Skip to main content

Psychometric characteristics of the General Well-Being Schedule (GWB) with African–American women


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.


  1. 1.

    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.

  2. 2.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wan TTH, Livieratos B. Interpreting a general index of subjective well-being. Milbank Memorial Fund Quart/ Health Soc 1978; 56: 531–556.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological Testing 7th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Monk M. Blood pressure awareness and psychological well-being in the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Clin Invest Med 1991; 4: 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelsohn M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiat 1961; 4: 561–571.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Roid GH, Fitts WH. Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, Revised Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 1974; 81: 358–361.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assessment 1995; 7: 286–299.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed., New York: Mcgraw Hill, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Veit CT, Ware JE. The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. J Consult Clin Psych 1983; 51: 730–742.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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).

Download citation


  • Public Health
  • Factor Structure
  • Health Behavior
  • Construct Validity
  • American Woman