Multi-country evaluation of affective experience: validation of an abbreviated version of the day reconstruction method in seven countries

José Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Marta Miret, Francisco Félix Caballero, Beatriz Olaya, Josep Maria Haro, Paul Kowal, Somnath Chatterji, José Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Marta Miret, Francisco Félix Caballero, Beatriz Olaya, Josep Maria Haro, Paul Kowal, Somnath Chatterji

Abstract

Background: The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) was developed to assess affective states as measures of experienced well-being. The present study aimed to validate an abbreviated version of the DRM in a representative sample of the population in seven countries (China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and Spain), and to examine whether there are country differences in affect and in the relationships among the activities based on the similarity of the affect associated with each of them.

Methods: Interviews were conducted with 47,222 non-institutionalized adults from seven countries, using an abbreviated version of the DRM. A cluster analysis was carried out to classify activities on the basis of the similarity of the associated affect. In each country, the factorial structure of the affect adjectives was tested through Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Internal consistency and construct validity were also assessed. Moreover, the differences in affect across countries and the diurnal cycles of affect were evaluated.

Results: The DRM showed adequate psychometric properties regarding reliability and construct validity in all countries. Respondents from Ghana and South Africa reported more positive net affect whereas Indian respondents reported less positive net affect. Most of the countries showed a similar diurnal variation of affect, which tended to improve throughout the day.

Conclusions: The results show that this abbreviated version of the DRM is a useful tool for multi-country evaluation of experienced well-being.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Diurnal variation of net affect…
Figure 1. Diurnal variation of net affect in each country.
Figure 2. Diurnal variation of positive and…
Figure 2. Diurnal variation of positive and negative affect in each country.

References

    1. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Stone AA (2004) A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science 306: 1776–1780.
    1. Krueger AB, Schkade DA (2008) The Reliability of Subjective Well-Being Measures. J Public Econ 92: 1833–1845.
    1. Bhattacharyya MR, Whitehead DL, Rakhit R, Steptoe A (2008) Depressed mood, positive affect, and heart rate variability in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Psychosom Med 70: 1020–1027.
    1. Miron-Shatz T (2009) Evaluating multiepisode events: boundary conditions for the peak-end rule. Emotion 9: 206–213.
    1. Kopperud KH, Vitterso J (2008) Distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: Results from a day reconstruction study among Norwegian jobholders. The Journal of Positive Psychology 3: 174–181.
    1. Goss CH, Edwards TC, Ramsey BW, Aitken ML, Patrick DL (2009) Patient-reported respiratory symptoms in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros 8: 245–252.
    1. Srivastava S, Angelo KM, Vallereux SR (2008) Extraversion and positive affect: A day reconstruction study of person-environment transactions. J Res Pers 42: 1613–1618.
    1. Kahneman D, Deaton A (2010) High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 16489–16493.
    1. Oishi S (2010) Culture and well-being: conceptual and methodological issues. In: Diener E, Helliwell JF, Kahneman D, editors. International differences in well-being. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 34–69.
    1. Krueger AB, Stone AA (2008) Assessment of pain: a community-based diary survey in the USA. Lancet 371: 1519–1525.
    1. Diener E, Ng W, Harter J, Arora R (2010) Wealth and happiness across the world: material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. J Pers Soc Psychol 99: 52–61.
    1. Miret M, Caballero FF, Mathur A, Naidoo N, Kowal P, et al. (2012) Validation of a measure of subjective well-being: an abbreviated version of the day reconstruction method. PLoS ONE 7: e43887.
    1. Kowal P, Chatterji S, Naidoo N, Biritwum R, Fan W, et al. (2012) Data resource profile: the World Health Organization Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE). Int J Epidemiol 41: 1639–1649.
    1. Kahneman D, Krueger A (2006) Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being. J Econ Perspect 20: 3–24.
    1. Sokal RR, Rohlf RJ (1962) The comparison of dendograms by objective methods. Taxon 11: 33–40.
    1. Suzuki R, Shimodaira H (2006) Pvclust: an R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 22: 1540–1542.
    1. Flora DB, Curran PJ (2004) A empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 9: 466–491.
    1. Reise SP, Widaman KF, Pugh RH (1993) Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 114: 552–566.
    1. Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107: 238–246.
    1. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 1–55.
    1. Yu CY (2002) Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes [dissertation]. University of California, Los Angeles.
    1. Steiger JH (2007) Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modelling. Pers Indiv Differ 42: 893–898.
    1. Schreider JB, Stage FK, King J, Nora A, Barlow EA (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res 99: 323–337.
    1. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    1. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2011) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.
    1. McCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1: 130–149.
    1. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA (2011) Introduction to psychometric theory. New York: Routledge.
    1. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
    1. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2010) Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
    1. StataCorp (2010) Stata Statistical Software. Release 11. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
    1. Lucas RE, Diener E, Suh E (1996) Discriminant validity of well-being measures. J Pers Soc Psychol 71: 616–628.
    1. Bylsma LM, Taylor-Clift A, Rottenberg J (2011) Emotional reactivity to daily events in major and minor depression. J Abnorm Psychol 120: 155–167.
    1. Stone AA, Schwartz JE, Schkade D, Schwarz N, Krueger A, et al. (2006) A population approach to the study of emotion: diurnal rhythms of a working day examined with the Day Reconstruction Method. Emotion 6: 139–149.
    1. Dockray S, Grant N, Stone AA, Kahneman D, Wardle J, et al. (2010) A Comparison of Affect Ratings Obtained with Ecological Momentary Assessment and the Day Reconstruction Method. Soc Indic Res 99: 269–283.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera