Dataset Information

Validation of Subjective Well-Being Measures Using Item Response Theory.

ABSTRACT: Background: Subjective well-being refers to the extent to which a person believes or feels that her life is going well. It is considered as one of the best available proxies for a broader, more canonical form of well-being. For over 30 years, one important distinction in the conceptualization of subjective well-being is the contrast between more affective evaluations of biological emotional reactions and more cognitive evaluations of one's life in relation to a psychologically self-imposed ideal. More recently, researchers have suggested the addition of harmony in life, comprising behavioral evaluations of how one is doing in a social context. Since measures used to assess subjective well-being are self-reports, often validated only using Classical Test Theory, our aim was to focus on the psychometric properties of the measures using Item Response Theory. Method: A total of 1000 participants responded to the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule. At random, half of the participants answered to the Satisfaction with Life Scale or to the Harmony in life Scale. First, we evaluate and provide enough evidence of unidimensionality for each scale. Next, we conducted graded response models to validate the psychometric properties of the subjective well-being scales. Results: All scales showed varied frequency item distribution, high discrimination values (Alphas), and had different difficulty parameters (Beta) on each response options. For example, we identified items that respondents found difficult to endorse at the highest/lowest point of the scales (e.g., "Proud" for positive affect; item 5, "If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing," for life satisfaction; and item 3, "I am in harmony," for harmony in life). In addition, all scales could cover a good portion of the range of subjective well-being (Theta): -2.50 to 2.30 for positive affect, -1.00 to 3.50 for negative affect, -2.40 to 2.50 for life satisfaction, and -2.40 to 2.50 for harmony in life. Importantly, for all scales, there were weak reliability for respondents with extreme latent scores of subjective well-being. Conclusion: The affective component, especially low levels of negative affect, were less accurately measured, while both the cognitive and social component were covered to an equal degree. There was less reliability for respondents with extreme latent scores of subjective well-being. Thus, to improve reliability at the level of the scale, at the item level and at the level of the response scale for each item, we point out specific items that need to be modified or added. Moreover, the data presented here can be used as normative data for each of the subjective well-being constructs.

SUBMITTER: Nima AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6987476 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of Subjective Well-Being Measures Using Item Response Theory.

Nima Ali Al AA Cloninger Kevin M KM Persson Björn N BN Sikström Sverker S Garcia Danilo D

Frontiers in psychology 20200122

<b>Background:</b> Subjective well-being refers to the extent to which a person believes or feels that her life is going well. It is considered as one of the best available proxies for a broader, more canonical form of well-being. For over 30 years, one important distinction in the conceptualization of subjective well-being is the contrast between more affective evaluations of biological emotional reactions and more cognitive evaluations of one's life in relation to a psychologically self-impose ...[more]

PMID: 32038401

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Subjective Well-Being (SWB) is usually conceptualized in terms of an affective (i.e., judgements of biological emotional reactions and experiences) and a cognitive component (i.e., judgements of life satisfaction in relation to a psychological self-imposed ideal). Recently, researchers have suggested that judgements of harmony in life can replace or at least complement the cognitive component of SWB. Here, however, we go beyond that suggestion and propose that harmony in life should be seen as SWB's social component since it is the sense of balance between the individual and the world around her-a process that comprises acceptance, adaptation, and balance. By adding judgements of one's social interactions (i.e., harmony in life) to judgments of one's life satisfaction (psycho) and judgements of one's emotional reactions (bio), we propose a tentatively biopsychosocial model of SWB. As a first step, we used different factorial models in order to determine if both a general factor and specific sub-factors contribute to the biopsychosocial model of SWB. Method:A total of 527 participants responded to the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; 20 items), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; five items), and the Harmony in life Scale (HILS; five items). We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to validate the biopsychosocial model of subjective well-being and a general factor (SWBS). Results:The 20 PANAS items reflected a mixture of general latent structure saturation and specific latent structure saturation, but contributed to their respective specific latent factor (PA: 48%; NA: 49%) more than to the general latent SWBS factor (positive affect: 25%; negative affect: 32%). The five SWLS items contributed to a larger degree to the general SWBS factor (72%) than to life satisfaction itself (22%), while the five HILS items contributed to even a larger degree to the general SWBS factor (98%) than to harmony in life (0%). The bifactor model was the best model compared with all other models we tested (?2 = 1,660.78, df = 375, p < 0.001); Satorra Bentler ?2 = 1,265.80, df = 375, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.92; Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.067. This model of a general SWBS factor explained about 64% of the total variance in the model, while specific SWBS components together explained 15% of the total variance. Conclusion:Our study suggests SWB as a general factor in a multidimensional biopsychosocial model. Indeed, as much as 64% of the variance of SWB was explained by this general factor. The SWB components, however, contributed to a different degree to each corresponding factor in the model. For instance, while the affective and cognitive components seem to be their own constructs and also part of the general SWB factor, the social component tested here contributed 0% to its own variance but 98% to the general factor.

Project description:BackgroundHappiness is often conceptualized as subjective well-being, which comprises people's evaluations of emotional experiences (i.e., the affective dimension: positive and negative feelings and emotions) and judgements of a self-imposed ideal (i.e., the cognitive dimension: life satisfaction). Recent research has established these two dimensions as primary parts of a higher order factor. However, theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work suggest that people's evaluations of harmony in their life (i.e., the sense of balance and capacity to behave and adapt with both acceptance and flexibility to inter- and intrapersonal circumstances) constitutes a third dimension (i.e., the behavioral dimension). This tridemensional conceptualization of subjective well-being has recently been verified using Unidimensional Item Response Theory (UIRT) and Classical Test Theory (CTT). Here, we use a recently developed and more robust approach that combines these two methods (i.e., Multidimensional Item Response Theory, MIRT) to simultaneously address the complex interactions and multidimensionality behind how people feel, think, and behave in relation to happiness in their life.MethodA total of 435 participants (197 males and 238 females) with an age mean of 44.84 (sd = 13.36) responded to the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (10 positive affect items, 10 negative affect items), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (five items), and the Harmony in life Scale (five items). We used Bifactor-Graded Response MIRT for the main analyses.ResultAt the general level, each of the 30 items had a strong capacity to discriminate between respondents across all three dimensions of subjective well-being. The investigation of different parameters (e.g., marginal slopes, ECV, IECV) strongly reflected the multidimensionality of subjective well-being at the item, the scale, and the model level. Indeed, subjective well-being could explain 64 % of the common variance in the whole model. Moreover, most of the items measuring positive affect (8/10) and life satisfaction (4/5) and all the items measuring harmony in life (5/5) accounted for a larger amount of variance of subjective well-being compared to that of their respective individual dimensions. The negative affect items, however, measured its own individual concept to a lager extent rather than subjective well-being. Thus, suggesting that the experience of negative affect is a more independent dimension within the whole subjective well-being model. We also found that specific items (e.g., "Alert", "Distressed", "Irritable", "I am satisfied with my life") were the recurrent exceptions in our results. Last but not the least, experiencing high levels in one dimension seems to compensate for low levels in the others and vice versa.ConclusionAs expected, the three subjective well-being dimensions do not work separately. Interestingly, the order and magnitude of the effect by each dimension on subjective well-being mirror how people define happiness in their life: first as harmony, second as satisfaction, third as positive emotions, and fourth, albeit to a much lesser degree, as negative emotions. Ergo, we argue that subjective well-being functions as a complex biopsychosocial adaptive system mirroring our attitude towards life in these three dimensions (A: affective dimension; B: behavioral dimension; C: cognitive dimension). Ergo, researchers and practitioners need to take in to account all three to fully understand, measure, and promote people's experience of the happy life. Moreover, our results also suggest that negative affect, especially regarding high activation unpleasant emotions, need considerable changes and further analyses if it is going to be included as a construct within the affective dimension of a general subjective well-being factor.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Models from signal detection theory are commonly used to score neuropsychological test data, especially tests of recognition memory. Here we show that certain item response theory models can be formulated as signal detection theory models, thus linking two complementary but distinct methodologies. We then use the approach to evaluate the validity (construct representation) of commonly used research measures, demonstrate the impact of conditional error on neuropsychological outcomes, and evaluate measurement bias. METHOD:Signal detection-item response theory (SD-IRT) models were fitted to recognition memory data for words, faces, and objects. The sample consisted of U.S. Infantry Marines and Navy Corpsmen participating in the Marine Resiliency Study. Data comprised item responses to the Penn Face Memory Test (PFMT; N = 1,338), Penn Word Memory Test (PWMT; N = 1,331), and Visual Object Learning Test (VOLT; N = 1,249), and self-report of past head injury with loss of consciousness. RESULTS:SD-IRT models adequately fitted recognition memory item data across all modalities. Error varied systematically with ability estimates, and distributions of residuals from the regression of memory discrimination onto self-report of past head injury were positively skewed towards regions of larger measurement error. Analyses of differential item functioning revealed little evidence of systematic bias by level of education. CONCLUSIONS:SD-IRT models benefit from the measurement rigor of item response theory-which permits the modeling of item difficulty and examinee ability-and from signal detection theory-which provides an interpretive framework encompassing the experimentally validated constructs of memory discrimination and response bias. We used this approach to validate the construct representation of commonly used research measures and to demonstrate how nonoptimized item parameters can lead to erroneous conclusions when interpreting neuropsychological test data. Future work might include the development of computerized adaptive tests and integration with mixture and random-effects models.

Dataset Information

Validation of Subjective Well-Being Measures Using Item Response Theory.

Publications

Validation of Subjective Well-Being Measures Using Item Response Theory.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets