An Evaluation of the Precision of Measurement of Ryff's Psychological Well-Being Scales in a Population Sample

Rosemary A Abbott, George B Ploubidis, Felicia A Huppert, Diana Kuh, Tim J Croudace, Rosemary A Abbott, George B Ploubidis, Felicia A Huppert, Diana Kuh, Tim J Croudace

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess the effective measurement range of Ryff's Psychological Well-being scales (PWB). It applies normal ogive item response theory (IRT) methodology using factor analysis procedures for ordinal data based on a limited information estimation approach. The data come from a sample of 1,179 women participating in a midlife follow-up of a national birth cohort study in the UK. The PWB scales incorporate six dimensions: autonomy, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life and self-acceptance. Scale information functions were calculated to derive standard errors of measurement for estimated scores on each dimension. Construct variance was distinguished from method variance by inclusion of method factors from item wording (positive versus negative). Our IRT analysis revealed that the PWB measures well-being most accurately in the middle range of the score distribution, i.e. for women with average well-being. Score precision diminished at higher levels of well-being, and low well-being was measured more reliably than high well-being. A second-order well-being factor loaded by four of the dimensions achieved higher measurement precision and greater score accuracy across a wider range than any individual dimension. Future development of well-being scales should be designed to include items that are able to discriminate at high levels of well-being.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Psychological Well-being modified 40-item model with second-order factor and method factors. Residual correlations between the six PWB latent variables ranged from 0.25 to 0.85 (not displayed due to model complexity). Goodness of fit: Chi Square: 2.46 (df = 255), TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.086, WRMR = 2.01
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement—Psychological Well-being (40-item model). Based on modified version of Ryff’ 42-item PWB with 40-items. N = 1,1,79

References

    1. Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., Wadsworth, M. E., & Croudace, T. J. (2006). Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women. Health and quality of life outcomes, 4(76).
    1. Baker F. The basics of item response theory. College Park: University of Maryland: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment & Evaluation; 2001.
    1. Baker F, Kim S. Item response theory: parameter estimation techniques. 2. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2004.
    1. Bartholomew DJ, Knott M. Latent variable models and factor analysis. London: Arnold Publishers; 1999.
    1. Brim O, Ryff CD, Kessler RC, editors. How healthy are we? Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2004.
    1. Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. A. (2009). Investigating the structural validity of ryff’s psychological well-being scales across two samples. Social indicators research, (in press).
    1. Carr D. The fulfillment of career dreams at midlife. Does it matter for women’s mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behaviour. 1997;38(33):1–344.
    1. Cheng ST, Chan AC. Measuring psychological well-being in the Chinese. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005;38:1307–1316. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.013.
    1. Clarke PJ, Marshall VW, Ryff CD, Wheaton B. Measuring psychological well-being in the Canadian study of health and aging. International Psychogeriatrics. 2001;13(Suppl. 1):79–90. doi: 10.1017/S1041610202008013.
    1. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985.
    1. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000;11:227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
    1. Dolan P, White M. How can measures of subjective well-being be used to inform public policy? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2007;2(1):71–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00030.x.
    1. ELSA. English longitudinal study of ageing. From .
    1. Fava GA, Ruini C, Rafanelli C, Finos L, Salmaso L, Mangelli L, et al. Well-being therapy of generalized anxiety disorder. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2005;74(1):26–30. doi: 10.1159/000082023.
    1. Huppert FA, Keverne B, Bayliss N, editors. The science of well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    1. Huppert FA, Marks N, Clark A, Siegrist J, Stutzer A, Vittersø J, Wahrendorf J. Measuring well-being across Europe: Description of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Social Indicators Research. 2009;91(3):301–315. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9346-0.
    1. Jöreskog KG. New developments in LISREL: Analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Quality & Quantity. 1990;24:387–404. doi: 10.1007/BF00152012.
    1. Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
    1. Kafka GJ, Kozma A. The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being (SPWB) and their relationship to measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research. 2002;57:171–190. doi: 10.1023/A:1014451725204.
    1. Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, editors. Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999.
    1. Layard R. Happiness: lessons from a new Science. London: Penguin; 2005.
    1. Lindfors P, Berntsson L, Lundberg U. Factor structure of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales in Swedish female and male white-collar workers. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006;40(6):1213–1222. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.016.
    1. Marks N, Shah H. A well-being manifesto for a flourishing society. In: Huppert FA, Bayliss N, Keverne B, editors. The science of well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    1. McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Manwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999.
    1. McGregor I, Little BR. Personal projects, happiness and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74:494–512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.494.
    1. McKinley NM. Women and objectified body consciousness: Mothers’ and daughters’ body experience in cultural, developmental, and familial context. Developmental Psychology. 1999;35(3):760–769. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.760.
    1. Muthén B. A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika. 1984;49:115–132. doi: 10.1007/BF02294210.
    1. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2004). Mplus user guide. (Third ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
    1. Ryff CD. Beyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfaction: New directions in quest of successful aging. International Journal of Behavioural Development. 1989;12:35–55. doi: 10.1177/016502548901200102.
    1. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;57:1069–1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.
    1. Ryff CD, Dienberg Love G, Urry HL, Muller D, Rosenkranz MA, Friedman EM, et al. Psychological well-being and ill-being: Do they have distinct or mirrored biological correlates? Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2006;75:85–95. doi: 10.1159/000090892.
    1. Ryff CD, Keyes CL. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69(4):719–727. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719.
    1. Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness: Nicholas Brealey.
    1. Snyder CR, Lopez SJ, editors. Handbook of positive psychology. USA: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2001.
    1. Springer KW, Hauser RM. An assessment of the construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being: Method, mode and measurement effects. Social Science Research. 2006;35:1079–1101.
    1. Sweet, J. A., & Bumpass, L. L. (1996). The national survey of families and households—Waves 1 and 2: Data description and documentation. From .
    1. Takane Y, de Leeuw J. On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika. 1987;52:393–408. doi: 10.1007/BF02294363.
    1. Van Dierendonck D. The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being and it’s extension with spiritual well-being. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004;36:629–643. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00122-3.
    1. van Dierendonck D, Dario Dı′az D, Rodrı′guez-Carvajal R, Blanco A, Moreno-Jimenez B. Ryff’s six-factor model of psychological well-being, a Spanish exploration. Social Indicators Research. 2008;87(3):473–479. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9174-7.
    1. Wadsworth ME. The imprint of time: childhood, history, and adult life. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1991.
    1. Wadsworth ME, Butterworth SL, Hardy RJ, Kuh D, Richards M, Langenberg C, et al. The life course prospective design: An example of benefits and problems associated with study longevity. Social Science and Medicine. 2003;57(11):2193–2205. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00083-2.
    1. Wadsworth ME, Kuh D, Richards M, Hardy RJ. Cohort profile: The 1946 national birth cohort (MRC National Survey of Health and Development) International Journal of Epidemiology. 2006;31(1):49–54.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj