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  19. International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal wellbeing index. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm.
  20. International Wellbeing Group (2013). Personal wellbeing index: 5th edition. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeingindex/index.php.
  21. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cut-off criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202–220. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, 403–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oishi, S. (2010). Culture and well-being: Conceptual and methodological issues. In E. Diener, J. F. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 34–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piedmont, R. L., & Friedman, P. (2012). Spirituality, religiosity and subjective well-being. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 313–329). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2421-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ponizovsky, Y., Dimitrova, R., Schachner, M. K., & Van de Schoot, R. (2013). The satisfaction with life scale: Measurement invariance across immigrant groups. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 526–532. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.707778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarriera, J. C., Casas, F., Alfaro, J., Bedin, L., Strelhow, M. R., Abs, D., et al. (2014). Psychometric properties of the personal wellbeing index in Brazilian and Chilean adolescents including spirituality and religion. Psychology/Psicologia Refl exão e Crítica, 27, 710–719. doi: 10.1590/1678-7153.201427411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life. Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4405-9.Google Scholar
  30. Tomyn, A. J., Norrish, J. M., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). The subjective wellbeing of indigenous Australian adolescents: validating the personal wellbeing index—school children. Social Indicators Research, 103, 405–411. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9970-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tucker, K. L., Ozer, D. J., Lyubomirsky, S., & Boehm, J. K. (2006). Testing for measurement invariance in the satisfaction with life scale: A comparison of Russians and North Americans. Social Indicators Research, 78, 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Werner, S. (2012). Subjective well-being, hope, and needs of individuals with serious mentalillness. Psychiatry Research, 196, 214–219. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whisman, M. A., & Judd, C. M. (2016). A cross-national analysis of measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska
    • 1
  • Jarosław P. Piotrowski
    • 2
  • Jan Cieciuch
    • 3
    • 4
  • Byron G. Adams
    • 5
    • 6
  • Evgeny N. Osin
    • 7
  • Rahkman Ardi
    • 8
  • Sergiu Bălţătescu
    • 9
  • Arbinda Lal Bhomi
    • 10
  • Amanda Clinton
    • 11
  • Gisela T. de Clunie
    • 12
  • Carla Esteves
    • 13
  • Valdiney Gouveia
    • 14
  • Ashraf Hosseini
    • 15
  • Hooria Seyedhosseini Ghaheh
    • 16
  • Narine Khachatryan
    • 17
  • Shanmukh Vasant Kamble
    • 18
  • Anna Kawula
    • 19
  • Kadi Liik
    • 20
  • Eva Letovancova
    • 21
  • Sara Malo Cerrato
    • 22
  • Carles Alsinet Mora
    • 23
  • Sofya Nartova-Bochaver
    • 7
  • Marija Nikolic
    • 24
  • Joonha Park
    • 25
  • Elena Paspalanova
    • 26
  • Győző Pék
    • 27
  • Joanna Różycka-Tran
    • 1
  • Ha Truong Thi Khanh
    • 28
  • Takashi Tsubakita
    • 25
  • Christin-Melanie Vauclair
    • 13
  • Anna Włodarczyk
    • 29
    • 30
  • John Maltby
    • 31
  1. 1.University of GdanskGdańskPoland
  2. 2.Poznan FacultyUniversity of Social Sciences and HumanitiesPoznanPoland
  3. 3.Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in WarsawWarsawPoland
  4. 4.Zurich UniversityZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  6. 6.University of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa
  7. 7.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  8. 8.Airlangga UniversitySurabayaIndonesia
  9. 9.University of OradeaOradeaRomania
  10. 10.Tribhuvan UniversityKathmanduNepal
  11. 11.University of Puerto RicoPuerto RicoUSA
  12. 12.Universidad Tecnológica de PanamáPanamáPanama
  13. 13.Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IULLisboaPortugal
  14. 14.Federal University of ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
  15. 15.University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  16. 16.Islamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  17. 17.Yerevan State UniversityYerevanArmenia
  18. 18.Karnatak UniversityDharwadIndia
  19. 19.Pedagogic University in CracovKrakówPoland
  20. 20.Talinn UniversityTalinnEstonia
  21. 21.Comenius University in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia
  22. 22.University of GironaGironaSpain
  23. 23.University of LleidaLleidaSpain
  24. 24.LUM UniversityCasamassimaItaly
  25. 25.Nagoya University of Commerce and BusinessNagoyaJapan
  26. 26.New Bulgarian UniversitySofiaBulgaria
  27. 27.University of DebrecenDebrecenHungary
  28. 28.Vietnam National UniversityHanoiVietnam
  29. 29.University of Basque CountryLeioaSpain
  30. 30.University of Santiago de ChileSantiagoChile
  31. 31.University of LeicesterLeicesterEngland

Personalised recommendations