Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), derived from a large German community sample

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to test psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), to provide normative values, and to analyze associations between life satisfaction and sociodemographic and behavioral data.

Methods

A German community sample (n = 9711) with an age range of 18–80 years was surveyed using the SWLS and several other questionnaires. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the dimensionality of the SWLS. Invariance across gender and age groups was tested with multiple-group CFA. Associations between SWLS, sociodemographic variables, and behavioral variables were tested with ANOVAs.

Results

Confirmatory factorial analysis results confirmed that the SWLS is a one-dimensional scale. Measurement invariance across gender was completely confirmed, while concerning age strict measurement invariance was confirmed. The effects of gender and age on satisfaction with life were weak. Satisfaction with life was associated with fatigue (r = − .49), the mental component of quality of life (r = .45), anxiety (r = − .42), dispositional optimism (r = .41), pessimism (r = − .34), sleep quality (r = − .32), and sociodemographic factors such as marital status, income, and occupational status. Non-smokers reported higher life satisfaction than smokers.

Conclusions

Because of the good psychometric properties, the SWLS can be recommended for use in epidemiological research. Normative values based on a large community sample are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Reseach, 28(3), 195–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cloninger, C. R., & Zohar, A. H. (2011). Personality and the perception of health and happiness. Journal of Affective Disorders, 128(1–2), 24–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kostka, T., & Jachimowicz, V. (2010). Relationship of quality of life to dispositional optimism, health locus of control and self-efficacy in older subjects living in different environments. Quality of Life Research, 19(3), 351–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Glaesmer, H., Grande, G., Brähler, E., & Roth, M. (2011). The German version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties, validity, and population-based norms. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lopez-Ortega, M., Torres-Castro, S., & Rosas-Carrasco, O. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Secondary analysis of the Mexican Health and Aging Study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Vázquez, C., Rahona, J. J., Gómez, D., Caballero, F. F., & Hervás, G. (2015). A national representative study of the relative impact of physical and psychological problems on life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jovanović, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Priller, E., & Schupp, J. (2011). Social and economic characteristics of financial and blood donors in Germany. DIW Economic Bulletin, 6, 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Asplund, J. W., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2010). Causal impact of employee work perceptions on the bottom line of organizations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 378–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Diener, E. (2012). New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. The American Psychologist, 67(8), 590–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Vazquez, C., Duque, A., & Hervas, G. (2013). Satisfaction with life scale in a representative sample of Spanish adults: Validation and normative data. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the Malay Satisfaction With Life Scale. Social Indicators Research, 92(1), 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Slocum-Gori, S. L., Zumbo, B. D., Michalos, A. C., & Diener, E. (2009). A note on the Dimensionality of Quality of Life Scales: An illustration with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Social Indicators Research, 92(3), 489–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Emerson, S. D., Guhn, M., & Gadermann, A. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Quality of Life Research, 26, 2251–2264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Learmonth, Y. C., Alwick, E. A., McAuley, E., & Motl, R. W. (2015). Quality of life and health-related quality of life over 1 year in older women: Monitoring stability and reliability of measurement. Social Indicators Research, 123(1), 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112(3), 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Loeffler, M., Engel, C., Ahnert, P., Alfermann, D., Arelin, K., Baber, R., et al. (2015). The LIFE-Adult-Study: Objectives and design of a population-based cohort study with 10,000 deeply phenotyped adults in Germany. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 691.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Smets, E. M. A., Garssen, B., Bonke, B., & Dehaes, J. C. J. M. (1995). The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI): Psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 39(3), 315–325.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Dewey, J. E., & Gandek, B. (2001). How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: A manual for users of the SF-8™ health survey. Lincoln RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002). The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(2), 258–266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder—The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem)—A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index—A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research, 28(2), 193–213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Johns, M. W. (1991). A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness—The Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Sleep, 14(6), 540–545.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Schafer, J. L. (1999). NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data under a normal model (Version 2.02) [software]. Retrieved 15 June 2017 from http://www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.html.

  32. Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 186–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lampert, T., Kroll, L., Mueters, S., & Stolzenberg, H. (2013). Measurement of the socioeconomic status within the German Health Update 2009 (GEDA). Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz, 56(1), 131–143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Garbarski, D., Schaeffer, N. C., & Dykema, J. (2016). The effect of response option order on self-rated health: A replication study. Quality of Life Research, 25(8), 2117–2121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Roth, M., Decker, O., Herzberg, P. Y., & Brahler, E. (2008). Dimensionality and norms of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale in a German general population sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 190–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. West, R. (2017). Tobacco smoking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychology & Health, 32(8), 1018–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Daig, I., Hinz, A., Spauschus, A., Decker, O., & Brahler, E. (2013). Are urban dwellers more depressed and anxious than the rural population? Results of a representative survey. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 63(11), 445–454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This publication was supported by LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, an organizational unit affiliated to the Medical faculty of the University of Leipzig. LIFE was funded by means of the European Union, by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and by funds of the Free State of Saxony within the excellence initiative (Project Numbers 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Andreas Hinz, Heide Glaesmer & Elmar Brähler

  2. Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Medicine, and Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Ines Conrad

  3. Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Matthias L. Schroeter

  4. Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Elmar Brähler

  5. Department of Applied Human Studies, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Stendal, Germany

    Markus Zenger

  6. Integrated Research and Treatment Center Adiposity Diseases, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Markus Zenger

  7. Institute and Polyclinic for General Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Rüya-Daniela Kocalevent

  8. Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Helmut Schmidt University of the Federal Armed Forces, Hamburg, Germany

    Philipp Y. Herzberg

Authors
  1. Andreas Hinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ines Conrad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias L. Schroeter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heide Glaesmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elmar Brähler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Markus Zenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rüya-Daniela Kocalevent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Philipp Y. Herzberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Hinz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hinz, A., Conrad, I., Schroeter, M.L. et al. Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), derived from a large German community sample. Qual Life Res 27, 1661–1670 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1844-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1844-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation