The 18-item Swedish version of Ryff's psychological wellbeing scale: psychometric properties based on classical test theory and item response theory.

Danilo Garcia, Maryam Kazemitabar, Mojtaba Habibi Asgarabad
Author Information
  1. Danilo Garcia: Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
  2. Maryam Kazemitabar: Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
  3. Mojtaba Habibi Asgarabad: Health Promotion Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Background: Psychological wellbeing is conceptualized as the full engagement and optimal performance in existential challenges of life. Our understanding of psychological wellbeing is important for us humans to survive, adapt, and thrive during the challenges of the 21st century. Hence, the measurement of psychological wellbeing is one cornerstone for the identification and treatment of both mental illness and health promotion. In this context, Ryff operationalized psychological wellbeing as a six-dimensional model of human characteristics: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, personal growth, autonomy, and purpose in life. Ryff's Psychological Wellbeing Scale has been developed and translated into different versions. Here, we examine and describe the psychometric properties of the 18-item Swedish version of Ryff's Psychological Wellbeing Scale using both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT).
Methods: The data used in the present study was earlier published elsewhere and consists of 768 participants (279 women and 489 men). In addition to the 18-item version of the scale, participants answered the Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale, the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule, and the Background and Health Questionnaire. We examined, the 18-item version's factor structure using different models and its relationship with subjective wellbeing, sociodemographic factors (e.g., education level, gender, age), lifestyle habits (i.e., smoking, frequency of doing exercise, and exercise intensity), and health issues (i.e., pain and sleeping problems). We also analyzed measurement invariance with regard to gender. Moreover, as an addition to the existing literature, we analyzed the properties of the 18 items using Graded Response Model (GRM).
Results: Although the original six-factor structure showed a good fit, both CTT and IRT indicated that a five-factor model, without the purpose in life subscale, provided a better fit. The results supported the internal consistency and concurrent validity of the 18-item Swedish version. Moreover, invariance testing showed similar measurement precision by the scale across gender. Finally, we found several items, especially the purpose in life's item "I live life one day at a time and do not really think about the future," that might need revision or modification in order to improve measurement.
Conclusion: A five-factor solution is a valid and reliable measure for the assessment of psychological wellbeing in the general Swedish population. With some modifications, the scale might achieve enough accuracy to measure the more appropriate and correct six-dimensional theoretical framework as detailed by Ryff. Fortunately, Ryff's original version contains 20 items per subscale and should therefore act as a perfect pool of items in this endeavor.

Keywords

References

  1. J Psychosom Res. 1992 Jan;36(1):55-65 [PMID: 1538350]
  2. Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10-28 [PMID: 24281296]
  3. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010 Dec;15(5):625-32 [PMID: 20146096]
  4. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 15;15(12): [PMID: 30558301]
  5. PeerJ. 2017 Jan 12;5:e2868 [PMID: 28097069]
  6. Psychol Rep. 1991 Oct;69(2):551-60 [PMID: 1763168]
  7. Soc Sci Med. 2011 May;72(9):1447-53 [PMID: 21492977]
  8. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Jun;82(6):1007-22 [PMID: 12051575]
  9. Data Brief. 2016 Sep 04;9:183-93 [PMID: 27656671]
  10. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Oct 04;4:76 [PMID: 17020614]
  11. Psychol Bull. 1992 Sep;112(2):351-62 [PMID: 1454899]
  12. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:141-66 [PMID: 11148302]
  13. Behav Res Methods. 2016 Sep;48(3):936-49 [PMID: 26174714]
  14. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70 [PMID: 3397865]
  15. Psychol Methods. 2009 Sep;14(3):275-99 [PMID: 19719362]
  16. Pain Manag Nurs. 2018 Dec;19(6):637-644 [PMID: 30181033]
  17. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Oct;69(4):719-27 [PMID: 7473027]
  18. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32 [PMID: 8263569]
  19. Neurotox Res. 2008 Aug;14(1):21-44 [PMID: 18790723]
  20. Span J Psychol. 2010 Nov;13(2):1032-43 [PMID: 20977050]
  21. J Pers Assess. 1985 Feb;49(1):71-5 [PMID: 16367493]
  22. Psychol Health Med. 2017 Jun;22(5):618-624 [PMID: 27560279]
  23. PeerJ. 2015 Apr 02;3:e847 [PMID: 25861553]
  24. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2011;7:683-9 [PMID: 22128253]
  25. Qual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:5-18 [PMID: 17375372]
  26. Collabra Psychol. 2018;4(1): [PMID: 30637366]
  27. Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):645-58 [PMID: 18179669]
  28. PeerJ. 2016 Mar 22;4:e1826 [PMID: 27019786]
  29. Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):68-78 [PMID: 11392867]
  30. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Mar;61(3):268-76 [PMID: 18226750]
  31. Int Psychogeriatr. 2001;13 Supp 1:79-90 [PMID: 11892978]
  32. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2009;5:27-48 [PMID: 18976138]
  33. PeerJ. 2014 Mar 11;2:e303 [PMID: 24688878]
  34. J Appl Meas. 2002;3(1):85-106 [PMID: 11997586]
  35. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Sep 29;359(1449):1367-78 [PMID: 15347528]
  36. Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 Suppl 1):S22-31 [PMID: 17443115]
  37. Emotion. 2019 Feb;19(1):183-187 [PMID: 29494203]
  38. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 20;16(19): [PMID: 31547223]
  39. Mens Sana Monogr. 2013 Jan;11(1):16-24 [PMID: 23678235]
  40. Nurs Res. 1990 Mar-Apr;39(2):121-3 [PMID: 2315066]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0wellbeingpsychological18-itemversionlifemeasurementRyff'sSwedishitemstheoryPsychologicalhealthpurposeScalepropertiesusingscaleegenderitemchallengesoneRyffsix-dimensionalmodelWellbeingdifferentpsychometricTheoryCTTResponseIRTparticipantsadditionAffectstructureiexerciseanalyzedinvarianceMoreoveroriginalshowedfitfive-factorsubscalemightmeasureclassicaltestresponseBackground:conceptualizedfullengagementoptimalperformanceexistentialunderstandingimportantushumanssurviveadaptthrive21stcenturyHencecornerstoneidentificationtreatmentmentalillnesspromotioncontextoperationalizedhumancharacteristics:self-acceptancepositiverelationsothersenvironmentalmasterypersonalgrowthautonomydevelopedtranslatedversionsexaminedescribeClassicalTestItemMethods:datausedpresentstudyearlierpublishedelsewhereconsists768279women489menansweredTemporalSatisfactionLifePositiveNegativeScheduleBackgroundHealthQuestionnaireexaminedversion'sfactormodelsrelationshipsubjectivesociodemographicfactorsgeducationlevelagelifestylehabitssmokingfrequencyintensityissuespainsleepingproblemsalsoregardexistingliterature18GradedModelGRMResults:Althoughsix-factorgoodindicatedwithoutprovidedbetterresultssupportedinternalconsistencyconcurrentvaliditytestingsimilarprecisionacrossFinallyfoundseveralespeciallylife's"Ilivedaytimereallythinkfuture"needrevisionmodificationorderimproveConclusion:solutionvalidreliableassessmentgeneralpopulationmodificationsachieveenoughaccuracyappropriatecorrecttheoreticalframeworkdetailedFortunatelycontains20perthereforeactperfectpoolendeavorscale:basedpsychometrics

Similar Articles

Cited By