Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a widely used measure of life satisfaction, a key aspect in quality of life. The SWLS has been used across many socio-demographic groups. Comparison of life satisfaction across different subgroups (e.g., cultures) is meaningful to researchers; such cross-group comparison presupposes that validity of the inferences from SWLS scores holds across various subgroups (measurement invariance: MI). The aim of the present review was to identify, summarize, and evaluate research testing measurement invariance of the SWLS.
A targeted literature search identified articles (published 1985–2016) that examined MI of the SWLS using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis.
The search retrieved 27 articles, representing 66,380 respondents across 24 nations. Gender, age, and culture were the most common types of MI assessed. Most articles used translated (non-English) versions of the SWLS. The highest level of MI tested in each article (i.e., configural, metric, scalar, strict) varied. Findings generally supported a unidimensional structure (configural MI), but less commonly supported were equivalent factor loadings (metric MI). Over half of the gender invariance analyses supported scalar or strict MI, whereas scalar or strict MI was supported in only 1 of the 11 culture MI analyses and 1 of the 9 age MI analyses.
Findings suggest meaningful comparisons of SWLS means across gender may be valid in some situations, but most likely not across culture or age groups. Participants mostly ascribe similar meaning to like items on the SWLS regardless of their gender, but age and especially culture seem to influence this process.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
O’Donnell, G. (2013). Using well-being as a guide to policy. World Happiness Report, 2013, 98–111.
Fiske, S. T., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Can and should happiness be a policy goal? Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 195–203. CrossRef
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152. CrossRef
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.
Kaczmarek, L. D., Bujacz, A., & Eid, M. (2015). Comparative latent state–trait analysis of satisfaction with life measures: The Steen Happiness Index and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(2), 443–453. CrossRef
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305. CrossRef
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65(3), 245–277. CrossRef
Miller, M. J., & Sheu, H. (2008). Conceptual and measurement issues in multicultural psychology research. Handbook of Counseling Psychology, 4, 103–120.
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. CrossRef
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. CrossRef
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. CrossRef
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2015). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–130. CrossRef
Gustavsson, J. P., Eriksson, A. K., Hilding, A., Gunnarsson, M., & Östensson, C. G. (2008). Measurement invariance of personality traits from a five-factor model perspective: multi-group confirmatory factor analyses of the HP5 inventory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(5), 459–467. CrossRefPubMed
Sass, D. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 347–363.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. CrossRef
McArdle, J. (1998). Contemporary statistical models for examining test bias. In J. J. McArdle & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human abilities in theory and practice. (pp. 157–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Millsap, R. E., & Meredith, W. (2007). Factorial invariance: Historical perspectives and new problems. In Em R. Cudeck & R. C. MacCallum (Eds.) Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions, (pp. 131–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26.
DeShon, R. P. (2004). Measures are not invariant across groups without error variance homogeneity. Psychology Science, 46, 137–149.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA, (Vol. 758, pp. 424–453).
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Journal of Business Research, 6(1), 53–60.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. CrossRef
Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 980–990. CrossRef
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 157–184. CrossRef
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456. CrossRef
Chinni, M. L., & Hubley, A. M. (2014). A research synthesis of validation practices used to evaluate the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS). In Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences (pp. 35–66). New York: Springer.
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. CrossRef
Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Brière, N. M. (1989). L’échelle de satisfaction de vie: Validation canadienne-française du “Satisfaction with Life Scale”. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21(2), 210. CrossRef
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. 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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the Malay satisfaction with life scale. Social Indicators Research, 92(1), 25. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. doi: 10.1007/s11482-016-9461-z.
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. CrossRef
Oishi, S. (2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 411–423. CrossRef
Durak, M., Senol-Durak, E., & Gencoz, T. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research, 99(3), 413–429. CrossRef
Gouveia, V. V., Milfont, T. L., Da Fonseca, P. N., & de Miranda Coelho, J. A. P. (2009). Life satisfaction in Brazil: Testing the psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) in five Brazilian samples. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 267. CrossRef
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424. CrossRef
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 statistical program [Scientific Software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kushner, E. (2003). English as global language: problems, dangers, opportunities. Diogenes, 50(2), 17–23. CrossRef
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the student’s life satisfaction scale. School Psychology International, 12(3), 231–240. CrossRef
Gadermann, A. M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Investigating validity evidence of the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 229–247. CrossRef
Van De Schoot, R., Schmidt, P., De Beuckelaer, A., Lek, K., & Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M. (2015). Editorial: Measurement invariance. Frontier in Psychology, 6, 1064.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741. CrossRef
Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.) The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications (pp. 65–82). Charlotte: IAP – Information Age Publishing.
- Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: reviewing three decades of research
Scott D. Emerson
Anne M. Gadermann
- Springer International Publishing