Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

27-11-2018

Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale by gender, age, marital status and educational level

Auteurs: Irene Checa, Jaime Perales, Begoña Espejo

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2019

Abstract

Introduction

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) has shown strong evidence of acceptability, reliability, validity and invariance for gender, whereas there is mixed evidence of invariance by culture and age and the literature has not explored the roles of marital status and educational level. The SWLS should be invariant by marital status and educational level to be able to compare scores between groups. We aimed to explore the invariance of the SWLS by marital status and educational level.

Method

A convenience sample of 726 Spanish adults participated in a survey. We tested a one-factor model using confirmatory factor analysis. We tested the configural, metric and scalar invariance of the factorial structure of the SWLS by gender, age, marital status and level of education.

Results

The results show a scalar invariance by gender and educational level and a partial scalar invariance by marital status. Women and individuals in a relationship show greater subjective well-being while no differences are observed among people with different educational levels.

Discussion

The SLWS is valid for comparisons between genders, age, educational levels but not for marital status. It is essential to verify its invariance to interpret mean differences and significance values appropriately.

vorige artikel Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)

volgende artikel The weight-specific adolescent instrument for economic evaluation (WAItE): psychometric evaluation using a Rasch model approach

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.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105.CrossRef

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1552-2.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9186-x.CrossRef

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), 1131–1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9859-x.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0451-3.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00088-9.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.008.CrossRef

10.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.030.CrossRef

11.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1331-5.CrossRefPubMed

12.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0478-5.CrossRef

13.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-1037-5.CrossRef

14.

Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7–8), 1359–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00168-8.CrossRef

15.

Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001.CrossRef

16.

Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Gowdy, J. M. (2007). Environmental degradation and happiness. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.005.CrossRef

17.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

18.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

19.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.CrossRef

20.

Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006.CrossRef

21.

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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2016.06.002.CrossRef

22.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00332-X.CrossRef

23.

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, 12(1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9461-z.CrossRef

24.

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. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000058.CrossRef

25.

Jongbloed, J. (2018). Higher education for happiness? Investigating the impact of education on the hedonic and eudaimonic well-being of Europeans. European Educational Research Journal, 17(5), 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118770818.CrossRef

26.

Yue Cao, J. S., Krause, L. L., Saunders, & Jillian, M. R., & Clark (2015). Impact of marital status on 20-year subjective well-being trajectories. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 21(3), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1310/sci2103-208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Moghnie, L., & Kazarian, S. S. (2012). Subjective happiness of lebanese college youth in Lebanon: Factorial structure and invariance of the Arabic Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicator Research, 109(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9895-5.CrossRef

28.

Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740.CrossRef

29.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.CrossRef

30.

Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in SEM. In R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modelling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Titel: Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale by gender, age, marital status and educational level
Auteurs: Irene Checa
Jaime Perales
Begoña Espejo
Publicatiedatum: 27-11-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2066-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Results

Discussion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2019

Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)

Exploring the item sets of the Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL) measures using factor analysis

Developmental coordination disorder: the impact on the family

The association between life satisfaction, vitality, self-rated health, and risk of cancer

The weight-specific adolescent instrument for economic evaluation (WAItE): psychometric evaluation using a Rasch model approach

Assessing test–retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula