Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) is used internationally to measure subjective well-being. While numerous studies have reported on the psychometric properties of the PWI using classic test theory, the current paper provides additional psychometric evaluation using the Rasch measurement model.
The responses to the PWI items of 593 healthy adults living in Australia or Canada were analysed using Rasch analysis. Assessed were overall model fit was assessed, individual person fit and item fit, reliability, differential item functioning (DIF), unidimensionality, targeting, and response format.
Results indicate excellent psychometric properties of the PWI, provided the religion/spirituality item is excluded. The seven-item PWI showed good model fit (overall item–trait interaction χ 2 = 70.59, df = 63, p = 0.24), excellent person separation (PSI = .89), no item or person misfit, and no DIF for country or gender, and unidimensionality was supported. In addition, only very mild disordered thresholds were observed for the ‘safety’ item, indicating that overall, the 11-point response format was suitable for this population.
It is recommended that the religion/spirituality item not be included in the aggregated or averaged total score in Western context and that caution should be used in comparison across different groups where the eight-item version has been used.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 159–190. CrossRef
International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal wellbeing index (4th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm.
Tiliouine, H., Cummins, R. A., & Davern, M. (2006). Measuring wellbeing in developing countries: The case of Algeria. Social Indicators Research, 75(1), 1–30. CrossRef
Lau, A. L., Cummins, R. A., & McPherson, W. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the Personal Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 72(3), 403–430. CrossRef
Wills, E. (2009). Spirituality and subjective well-being: Evidences for a new domain in the personal well-being index. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(1), 49–69. CrossRef
Davern, M. T., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. A. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective-cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 429–449. CrossRef
International Wellbeing Group (2013). Personal wellbeing index (Adult) Manual (5th edn.). Retrieved from http://www.acqol.com.au/iwbg/wellbeing-index/pwi-a-english.pdf.
Lun, V. M. C., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Examining the relation of religion and spirituality to subjective well-being across national cultures. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(4), 304. CrossRef
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC Paper 1 background, questions, instruments. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291. CrossRefPubMed
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments, MIC Paper 2. Melbourne: Monash University, Centre for Health Economics.
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). RUMM2030 [Computer software and manual]. Perth: RUMM Laboratory.
- Rasch analysis of the Personal Wellbeing Index
- Springer International Publishing