Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 10/2014

01-12-2014

Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from three large samples

Auteurs: Felix Cheung, Richard E. Lucas

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The present paper assessed the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures by comparing single-item measures to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)—a more psychometrically established measure.

Methods

Two large samples from Washington (N = 13,064) and Oregon (N = 2,277) recruited by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a representative German sample (N = 1,312) recruited by the Germany Socio-Economic Panel were included in the present analyses. Single-item life satisfaction measures and the SWLS were correlated with theoretically relevant variables, such as demographics, subjective health, domain satisfaction, and affect. The correlations between the two life satisfaction measures and these variables were examined to assess the construct validity of single-item life satisfaction measures.

Results

Consistent across three samples, single-item life satisfaction measures demonstrated substantial degree of criterion validity with the SWLS (zero-order r = 0.62–0.64; disattenuated r = 0.78–0.80). Patterns of statistical significance for correlations with theoretically relevant variables were the same across single-item measures and the SWLS. Single-item measures did not produce systematically different correlations compared to the SWLS (average difference = 0.001–0.005). The average absolute difference in the magnitudes of the correlations produced by single-item measures and the SWLS was very small (average absolute difference = 0.015–0.042).

Conclusions

Single-item life satisfaction measures performed very similarly compared to the multiple-item SWLS. Social scientists would get virtually identical answer to substantive questions regardless of which measure they use.
vorige artikel Measurement properties of questionnaires assessing participation in children and adolescents with a disability: a systematic review
volgende artikel Assessing the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey for immigrant and Australian-born cancer patients: a Rasch analysis
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
A previous study used the same dataset as Study 1 in the current paper, but comparing single-item and multiple-item measures was not the focus [18]. The goal of this previous study was to provide baseline estimates of mental, social, and physical well-being for states overall and for different subgroups (e.g., racial groups and age groups, etc).
 
2
The SWLS was included in the New Hampshire BRFSS. However, there is difficulty obtaining the data due to recent personnel change at the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.
 
3
The item “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing” is not included in BRFSS. BRFSS tested the 4 item versus the 5 item versions of SWLS and found no difference.
 
4
No other variables were analyzed but not reported.
 
5
No other variables were analyzed but not reported.
 
6
Disattenuated correlation is calculated using in-sample reliability estimate was used for the SWLS. The reliability estimate for the GSOEP (0.74) from Lucas and Donnellan was used for the single-item measure [12].
 
Literatuur
1.
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.
2.
Howell, R. T., & Howell, C. J. (2008). The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 536–560.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
5.
Wagner, G. G., Joachim, R. F., & Jürgen, S. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP)–scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 127(1), 139–169.
6.
7.
Voorpostel, M., Tillmann, R., Lebert, F., Kuhn, U., Lipps, O., Ryser, V.-A., et al. (2012). Swiss Household Panel Userguide (1999–2011), Wave 13, October 2012. Lausanne: FORS.
8.
9.
10.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
11.
Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRef
12.
Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from four national panel studies. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 323–331.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (1995). The trait–state–error model for multi-wave data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 52–59.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (2001). The trait–state models for longitudinal data. In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 243–263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef
15.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Kobau, R., Sniezek, J., Zack, M. M., Lucas, R. E., & Burns, A. (2010). Well‐being assessment: An evaluation of well‐being scales for public health and population estimates of well‐being among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 2(3), 272–297.
18.
Kobau, R., Bann, C., Lewis, M., Zack, M. M., Boardman, A. M., Boyd, R., et al. (2013). Mental, social, and physical well-being in New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington, 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: Implications for public health research and practice related to Healthy People 2020 foundation health measures on well-being. Population Health Metrics, 11(19), 1–16.
19.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.PubMedCrossRef
20.
del Mar Salinas-Jiménez, M., Artés, J., & Salinas-Jiménez, J. (2011). Education as a positional good: A life satisfaction approach. Social Indicators Research, 103(3), 409–426.CrossRef
21.
Schimmack, U., & Oishi, S. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 395–406.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. DIW Research Notes, 4, 1–36.
24.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2, 102–138.
25.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678.PubMedCrossRef
26.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28.CrossRef
28.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from three large samples
Auteurs
Felix Cheung
Richard E. Lucas
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2014

Quality of Life Research 10/2014 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Effect of perioperative complications and functional outcomes on health-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy

Brief Communication

Validation of the MOS Social Support Survey 6-item (MOS-SSS-6) measure with two large population-based samples of Australian women

OriginalPaper

Physical activity and health-related quality of life: US adults with and without limitations

OriginalPaper

The health-related quality of life of Chinese patients with lower urinary tract symptoms in primary care

OriginalPaper

Assessing the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey for immigrant and Australian-born cancer patients: a Rasch analysis

OriginalPaper

Prospectively measured 10-year changes in health-related quality of life and comparison with cross-sectional estimates in a population-based cohort of adult women and men