The General Well-Being Schedule (GWB) is a brief, reliable, and valid instrument used in population studies to assess psychological well-being, although its validity with African–Americans has yet to be established. This study evaluated the reliability, validity, and factor structure of the GWB in a sample of 599 overweight African–American women who participated in multicenter weight loss trial. The results of the factor analysis indicate that the GWB is primarily unidimensional and that the existence of the six hypothesized subscales was not supported. The GWB demonstrated evidence of concurrent and construct validity when examined in association with measures of self-concept, depression, and several health behaviors. The results of this study suggest that the GWB is a reliable and valid measure of psychological well-being in African–American women.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Dupuy HJ. Self-representations of General Psychological Well-Being of American Adults. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, 1978.
Fazio AF. A Concurrent Validational Study of The NCHS General Well-Being Schedule. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, 1977 (Vital & Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 73, DHEW Publication No. [HRA] 78-1347).
Jonas BS, Franks P, Ingram DD. Are symptoms of anxiety and depression risk factors for hypertension? Longitudinal evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I Epidemiological Follow-up Study. Arch Fam Med 1997; 6: 43–49.
McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford Press, 1987.
Ware, JE, Johnston SA, Davies-Avery A, Brook RH. Conceptualization and Measurement of Health for Adults in the Health Insurance Study: Vol. III, Mental Health (Publication no. R-1987/3-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1979.
Poston WSC, Olvera NE, Yanez C, et al. Evaluation of the factor structure and psychometric properties of the General Well-Being Schedule (GWB) with Mexican American women. Women and Health 1998; 27: 49–62.
Wan TTH, Livieratos B. Interpreting a general index of subjective well-being. Milbank Memorial Fund Quart/ Health Soc 1978; 56: 531–556.
Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological Testing 7th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1997.
Callahan CM, Wolinsky FD. The effect of gender and race on the measurement properties of the CES-D in older adults. Med Care 1994; 32: 341–356.
Golding JM, Aneshensel CS. Factor structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale among Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Psychol Assessment 1989; 1: 163–168.
Guarniaccia PJ, Angel R, Worobey JL. The factor structure of the CES-D in the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: The influences of ethnicity, gender, language. Social Sci Med 1989; 29: 85–94.
Knight RG, Williams S, McGee R, Olaman S. Psychometric properties of the centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in a sample of women in middle life. Behav Res Ther 1997; 35: 373–380.
Manson SM, Ackerson IM, Dirk R, Baron AE, Fleming CM. Depressive symptoms among American Indian adolescents: Psychometric characterics of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scales (CES-D). Psychol Assessment 1990; 2: 231–237.
Fujita F, Diener E, Sandvik E. Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity. J Pers Social Psychol 1991; 61: 427–434.
Tousignant M, Brosseau R, Tremblay L. Sex bias in mental health scales: Do women tend to report less serious symptoms and confide more than men? Psychol Med 1987; 17: 203–215.
Kanders BS, Ullmann JP, Foreyt JP, et al. The black American lifestyle intervention (BALI): The design of a weight loss program for working-class African-American women. J Am Diatetic Assoc 1994; 94 (3): 310–312.
Harrison B, Gorham L. Growing inequality in Black wages in the 1980s and the emergence of an African-American middle class. J Policy Anal Manage 1992; 11: 235–253.
Brook RH, Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, et al. Overview of adult health status measures fielded in Rand's Health Insurance Study. Med Care 1979; 17: 1–131.
Edwards DW, Yarvis RM, Mueller DP, Zingale HC, Wagman WJ. Test-taking and the stability of adjustment scales: Can we assess patient deterioration? Eval Quart 1978; 2: 275–291.
Monk M. Blood pressure awareness and psychological well-being in the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Clin Invest Med 1991; 4: 183–189.
Simpkins C, Burke FF. Comparative analyses of the NCHS General Well-Being Schedule: Response Distributions, Community vs. Patient Status Discriminations, and Content Relationships (Contract no. HRA 106-74-13). Nashville, TN: Center for Community Studies, George Peabody College, 1974.
Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelsohn M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiat 1961; 4: 561–571.
Beck A, Steer R, Garbin B. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Review 1988; 8: 77–100.
Nietzel MT, Russell RL, Hemmings KA, Gretter ML. Clinical significance of psychotherapy for unipolar depression: A meta-analytic approach to social comparison. J Consul Clin Psych 1987; 55: 156–161.
Roid GH, Fitts WH. Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, Revised Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1988.
Keith LK, Bracken BA. Self-concept instruments: A historical and evaluative review. In: Bracken BA. (ed), Handbook of Self-Concept: Developmental, Social, and Clinical Considerations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996; 91–170.
Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 1974; 81: 358–361.
Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assessment 1995; 7: 286–299.
Miller DJ, Freedon PS, Kline GM. Comparison of activity levels using the Caltrac accelerometer and five questionnaires. Med Sci Sport Exer 1994; 26: 376–382.
Racette SB, Schoeller DA, Kushner RF. Comparison of heart rate and physical activity recall with doubly labeled water in obese women. Med Sci Sport Exer 1995; 27: 126–133.
Rauh MJ, hovel MF, Hofstetter CR, Sallis JF, Greghorn A. Reliability and validity of self-reported physical activity in Latinos. Int J Epidemiol 1992; 21: 966–971.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed., New York: Mcgraw Hill, 1994.
Veit CT, Ware JE. The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. J Consult Clin Psych 1983; 51: 730–742.
Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1991.
Miller GD, Harrington ME. General Well-Being Schedule. In: St Jeor ST (ed), Obesity Assessment: Tools, Methods, Interpretations. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1997; 465–470.
National institutes of health (NIH). national heart, lung, and blood institute (NHLBI): Clinical Guidelines on The Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity: The Evidence Report. Washington DC: US Government Press, 1998.
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, J., Poston II, W.C., Haddock, C.K. et al. Psychometric characteristics of the General Well-Being Schedule (GWB) with African–American women. Qual Life Res 12, 31–39 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022052804109
- Public Health
- Factor Structure
- Health Behavior
- Construct Validity
- American Woman