Quality of Life Research

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 2251–2264 | Cite as

Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: reviewing three decades of research

  • Scott D. Emerson
  • Martin Guhn
  • Anne M. Gadermann



The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a widely used measure of life satisfaction, a key aspect in quality of life. The SWLS has been used across many socio-demographic groups. Comparison of life satisfaction across different subgroups (e.g., cultures) is meaningful to researchers; such cross-group comparison presupposes that validity of the inferences from SWLS scores holds across various subgroups (measurement invariance: MI). The aim of the present review was to identify, summarize, and evaluate research testing measurement invariance of the SWLS.


A targeted literature search identified articles (published 1985–2016) that examined MI of the SWLS using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis.


The search retrieved 27 articles, representing 66,380 respondents across 24 nations. Gender, age, and culture were the most common types of MI assessed. Most articles used translated (non-English) versions of the SWLS. The highest level of MI tested in each article (i.e., configural, metric, scalar, strict) varied. Findings generally supported a unidimensional structure (configural MI), but less commonly supported were equivalent factor loadings (metric MI). Over half of the gender invariance analyses supported scalar or strict MI, whereas scalar or strict MI was supported in only 1 of the 11 culture MI analyses and 1 of the 9 age MI analyses.


Findings suggest meaningful comparisons of SWLS means across gender may be valid in some situations, but most likely not across culture or age groups. Participants mostly ascribe similar meaning to like items on the SWLS regardless of their gender, but age and especially culture seem to influence this process.


Satisfaction with Life Scale Measurement invariance Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis Gender Culture Age 



This research was supported by a Tri-Council Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded to the first author. The last author received research funding from the Lawson Foundation, Canada.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

No human participants were involved in the article as it is a review of previously published research.


  1. 1.
    O’Donnell, G. (2013). Using well-being as a guide to policy. World Happiness Report, 2013, 98–111.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fiske, S. T., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Can and should happiness be a policy goal? Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cummins, R. A. (2013). Measuring happiness and subjective well-being. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, A. Conley Ayers (Eds.) Oxford handbook of happiness, (pp. 185–200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaczmarek, L. D., Bujacz, A., & Eid, M. (2015). Comparative latent state–trait analysis of satisfaction with life measures: The Steen Happiness Index and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(2), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Life-satisfaction is a momentary judgment and a stable personality characteristic: The use of chronically accessible and stable sources. Journal of Personality, 70(3), 345–384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65(3), 245–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, M. J., & Sheu, H. (2008). Conceptual and measurement issues in multicultural psychology research. Handbook of Counseling Psychology, 4, 103–120.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kern, J. L., McBride, B. A., Laxman, D. J., Dyer, W. J., Santos, R. M., & Jeans, L. M. (2016). The role of multiple-group measurement invariance in family psychology research. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lubke, G. H., Dolan, C. V., Kelderman, H., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2003). Weak measurement invariance with respect to unmeasured variables: An implication of strict factorial invariance. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56(2), 231–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2015). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gustavsson, J. P., Eriksson, A. K., Hilding, A., Gunnarsson, M., & Östensson, C. G. (2008). Measurement invariance of personality traits from a five-factor model perspective: multi-group confirmatory factor analyses of the HP5 inventory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(5), 459–467.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sass, D. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 347–363.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McArdle, J. (1998). Contemporary statistical models for examining test bias. In J. J. McArdle & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human abilities in theory and practice. (pp. 157–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Millsap, R. E., & Meredith, W. (2007). Factorial invariance: Historical perspectives and new problems. In Em R. Cudeck & R. C. MacCallum (Eds.) Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions, (pp. 131–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    DeShon, R. P. (2004). Measures are not invariant across groups without error variance homogeneity. Psychology Science, 46, 137–149.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA, (Vol. 758, pp. 424–453).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: the problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Journal of Business Research, 6(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 980–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118(1), 123–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chinni, M. L., & Hubley, A. M. (2014). A research synthesis of validation practices used to evaluate the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS). In Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences (pp. 35–66). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vautier, S., Mullet, E., & Jmel, S. (2004). Assessing the structural robustness of self-rated satisfaction with life: A sem analysis. Social Indicators Research, 68(2), 235–249. doi: 10.1023/B:SOCI.0000025595.92546.eb.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shevlin, M., Brunsden, V., & Miles, J. (1998). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance, mean structures and reliability. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 911–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Brière, N. M. (1989). L’échelle de satisfaction de vie: Validation canadienne-française du “Satisfaction with Life Scale”. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21(2), 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bai, X., Wu, C., Zheng, R., & Ren, X. (2011). The psychometric evaluation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale using a nationally representative sample of China. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Clench-Aas, J., Nes, R. B., Dalgard, O. S., & Aarø, L. E. (2011). Dimensionality and measurement invariance in the Satisfaction with Life Scale in Norway. Quality of Life Research, 20(8), 1307–1317.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moksnes, U. K., Løhre, A., Byrne, D. G., & Haugan, G. (2014). Satisfaction with life scale in adolescents: Evaluation of factor structure and gender invariance in a Norwegian sample. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 657–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tomás, J. M., Gutiérrez, M., Sancho, P., & Romero, I. (2015). Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) by gender and age in Angola. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 182–186. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hultell, D., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in a Swedish nationwide sample of university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1070–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jovanovic, 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(12), 3173–3180. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1331-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zanon, C., Bardagi, M. P., Layous, K., & Hutz, C. S. (2014). Validation of the satisfaction with life scale to Brazilians: Evidences of measurement noninvariance across Brazil and US. Social Indicators Research, 119(1), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Glaesmer, H., Grande, G., Braehler, E., & Roth, M. (2011). The German version of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 127–132. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sovet, L., Atitsogbe, K. A., Pari, P., Park, M. S. A., & Villieux, A. (2016). Psychometric evaluation of the satisfaction with life scale in Togo: A three-step approach. European Review of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 243–250, doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2016.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the Malay satisfaction with life scale. Social Indicators Research, 92(1), 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wu, C.-h., & Yao, G. (2006). Analysis of factorial invariance across gender in the Taiwan version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1259–1268. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & García-Merita, M. a. L (2003). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance across sexes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1255–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jovanović, V., Joshanloo, M., Đunda, D., & Bakhshi, A. (2016). Gender differences in the relationship between domain-specific and general life satisfaction: A study in Iran and Serbia. Applied Research in Quality of Life. doi: 10.1007/s11482-016-9461-z.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    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(2), 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Atienza Gonzalez, F. L., Balaguer Sola, I., Corte-Real, N., & Fonseca, A. M. (2016). Factorial invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in adolescents from Spain and Portugal. Psicothema, 28(3), 353–358. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dimitrova, R., & Espinosa, A. D. C. D. (2015). Measurement Invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in Argentina, Mexico and Nicaragua. Social Inquiry into Well-Being, 1(1), 32. doi: 10.13165/siiw-15-1-1-04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    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. doi: 10.1037/pas0000181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bieda, A., Hirschfeld, G., Schonfeld, P., Brailovskaia, J., Zhang, X. C., & Margraf, J. (2016). Universal happiness? Cross-cultural measurement invariance of scales assessing positive mental health. Psychological assessment. doi: 10.1037/pas0000353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Oishi, S. (2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    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(4), 526–532. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.707778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Durak, M., Senol-Durak, E., & Gencoz, T. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research, 99(3), 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Siedlecki, K. L., Tucker-Drob, E. M., Oishi, S., & Salthouse, T. A. (2008). Life satisfaction across adulthood: different determinants at different ages? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(3), 153–164. doi: 10.1080/17439760701834602.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gouveia, V. V., Milfont, T. L., Da Fonseca, P. N., & de Miranda Coelho, J. A. P. (2009). Life satisfaction in Brazil: Testing the psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) in five Brazilian samples. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pons, D., Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & García-Merita, M. L. (2000). Satisfaction With Life Scale: Analysis of factorial invariance for adolescents and elderly persons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(1), 62–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wu, C.-H., Chen, L. H., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2009). Longitudinal invariance analysis of the satisfaction with life scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 396–401. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gana, K., Bailly, N., Saada, Y., Joulain, M., & Alaphilippe, D. (2013). Does life satisfaction change in old age: results from an 8-year longitudinal study. The Journals of Gerontology B, 68(4), 540–552. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbs093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 statistical program [Scientific Software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kushner, E. (2003). English as global language: problems, dangers, opportunities. Diogenes, 50(2), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Van Nes, F., Abma, T., Jonsson, H., & Deeg, D. (2010). Language differences in qualitative research: is meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing, 7(4), 313–316.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the student’s life satisfaction scale. School Psychology International, 12(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gadermann, A. M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Investigating validity evidence of the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Van De Schoot, R., Schmidt, P., De Beuckelaer, A., Lek, K., & Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M. (2015). Editorial: Measurement invariance. Frontier in Psychology, 6, 1064.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.) The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications (pp. 65–82). Charlotte: IAP – Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott D. Emerson
    • 1
  • Martin Guhn
    • 1
  • Anne M. Gadermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Early Learning Partnership, School of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations