medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3325 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz

2020, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Salud Mental 2020; 43 (3)

Structure analysis of subjective well-being

Daniel-González L, de la Rubia JM, Valle OA, García-Cadena CH

Language: English
References: 28
Page: 119-127
PDF size: 504.38 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. There is controversy regarding the structure of subjective well-being (SWB) and the possibility of calculating a SWB total score. Objective. To test and compare five models proposed for the description of SWB. Method. The study was implemented with a cross-sectional, ex-post-facto design using an incidental sampling method. The Positive and Negative Experience Scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale were applied to a sample composed of 600 students of health sciences from two universities of Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Data were analyzed through a structural equation modeling, using Maximum Likelihood and Corrected-Bias Percentile methods. Results. The bifactor model comprising three specific factors, vis-à-vis the model composed of three correlated factors, had the best data fit (Δχ2/Δdf = 8.166 › 5, ΔNFI = .018, ΔNNFI = .015, and ΔCFI = .016 › .01), and all its fit indices were close; however, the specific factor related to positive affect had a poor contribution. Nevertheless, the model composed of three correlated factors had the greatest parsimony (PR = .853, PNFI = .804, PNNFI = .813, PCFI = .819, and PGFI = .706) and its three factors showed convergent validity, discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability. Discussion and conclusion. The two models with the best properties justify the use of a composite score of SWB based on the scores of positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life, as well as scores for these three specific domains of content. From a psychometric perspective, the model composed of three correlated factors yielded the best result.


REFERENCES

  1. Busseri, M. A. (2015). Toward a resolution of the tripartite structure of subjective well‐being. Journal of Personality, 83(4), 413-428. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12116

  2. Busseri, M. A. (2018). Examining the structure of subjective well-being through meta-analysis of the associations among positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 68-71. doi: 10.1016/j. paid.2017.10.003

  3. Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290-314. doi: 10.1177/1088868310391271

  4. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315757421

  5. Chen, F. F., Bai, L., Lee, J. M., & Jing, Y. (2016). Culture and the structure of affect: A bifactor modeling approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 1801-1824. doi: 10.1007/s10902-015-9671-3

  6. Chen, F. F., Jing, Y., Hayes, A., & Lee, J. (2013). Two concepts or two approaches? A bifactor analysis of psychological and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 1033-1068. doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9367-x

  7. Daniel-González, L., Moral de la Rubia, J., Valle de la O, A., García-Cadena, C. H., & Martínez-Martí, M. L. (2019). Validation of the Mexican spanish version of the scale of positive and negative experience in a sample of medical and psychology students. Psychological Reports, 003329411989604. doi: 10.1177/0033294119896046

  8. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

  9. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. doi: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa4901_13

  10. Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Oishi, S. (2017). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology, 58(2), 87-104. doi: 10.1037/ cap0000063

  11. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and open questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 15. doi: 10.1525/ collabra.115

  12. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

  13. Jovanović, V. (2015). A bifactor model of subjective well-being: A re-examination of the structure of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 45-49. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.026

  14. Lapuente, L., Dominguez-Lara, S., Flores-Kanter, P. E., & Medrano, L. A. (2018). Estructura del bienestar subjetivo mediante análisis bifactor: ¿Unidimensional o multidimensional? Avaliação Psicológica, 17(2), 252-259. doi: 10.15689/ ap.2018.1702.14521.11

  15. Maddux, J. E. (2018) Subjective well- being and life satisfaction: An introduction to conceptions, theories, and measures. In Maddux, J. E. (Ed.), Subjective Well- Being and Life Satisfaction (pp 3-31). New York: Routledge.

  16. Metler, S. J., & Busseri, M. A. (2015). Further evaluation of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Evidence from longitudinal and experimental studies. Journal of Personality, 85(2), 192-206. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12233

  17. Moral, J. (2019a). La escala de afectos positivos y negativos (PANAS) en personas mexicanas casadas de Monterrey. Interacciones: Revista de Avances en Psicología, 5(1), 35-50. doi: 10.24016/2019.v5n1.151

  18. Moral, J. (2019b). Revisión de los criterios para validez convergente estimada a través de la Varianza Media Extraída. Psychologia, 13(2), 25-41. doi: 10.21500/19002386.4119

  19. Quezada, L., Landero, R., & Gonzalez, T. (2016). A validity and reliability study of the subjective happiness scale in Mexico. The Journal of Happiness & Well- Being, 4(1), 90-100.

  20. Rahm, T., Heise, E., & Schuldt, M. (2017). Measuring the frequency of emotions— validation of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) in Germany. Plos One, 12(2), e0171288. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171288

  21. Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W., & Haviland, M. G. (2018). Bifactor modelling and the evaluation of scale scores. In Irwing, P., Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing (pp 675-707). doi: 10.1002/9781118489772.ch22

  22. Rodríguez-Fernández, A., & Goñi-Grandmontagne, A. (2011). La estructura tridimensional del bienestar subjetivo. Anales de Psicología, 27(2), 327-332.

  23. Rush, J., & Hofer, S. M. (2014). Differences in within-and between-person factor structure of positive and negative affect: Analysis of two intensive measurement studies using multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 462-473. doi: 10.1037/a0035666|

  24. Seib-Pfeifer, L. E., Pugnaghi, G., Beauducel, A., & Leue, A. (2017). On the replication of factor structures of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 201-207. doi: 10.1016/j. paid.2016.11.053

  25. Soper, D. S. (2020). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

  26. Vázquez, C., Duque, A., & Hervas, G. (2013). Satisfaction with life scale in a representative sample of spanish adults: Validation and normative data. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, e82. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2013.82

  27. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.54.6.1063

  28. Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476-487. doi: 10.1016/j. elerap.2010.07.003




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com