Abstract and Figures

Background There is growing interest in measuring the eudaimonic perspective of mental well-being (social and psychological well-being) alongside existing measures of the hedonic perspective of mental well-being (subjective well-being). The Flourishing Scale (FS) assesses core aspects of social-psychological functioning and is now widely used in research in practice. However, the reliability and validity of eudaimonic measures such as the FS has not yet been tested in people with low or moderate levels of well-being. This group is at risk for developing mental disorders and, therefore, an important target group for public mental health. Methods We extensively evaluated the psychometric properties of the 8-item FS in a sample of adults with low or moderate levels of well-being in The Netherlands (N = 275) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), item response theory analysis and a multitrait matrix. ResultsThe unidimensional structure of the scale was confirmed with CFA and an adequate fit to the Rasch model. However, our sample showed positive skewness of the scale, but lacked measurement precision at the higher end of the social-psychological continuum. In general, the multitrait matrix demonstrated the convergent validity of the scale, with strong to weak correlations between the FS and (1) overall well-being, (2) social and psychological well-being (3) positive eudaimonic states, (4) hedonic states, (5) psychopathology and (6) personality traits. Nevertheless, relatively low correlations were found, specifically in comparison with the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Conclusions The FS seems a reliable and valid instrument for measuring social-psychological functioning in adults with suboptimal well-being, but its use in intervention studies and clinical practice might be debatable. Therefore, the FS seems most suitable to include in epidemiological studies alongside existing hedonic measures to more fully capture mental well-being. Future research should examine the temporal stability of the FS and the consequences of the positive skewness and limited external validity of the scale found in the current study.
Content may be subject to copyright.
R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Open Access
Validation of the Flourishing Scale in a
sample of people with suboptimal levels of
mental well-being
Marijke Schotanus-Dijkstra
1,2*
, Peter M. ten Klooster
2
, Constance H. C. Drossaert
2
, Marcel E. Pieterse
2
, Linda Bolier
1
,
Jan A. Walburg
2
and Ernst T. Bohlmeijer
2
Abstract
Background: There is growing interest in measuring the eudaimonic perspective of mental well-being (social and
psychological well-being) alongside existing measures of the hedonic perspective of mental well-being (subjective
well-being). The Flourishing Scale (FS) assesses core aspects of social-psychological functioning and is now widely
used in research in practice. However, the reliability and validity of eudaimonic measures such as the FS has not
yet been tested in people with low or moderate levels of well-being. This group is at risk for developing mental
disorders and, therefore, an important target group for public mental health.
Methods: We extensively evaluated the psychometric properties of the 8-item FS in a sample of adults with low or
moderate levels of well-being in The Netherlands (N= 275) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), item response
theory analysis and a multitrait matrix.
Results: The unidimensional structure of the scale was confirmed with CFA and an adequate fit to the Rasch
model. However, our sample showed positive skewness of the scale, but lacked measurement precision at the
higher end of the social-psychological continuum. In general, the multitrait matrix demonstrated the convergent
validity of the scale, with strong to weak correlations between the FS and (1) overall well-being, (2) social and
psychological well-being (3) positive eudaimonic states, (4) hedonic states, (5) psychopathology and (6) personality
traits. Nevertheless, relatively low correlations were found, specifically in comparison with the Mental Health
Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF).
Conclusions: The FS seems a reliable and valid instrument for measuring social-psychological functioning in adults
with suboptimal well-being, but its use in intervention studies and clinical practice might be debatable. Therefore,
the FS seems most suitable to include in epidemiological studies alongside existing hedonic measures to more fully
capture mental well-being. Future research should examine the temporal stability of the FS and the consequences
of the positive skewness and limited external validity of the scale found in the current study.
Keywords: Mental well-being, Social-psychological functioning, Eudaimonic well-being, Psychometric properties,
Confirmatory factor analysis, Item response theory
* Correspondence: m.schotanus@utwente.nl
1
Trimbos Institute, Department of Public Mental Health, P.O. Box 725 3500 AS
Utrecht, The Netherlands
2
Centre for eHealth and Well-being Research, Department of Psychology,
Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
© 2016 Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12
DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0116-5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Background
Mental well-being is an important multifaceted con-
struct with an extensive and long-standing history in the
scientific literature. Mental well-being captures both the
hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives on well-being.
Whereas the hedonic perspective refers to the affective
or feeling gooddimension of well-being (i.e. happiness,
life-satisfaction and positive affect) [1] the eudaimonic
perspective refers to the psychological functioning or
living welldimension of well-being (e.g. social contribu-
tion, positive relationships with others and personal
growth) [2, 3]. Traditionally, most (socioeconomic) re-
search has been conducted on the hedonic perspective
with the use of single-item or brief subjective well-being
measures such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale [4], the
Subjective Happiness Scale [5] and the Positive and
Negative Affectivity Scale [6]. While these measures are
firmly rooted in research and practice, the availability
and use of measures to capture the social and psycho-
logical well-being dimensions lags behind.
A few decades ago, researchers started to unravel the
core aspects of the eudaimonic perspective. Ryff [3] de-
fined six core dimensions of psychological well-being
(self-acceptance, purpose in life, environmental mastery,
positive relationships, personal growth and autonomy),
based on an extensive review of humanistic, existential
and developmental theories. Keyes [2] identified five
core dimensions of social well-being (social acceptance,
social actualization, social contribution, social coherence
and social integration) originating from sociological and
social psychological theories. These social and psycho-
logical core aspects of well-being are united in the
comprehensive Mental Health Continuum-Short Form
(MHC-SF) which also measures hedonic (subjective)
well-being [7, 8]. There are a few other comprehensive
generic well-being instruments available, such as the
WHO Five Well-being Index [9] and the Warwick-
Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale [10]. However, in
order to complement existing measures of the hedonic
perspective, for example in epidemiological and socio-
economic research, there is also a need for instruments
assessing only the core dimensions of the eudaimonic
perspective. Therefore, Diener et al. [11] have recently
developed the brief and comprehensive Flourishing
Scale (FS) based on humanistic and eudaimonic well-
being theories.
Today, the FS is widely used in well-being intervention
studies and clinical practice, probably due to its briefness,
simplicity and comprehensiveness. The FS has already
been translated into 17 languages and measures the core
aspects of social-psychological functioning, namely pur-
pose and meaning, supportive relationships, engagement,
contribution to the well-being of others, competence, self-
acceptance, optimism, and being respected. The growing
popularity of the FS might also be a consequence of its at-
tractive name, suggesting that the scale measures flourish-
ing. However, most researchers have defined flourishing
as a state where high levels of subjective well-being and
high levels of social-psychological well-being are achieved
[1214]. As such, the scales name may be somewhat
confusing because it only measures social-psychological
well-being and lacks a clear cut-off for having high
levels of social-psychological well-being. Regarding the
development of the scale, its first version was labeled
the Psychological Flourishing Scale and contained 12
items [15]. The revised and final version of the scale
has eight items and was called the Psychological Well-
being scale [16]. Since this name was so similar to
Ryff s Scales of Psychological Well-being [3], the au-
thors re-named their scale to the FS [11].
Acceptable psychometric properties of the FS have
been found in student samples [11, 17, 18], a full-time
employee sample [19], a community sample [20] and in
a national representative population sample [21]. All
these studies found a single factor structure using ex-
ploratory or confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA),
and adequate to excellent reliability with Cronbachs
alpha values ranging from .78 to .95. Most previous val-
idation studies also supported the convergent validity of
the FS. For example, moderate to strong positive correla-
tions were found for overall psychological well-being (i.e.
Ryffs Scales of Psychological Well-being and the Basic
Needs Satisfaction Scale) and moderate to strong nega-
tive correlations were found for depression, anxiety and
stress [11, 18, 21]. Yet, the convergent validity of the FS
has mostly been supported by measures of subjective
well-being (i.e. happiness, life-satisfaction and positive
emotions) only [11, 18, 19, 21]. Since the FS measures
core aspects of optimal social-psychological functioning,
more information is needed about how each of these
core aspects (such as competence, self-compassion and
positive relationships) are related to the FS. In addition,
the relationship between eudaimonic well-being and
personality traits has hardly been investigated, although
there are some indications that weak correlations can
be expected. For example, Lamers and colleagues [22]
found weak positive correlations between subjective,
psychological and social well-being on the one hand
and emotional stability (opposite of neuroticism), extra-
version and conscientiousness on the other.
The current study adds to the psychometric validation
of the FS in several ways. First, we evaluated the internal
and external construct validity of the FS in a sample of
adults with low or moderate levels of well-being which
seems an important target group for public mental
health and well-being intervention studies because low
to moderate well-being increases the risk of developing
mental illness [2326]. Second, we used item response
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 2 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
theory (IRT) analyses to further demonstrate the unidi-
mensionality of the FS and explore its local reliability
(measurement precision) along the underlying con-
tinuum. Third, we further unraveled the convergent val-
idity of the FS using a multitrait matrix. With respect
to convergent validity, we expected to find the follow-
ing gradual pattern of stronger to weaker relationships
with (1) overall well-being, (2) social and psychological
well-being, (3) positive eudaimonic states (i.e. the use
of strengths/competence, optimism, self-compassion,
resilience and positive relationships), (4) hedonic states
(i.e. emotional well-being, positive and negative emo-
tions), (5) psychopathology (i.e. anxiety, depression)
and (6) personality traits (i.e. extraversion, neuroticism,
conscientiousness).
Method
Participants
We used data from the baseline measurement of a
randomized controlled trial in The Netherlands that
evaluated the efficacy of a multicomponent positive
psychology intervention [27]. Participants with low or
moderate levels of well-being were recruited in January
2014 by advertisements in national newspapers and in
an online newsletter of a popular psychology magazine.
In total, 275 participants were included, gave informed
consent and completed the online survey at baseline.
Mean age was 47.8 years (SD = 10.9) with a range from
20 to 67 years. Participants were mainly female (85.8 %),
higher educated (74.6 %) and in paid employment
(67.6 %) (Table 1). While we had excluded individuals
with flourishing mental health (i.e. high levels of both
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being) two weeks prior to
baseline, at baseline there were 21 (7.6 %) respondents
who met the classification criteria for flourishing as
measured with the MHC-SF [8].
Measures
The FS [11] consists of eight items, each measuring a
core aspect of optimal social-psychological functioning
on a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). For this study, the ori-
ginal English version of the FS was independently trans-
lated into Dutch by two bilingual native Dutch speakers
(authors PMK and ETB). Both translations were com-
pared and inter-translator differences were carefully
discussed before consensus was reached. The Dutch ver-
sion was used in the current study. All other measures
were also administered in Dutch.
The MHC-SF [8, 28] consists of 14 items which are di-
vided into the three subscales emotional well-being
(three items), social well-being(five items), and psycho-
logical well-being(six items). In addition, the scores on
all 14 items can be averaged into a total well-being
score. Items are answered on a 6-point scale ranging
from 0 (never) to 5 (almost always or always).
The Strength Use Scale (SUS) measures the level of
competence in different settings with 14 items. Each
item is answered on a 6-point scale that ranges from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) [29].
TheLifeOrientationTest-Revised(LOT-R)consists
of 10 items that assess dispositional optimism versus
pessimism [30]. Four filler items were excluded from
this analysis and of the remaining six, three items
measure optimism and three measure pessimism. The
items are answered on a 5-point scale with a range
from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree). A
total score was obtained for a more optimistic expect-
ation about the future.
The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF) is a
12-item measurement used to assess the level of self-
compassion on a 7-point scale that ranges from 1 (Rarely
or never) to 7 (Almost always) [31].
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a 6-item inventory
that assesses the ability to bounce back and to cope with
stress or negative life-events [32]. Answers are given on
a 5-point scale that ranges from 1 (Strongly disagree) to
5 (Strongly agree).
Ryff s Subscale of Positive Relationships (SPR) is a sub-
scale of Ryffs Scales of Psychological Well-being [3]. The
SPR has 9 items and a 6-point answer scale that ranges
from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree) [33].
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the study sample (N= 275)
Characteristic Mean ± SD or number (%)
Age, years 47.78 ± 10.88
Gender, female 236 (85.8 %)
Education
Low 10 (3.7 %)
Middle 59 (21.7 %)
High 203 (74.6 %)
Marital status
Married / Registered 118 (42.9 %)
Divorced / Widow 70 (25.5 %)
Never been married 87 (31.6 %)
Living situation
With partner and children 78 (28.4 %)
With partner without children 76 (27.6 %)
Alone 76 (27.6 %)
With others 45 (16.4 %)
Daily activities
Paid employment 186 (67.6 %)
Unemployed / Unable to work 58 (21.1 %)
Other 31 (11.2 %)
SD standard deviation
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 3 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Positive and negative emotions were assessed with the
modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES), which
measures the frequency of eight groups of positive emo-
tions and feelings and eight groups of negative emotions
and feelings, with answer categories on a 7-point scale
that ranges from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very intense) [34].
Depression and anxiety symptoms were measured with
the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), an
inventory with two subscales that assess the frequency of
anxiety symptoms (seven items) and depression symp-
toms (seven items) [35]. Answer categories differ for
each item, but all items are answered on a 4-point scale
(03). This questionnaire was administered at screening,
around two weeks before the baseline measurement.
Participants with a score above 10 on one or both sub-
scales were excluded from the randomized controlled
trial and, therefore, also from the current study.
In accordance with the national representative
Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2
[36], we measured the personality traits extraversion and
neuroticism with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-
Revised Short Scale (EPQ-RS) [37] and conscientiousness
with the 12-item NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
[38]. Extraversion and neuroticism were each measured
with 12 items answered with yes (1) or no (0). The NEO-
FFI has a 5-point scale that ranges from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).
Statistical analyses
Descriptive and distributional statistics of the FS total
scores were determined by the identification of possible
skewness, kurtosis, and floor and ceiling effects. Skew-
ness and kurtosis values between -1 and +1 were consid-
ered indicative of normality, and floor and ceiling effects
were considered present when more than 15 % of the
participants scored the lowest (8) or highest possible
score (56) [39]. There were no missing values on any of
the measures used in this study.
Given the ordinal nature of the items, the unidimension-
ality of the FS was examined using robust maximum likeli-
hood CFA with Satorra-Bentler (SB) scaled statistics. With
the use of LISREL version 8.80 (Scientific Software Inter-
national, Lincolnwood, IL), a one-factor model was fit to
the data. We did not allow error covariances between items
(i.e. shared item variance) because each item corresponds
to one core aspect of social-psychological functioning
which are theoretically distinct. Indicators of a good model
fit were a non-normed fit index (NNFI) and comparative fit
index (CFI) .95, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMS) .08, and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) .06 [40, 41]. The internal consistency of the FS
was examined with Cronbachs alpha, with a value .70
considered adequate for group-level analyses [42].
To further determine the internal construct validity of
the FS, we performed Rasch partial credit model ana-
lyses in Winsteps version 3.65 (Winsteps, Chicago, IL).
The Rasch partial credit model is an extension of the
original dichotomous Rasch model specifically designed
for ordinal scales. Fit to the Rasch model provides fur-
ther evidence of unidimensionality, but also allows the
investigation of a scales local measurement precision.
Regarding the former, indicators of acceptable item fit
were mean square infit (information-weighted fit statis-
tic) and outfit (outlier sensitive fit statistic) values be-
tween .70 and 1.30 [43]. The infit statistic is sensitive to
outliers on those items that are close to the abilities of a
person, and the outfit statistic is sensitive to outliers on
all items independent from the persons level of well-
being [44]. Also, a test information curve was obtained
for examining the local measurement precision of the
scale along the latent social-psychological well-being
continuum. Overall reliability was examined with the
person reliability measure, which is the Rasch-based ver-
sion of Cronbachs alpha. Rasch person reliability is the
proportion of observed variance that is free from meas-
urement error. In practice, values around .80 are consid-
ered acceptable [45].
The external construct validity of the FS was exam-
ined with a wide variety of measures as detailed above.
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate
the convergent validity as a gradual pattern of de-
creasing correlations with an expected strongest rela-
tion between FS and MHC-SF and an expected
weakest relation between FS and personality traits. Bi-
variate correlations were obtained using SPSS version
21.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL).
Results
Descriptive analysis
The mean total score on the FS was 41.4 [Standard devi-
ation (SD) = 6.5] with a range from 13 to 53. Mean
scores on the individual items ranged from 4.7 to 5.5, on
a scale of 1 to 7. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the
total scores on the FS, which were skewed towards
higher scores on optimal social-psychological function-
ing (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, p< .001), with a skewness
value of 1.46 and a kurtosis value of 2.99. There were
no floor or ceiling effects since no participants scored
either 8 or 56. These descriptive and distribution statis-
tics suggest that the majority of our sample perceived
themselves positively on the main aspects of social-
psychological functioning.
Internal construct validity
Results of the CFA revealed good fit indices for a one-
factor model, supporting the unidimensional structure of
the FS. All indices were within the recommended range
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 4 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
for good fit: SB χ
2
(20) = 39.59, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99,
SRMR = .05, RMSEA (90 % CI) = .06 (.03.09). Figure 2
shows the standardized factor loadings and the item
residuals. Factor loadings ranged between .53 for item
2 and .76 for item 1. Additionally, the FS showed
good internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha co-
efficient of .86.
The unidimensionality of the scale was further con-
firmed by an adequate fit to the Rasch model. Most
items performed within the range of good fit (0.71.3),
except for minor misfit of the infit and outfit values for
item 2 and the outfit value for item 5 (Table 2). The item
difficulty in logits shows that item 1 was the most diffi-
cult to endorse (1.01 logits) and item 8 was the easiest
to endorse (.65). The Rasch person reliability was .79, in-
dicating adequate reliability for group-level comparisons.
However, the test information curve (Fig. 3) showed that
the scale had adequate measurement precision across a ra-
ther limited range of the continuum with a clear peak at
relatively lower to moderate levels of well-being (r> .70).
Logits of this peak were between 2.7 and 1.2 and corres-
pond to approximate total sum scores on the FS between
16 and 43. In other words, the level of optimal well-being
in our sample was measured most accurately in individuals
with average or below average levels of social-psychological
functioning. The assessment in individuals with high levels
of social-psychological functioning was less accurate.
External construct validity
Table 3 shows that the FS correlated most strongly with the
MHC-SF (r= .58), followed by its subscales for social and
psychological well-being (r=.50.58). The FS also showed
a strong correlation with use of strengths (r= .55). Moder-
ate to strong correlations were found for most other
positive eudaimonic states (r= .35 to .46) and for the
relation between the FS and emotional well-being (r
= .40). We found weak to moderate correlations for
other indicators of hedonic states (r=.15 and .19), for
psychopathology (r=.17 and .34) and for personality
traits (r= .23 to .32). Contrary to our expectations, the
weakest correlations with the FS were found for posi-
tive emotions, negative emotions, anxiety symptoms
and resilience (r=.15 to .19), and not for personality
traits. All correlations with the FS were statistically sig-
nificant (p< .01) and in the expected direction.
Discussion
This is the first study to evaluate the internal and exter-
nal construct validity of the Flourishing Scale in a sam-
ple of 275 adults with suboptimal well-being. Robust
CFA and item response theory analysis supported prior
findings for the unidimensionality of the scale and dem-
onstrated satisfactory item fit. However, the Rasch re-
sults also showed that social-psychological functioning
was most adequately measured across a rather limited
Fig. 1 Distribution of total scores of the Flourishing Scale
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 5 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
range of its continuum. The convergent validity of the
FS was partially supported by our data.
Internal validity
The Rasch analysis demonstrated adequate overall reli-
ability and good item fit for most items. However, there
was some misfit for item 2 (i.e. My social relationships
are supportive and rewarding) and item 5 (i.e. Iam
competent and capable in the activities that are import-
ant to me). Misfit values slightly exceeded the boundary
of 1.30, suggesting that these items showed more ob-
served variance than was expected in the model. Repli-
cations in other samples are needed to determine
whether revision of the items is necessary.
An intriguing result concerns the positive skewness of
the FS. Despite the fact that we excluded individuals
with high levels of well-being (i.e. flourishing mental
health) two weeks before the baseline measurementas
measured with the MHC-SFthe total scores on the FS
were rather skewed towards higher social-psychological
functioning in agreement with prior validation studies.
For example, our mean score of 41.4 (SD = 6.5) is only
slightly lower than the mean scores found in a general
population sample (mean = 43.8, SD = 8.4) [21], an em-
ployee sample (mean = 42.9, SD = 6.1) [19] and different
student samples (most means were between 44.5 and
46.7 [11, 17, 19], except for one study that found a mean
score of 36.6 [18]). Thus, while the MHC-SF and FS
both predominantly intend to measure the eudaimonic
perspective of well-being, our findings could indicate
that both instruments actually measure different aspects
of optimal social-psychological functioning. For example,
Table 2 Rasch item parameters (partial credit model) and fit statistics of the Flourishing Scale
Item difficulty in logits (SE) Infit MNSQ Outfit MNSQ
1. I lead a purposeful and meaningful life 1.01 (0.07) 0.81 0.86
2. My social relationships are supportive and rewarding 0.24 (0.07) 1.35 1.34
3. I am engaged and interested in my daily activities 0.08 (0.08) 0.89 0.87
4. I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others 0.30 (0.08) 0.98 0.95
5. I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me 0.21 (0.08) 1.08 1.47
6. I am a good person and live a good life 0.47 (0.08) 0.93 0.88
7. I am optimistic about my future 0.35 (0.07) 1.05 1.01
8. People respect me 0.65 (0.09) 0.84 0.78
Higher positive logit scores indicate more difficult items. SE standard error, MNSQ mean square
Fig. 2 Standardized factor loadings and residuals for the eight items of the Flourishing Scale
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 6 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
the FS contains items about competence, engagement
and optimism while these eudaimonic aspects are not
specifically questioned in the MHC-SF [14]. More re-
search into consequences of the positive skewness of the
FS is needed, for instance, by validating the FS in clinical
samples where a more normally-distributed level of
social-psychological well-being could be expected.
Moreover, our research also demonstrated that
social-psychological functioning was most reliably
measured between scores of 16 and 43, scores that
correspond to the very lowand lowpopulation
norm classifications of Diener [46]. Thus, participants
in a variety of samples (including the present sample)
tend to score high on the FS, but measurement preci-
sion in the present sample showed that high social-
psychological functioning was less adequately mea-
sured. Therefore, our results suggest that the FS may
benefit from more differentiation in the difficulty of
the items by including items that are indicative for
higher levels of well-being or items that can better
discriminate between the moderate and high end of
the social-psychological continuum. Measurement pre-
cision across a broader range of the continuum is
especially important when researchers want to exam-
ine individual changes in well-being scores and the
transition from low or moderate well-being to high
well-being, which is often the main aim in well-being
intervention studies. Overall, the operationalization of
eudaimonic well-being and its core aspects warrant
further investigation, as well as research about ad-
equate cut-off values for high eudaimonic well-being.
Inthisregard,itshouldberecognizedthatlittlein-
formation is available about the theoretical foundation
of the FS [11], especially concerning a solid overarch-
ing theory and the rationale for including some eudai-
monic concepts whilst ignoring others.
External validity
Regarding convergent validity, our results largely con-
firmed the hypothesized gradual pattern of descending
correlations between the FS and the MHC-SF, positive
eudaimonic states, hedonic states, psychopathology, and
personality traits respectively. While we found a strong
relationship between the FS and MHC-SF, its correlation
of r= .58 was considerably lower than a priori could be
expected. Noteworthy, the MHC-SF showed a similar
gradual pattern of correlations from closely to more dis-
tant related measures, but with consistently higher cor-
relations compared to the FS. Despite the fact that the
MHC-SF showed moderate to strong correlations with
depression and neuroticism, these findings suggest that
the MHC-SF may have superior convergent validity
compared to the FS.
Strikingly, we found lower than expected correlations
between the FS and most positive eudaimonic states, such
as self-compassion and optimism. An explanation might
be that the items of the FS are too broadly phrased which
may diffuse their relation with their underlying individual
constructs. Another explanation might be that our sample
was too homogenous by excluding people with flourishing
mental health. However, prior studies also found predom-
inantly moderate to strong correlations with eudaimonic
well-being measures of which the highest correlations
were only around .70 for some subscales of Ryffs Scales of
Psychological Well-being and the competencysubscale of
the Basic Needs Satisfaction Scale [11].
Furthermore, while the hedonic perspective is not rep-
resented in the eight items of the FS, the relationship be-
tween the FS and emotional well-being was not much
lower than for the observed correlations between the FS
and measures of positive eudaimonic states. This result
corroborates with the view that hedonic and eudaimonic
well-being are distinct but overlapping perspectives of
well-being [47]. However, we found lower correlations
compared to prior FS validation studies which found
moderate or even strong correlations between the FS
and measures of the hedonic perspective [11, 18, 19, 21],
raising again the question how eudaimonic well-being
should be operationalized [48]. In sum, our findings may
point to limited external validity of the FS, at least in
comparison with the MHC-SF.
Limitations
Our study was limited by the representativeness of the
sample. Participants were self-selected adults with low
or moderate levels of well-being (without elevated levels
of clinical symptomatology) who were motivated to im-
prove their well-being with a positive psychology inter-
vention. Also, female and highly-educated participants
were overrepresented. Another limitation of the study
was the inability to examine the temporal stability and
Fig. 3 Test information curve of the Flourishing Scale (FS) in relation
to the Rasch score. Higher positive logit scores indicate higher social-
psychological functioning. Test information values of 3.33 and 10
(dashed lines) correspond to a reliability of .70 and .90, respectively.
Logit values of 7, 3, 0, 1, and 7 correspond to approximate total
sum scores on the FS of 11, 16, 38, 43, and 55 respectively
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 7 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 3 Multitrait matrix of the Flourishing Scale and other measures
FS MHC-SF SWB PWB SUS SCS-SF LOT-R SPR BRS EWB mDES Pos mDES Neg HADS-A HADS-D Extr Neur
FS (.86)
1. Overall well-being
MHC-SF .58*** (.88)
2. Social and psychological well-being
SWB .50*** .88*** (.70)
PWB .58*** .92*** .68*** (.79)
3. Positive eudaimonic states
SUS .55*** .58*** .47*** .60*** (.95)
SCS-SF .35*** .58*** .48*** .54*** .42*** (.85)
LOT-R .45*** .50*** .42*** .46*** .39*** .46*** (.74)
SPR .46*** .48*** .44*** .47*** .29*** .30*** .32*** (.82)
BRS .16** .31*** .18** .33*** .33*** .46*** .36*** .11 (.83)
4. Hedonic states
EWB .40*** .80*** .56*** .66*** .39*** .48*** .43*** .32*** .31*** (.80)
mDES Pos .15* .22*** .13* .25*** .19** .08 .15* .08 .10 .20** (.56)
mDES Neg .19** .23*** .19** .21** .13* .20** .15* .24*** .13* .23*** .27*** (.72)
5. Psychopathology
HADS-A .17** .27*** .28*** .22*** .13* .36*** .24*** .12* .15** .22*** .05 .27*** (.76)
HADS-D .34*** .49*** .36*** .44*** .27*** .31*** .30*** .28*** .22*** .52*** .27*** .22*** .34*** (.76)
6. Personality traits
Extraversion .23*** .29*** .25*** .28*** .36*** .18** .23*** .34*** .24*** .20** .09 .11 .05 .13* (.84)
Neuroticism .24*** .40*** .31*** .37*** .24*** .55*** .41*** .31*** .53*** .36*** .06 .21*** .39*** .24*** .15* (.78)
Conscient-iousness .32*** .29*** .20** .33*** .37*** .17** .18** .17** .24*** .20** .10 .10 .07 .26*** .09 .14*
BRS Brief Resilience Scale, EWB Emotional well-being subscale of the MHC-SF, Extr Extraversion, FS Flourishing Scale, HADS-A Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety Subscale, HADS-D Hospital Anxiety and
Depression Scale-Depression Subscale, LOT-R Life Orientation Test-Revised (optimism), mDES Neg modified Differential Emotions Scale, negative emotions, mDES Pos modified Differential Emotions Scale, positive emotions, MHC-SF Mental
Health Continuum-Short Form, Neur Neuroticism, PWB Psychological well-being subscale of the MHC-SF,SCS-SF Self-compassion Scale-Short Form, SPR Ryffs Subscale of Positive Relationships, SUS Strengths Use Scale, SWB
Social well-being subscale of the MHC-SF
Cronbachs alphas are in parentheses. Coefficients .50 are in bold
*p< .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 8 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
responsiveness of the FS in our study. The test-retest
reliability of the scale has only been examined by
Diener and colleagues [8], who used a student sample
and a time interval of one month. For the use of the
FS in longitudinal and intervention studies, it is essen-
tial that future studies establish the stability of the FS
and its sensitivity to change. Finally, due to the low
Cronbachs alpha of .56 for positive emotions in our
sample, its correlational results should be interpreted
with some caution.
Conclusion
Researchers, practitioners and governments are increas-
ingly interested in the concept of mental well-being and
flourishing, but the majority of epidemiological studies
have only included brief subjective well-being measures
(typically containing one to five items) alongside eco-
nomic, social and health indicators [38]. Therefore, it
seems important to include the FS as a complementary
measure to more fully capture mental well-being in the
general population. From a public mental health and
societal perspective, it is also important to improve
social-psychological functioning because flourishing pro-
tects against the development of mental disorders later
in life [3942]. The current study indicates that the FS
might be most appropriate for use in epidemiological
studies alongside an existing hedonic measure, but its
use in well-being intervention studies and clinical prac-
tice might be debatable. In particular, we found positive
skewness of the FS in a sample of people with subopti-
mal well-being, the FS lacked measurement precision
at higher levels of social-psychological functioning and
demonstrated relatively low correlations with overall
well-being and positive eudaimonic states. In sum, the
Dutch version of the FS appears to be a reliable tool
formeasuringthecoreaspectsoftheeudaimonicper-
spective in adults with low or moderate levels of well-
being, but researchers and practitioners should be
aware of its possible limitations as a standalone meas-
ure of flourishing.
Ethics approval and consent
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the
University of Twente (number 13212). All participants
gave online informed consent.
Availability of data and materials
The data used in this study are available upon request
from the corresponding author.
Abbreviations
BRS: Brief Resilience Scale; CFA: confirmatory factor analysis; CFI: comparative
fit index; EFA: exploratory factor analysis; EPQ-RSS: Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire-Revised Short Scale; EWB: emotional well-being subscale;
Extr: extraversion; FS: Flourishing Scale; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and
Depression Scale; IRT: item response theory; LOT-R: Life Orientation Test-
Revised; m-DES: modified Differential Emotions Scale; MHC-SF: Mental Health
Continuum-Short Form; MNSQ: mean square; NEO-FFI: NEO Five Factor
Inventory; Neur: neuroticism; NNFI: non-normed fit index; PWB: psychological
well-being subscale; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation;
SB: Satorra-Bentler; SCS-SF: Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form; SD: standard
deviation; SE: standard error; SPR: Subscale of Positive Relationships;
SRMS: standardized root mean square residual; SUS: Strength Use Scale;
SWB: social well-being subscale.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authorscontributions
PMK and ETB conceived the study. MS contributed to the design and
coordination of the study, wrote the manuscript and performed statistical
analyses. PMK performed statistical analyses, helped to draft the manuscript
and provided critical review. CHCD, MEP and ETB were involved in drafting
the manuscript and provided critical review. LB and JAW revised the paper
critically. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
The authors received no funding for the research conducted in the current
study and for writing the manuscript.
Received: 25 November 2015 Accepted: 9 March 2016
References
1. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 1984;95(3):54275.
2. Keyes CLM. Social well-being. Soc Psychol Q. 1998;121140.
3. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(6):1069.
4. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale.
J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):715.
5. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary
reliability and construct validation. Soc Indic Res. 1999;46(2):13755.
6. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc
Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063.
7. Keyes CL. Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms
of the complete state model of health. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;
73(3):53948.
8. Keyes CL, Wissing M, Potgieter JP, Temane M, Kruger A, van Rooy S. Evaluation
of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in setswana-speaking
South Africans. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2008;15(3):18192.
9. Bech P. Health-related quality of life measurements in the assessment of
pain clinic results. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43(9):8936.
10. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J,
Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS):
development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:63.
11. Diener E, Wirtz D, Tov W, Kim-Prieto C, Choi D-w, Oishi S, Biswas-Diener R.
New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive
and negative feelings. Soc Indic Res. 2009;97(2):14356.
12. Seligman MEP. Flourish: a visionary understanding of happiness and well-
being. New York: Free Press; 2011.
13. Keyes CL. The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in
life. J Health Soc Behav. 2002;207222.
14. Hone LC, Jarden A, Schofield GM, Duncan S. Measuring flourishing: The
impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of
wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing. 2014;4(1):6290.
15. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R. Happiness: unlocking the mysteries of
psychological wealth. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2008.
16. Diener E, Wirtz D, Biswas-Diener R, Tov W, Kim-Prieto C, Choi D-w, Oishi S.
New measures of well-being. In: Diener E, editor. Assessing well-being: the
collected works of Ed Diener. The Netherlands: Springer; 2009.
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 9 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
17. Howell AJ, Buro K. Measuring and predicting student well-being: further
evidence in support of the flourishing scale and the scale of positive and
negative experiences. Soc Indic Res. 2014;121(3):90315.
18. Sumi K. Reliability and validity of Japanese versions of the flourishing scale
and the scale of positive and negative experience. Soc Indic Res. 2013;
118(2):60115.
19. Silva AJ, Caetano A. Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of
positive and negative experience in Portugal. Soc Indic Res. 2011;
110(2):46978.
20. Tang X, Duan W, Wang Z, Liu T. Psychometric evaluation of the simplified
Chinese version of flourishing scale. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014.
21. Hone L, Jarden A, Schofield G. Psychometric properties of the flourishing
scale in a New Zealand sample. Soc Indic Res. 2013;119(2):103145.
22. Lamers SMA, Westerhof GJ, Kovács V, Bohlmeijer ET. Differential relationships in
the association of the big five personality traits with positive mental health
and psychopathology. J Res Pers. 2012;46(5):51724.
23. Keyes CLM, Dhingra SS, Simoes EJ. Change in level of positive mental health
as a predictor of future risk of mental illness. Am J Public Health. 2010;
100(12):236671.
24. Grant F, Guille C, Sen S. Well-being and the risk of depression under stress.
PLoS One. 2013;8(7), e67395.
25. Lamers SMA, Westerhof GJ, Glas CAW, Bohlmeijer ET. The bidirectional
relation between positive mental health and psychopathology in a
longitudinal representative panel study.JPositPsychol.2015;10(6):
55360.
26. Wood AM, Joseph S. The absence of positive psychological (eudemonic)
well-being as a risk factor for depression: a ten year cohort study. J Affect
Disord. 2010;122(3):2137.
27. Schotanus-Dijkstra M, Drossaert CH, Pieterse ME, Walburg JA,
Bohlmeijer ET. Efficacy of a multicomponent positive psychology
self-help intervention: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.
JMIR Res Protoc. 2015;4(3), e105.
28. Lamers SM, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET, ten Klooster PM, Keyes CL.
Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum-
Short Form (MHC-SF). J Clin Psychol. 2011;67(1):99110.
29. Govindji R, Linley PA. Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being:
implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. Int Coach
Psychol Rev. 2007;2(2):14353.
30. Ten Klooster P, Weekers A, Eggelmeijer F, Van Woerkom J, Drossaert C, Taal
E, Rasker J, Baneke J. Optimisme en/of pessimisme: factorstructuur van de
Nederlandse Life Orientation Test-Revised. Psychologie en Gezondheid.
2010;38(2):89100.
31. Raes F, Pommier E, Neff KD, Van Gucht D. Construction and factorial
validation of a short form of the selfcompassion scale. Clin Psychol
Psychother. 2011;18(3):2505.
32. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief
resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008;
15(3):194200.
33. van Dierendonck D. Handleiding Positive Geestelijke Gezondheids Schaal
(PGGS) Versie 05. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2011.
34. Schaefer A, Nils F, Sanchez X, Philippot P. Assessing the effectiveness of a
large database of emotion-eliciting films: a new tool for emotion
researchers. Cogn Emot. 2010;24(7):115372.
35. Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers PP, Kempen GI, Speckens AE, Van
Hemert AM. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression
Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med.
1997;27(2):36370.
36. de Graaf R, Ten Have M, van Dorsselaer S. The Netherlands Mental Health
Survey and Incidence Study-2 (NEMESIS-2): design and methods. Int J
Methods Psychiatr Res. 2010;19(3):12541.
37. Sanderman R, Arrindell WA, Ranchor AV, Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Het
meten van persoonlijkheidskenmerken met de Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ) (Measuring personality traits with the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire). Groningen: Noordelijk Centrum voor
Gezondheidsvraagstukken (RUG); 1995.
38. Costa RJ, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the
Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Professional Manual. Odessa: Psychological
Assessment Resources Inc.; 1995.
39. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter
LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of
health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):3442.
40. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model.
1999;6(1):155.
41. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen
AK, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications; 1993.
42. Lohr KN. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes
and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(3):193205.
43. Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson JE, Martin-Lof P. Reasonable mean-square
fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;8(3):370.
44. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in
rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied,
and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care Res
(Hoboken). 2007;57(8):135862.
45. Linacre JM. A users guide to WINSTEPS MINISTEP. Rasch-model computer
programs. Chicago IL: Winsteps.com; 2006.
46. Diener E. Scoring instructions for scales. http://internal.psychology.
illinois.edu/~ediener/Documents/Scale_Scoring_Instructions.docx.
Accessed 26 January 2016.
47. Huta V, Ryan RM. Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and
overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J
Happiness Stud. 2009;11(6):73562.
48. Huta V, Waterman AS. Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia:
developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual
and operational definitions. J Happiness Stud. 2013;15(6):142556.
We accept pre-submission inquiries
Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
We provide round the clock customer support
Convenient online submission
Thorough peer review
Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and we will help you at every step:
Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:12 Page 10 of 10
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... Compared with the above tools, the FS has received widespread attention from researchers. The advantages of the FS lie in the fact that it is shorter than the other instruments as it is a brief 8-item scale, and as some authors suggest, its simplicity and comprehensiveness (e.g., Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). ...
... Subsequently, other researches have been developed in several countries to validate the scale in other cultures. Results from these studies are similar, showing one underlying factor (AL-Dossary, 2021; Bardales & Uribe, 2017;Checa et al., 2018;Choudhry et al., 2018;De la Fuente et al., 2017;Di Fabio 2016;Didino et al., 2019;Duan & Xie, 2016;Esch et al., 2013;Fonseca et al., 2015;Giuntoli et al., 2017;Hojabrian et al., 2018;Hone et al., 2013;Kyriazos et al., 2018;Martín-Carbonell et al., 2021;Muñoz & Nieto, 2019;Muñoz et al., 2016;Ramírez-Mestre et al., 2017;Romano et al., 2020;Salama-Younes, 2017;Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016;Senol-Durak & Durak, 2019;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Singh et al., 2017;Sumi 2013;Tan et al., 2021;Tang et al., 2016;Telef, 2015;Tong & Wang, 2017;Villieux et al., 2016). However, studies testing measurement invariance of the FS are scarce and more evidence is needed about the equivalence of the FS across different variables (e.g., gender, age, culture, and others). ...
... This underlying unifactorial structure is consistent with the result obtained by Silva and Caetano (2013) and with previous research. As referred above, factor analysis performed by Diener et al. (2010) revealed a one-factor structure of the FS and this structure has been confirmed through the validation of the FS in countries around the world (Bardales & Uribe, 2017;Checa et al., 2018;Choudhry et al., 2018;De la Fuente et al., 2017;Di Fabio, 2016;Didino et al., 2019;Duan & Xie, 2016;Esch et al., 2013;Fonseca et al., 2015;Giuntoli et al., 2017;Hojabrian et al., 2018;Hone et al., 2013;Kyriazos et al., 2018;Muñoz & Nieto, 2019;Muñoz et al., 2016;Ramírez-Mestre et al., 2017;Salama-Younes 2017;Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016;Senol-Durak & Durak, 2019;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Singh et al., 2017;Sumi 2013;Tang et al., 2016;Telef, 2015;Tong & Wang, 2017;Villieux et al., 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
This research aims to bring new evidence concerning the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Flourishing Scale (FS-P) in a sample of the general Portuguese population. Participants consisted of 396 Portuguese adults between 18 and 52 years of age. We collected data mainly via an online survey following a snowball sampling strategy. We analyzed FS-P validity evidence based on its internal structure, measurement invariance across gender, reliability of test scores, homogeneity indices of the items, and validity evidence based on association with measures on life satisfaction (single-item), self-esteem (RSES), self-control (SCBS), loneliness (DJGLS), depression (CES-D 10), and distress (K6+). Confirmatory factor analysis showed a one-factor solution. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender was tenable with adequate fit indices. The reliability analysis showed adequate internal consistency (McDonald’s Omega = 0.88) and adequate homogeneity indices for all items. We obtained positive correlations between FS-P scores and measures on life satisfaction, self-esteem, and self-control, and negative correlations with scores on loneliness, depression, and distress (significance level of 0.05). All correlations values were close to |0.50|. These results sustain the importance of such a practical short scale in research and clinical contexts.
... To extend and diverge from prior work, our focus is on Chinese international (overseas) students, who are currently studying at UK universities. Furthermore, given the complexities associated with the conceptualization of psychological wellbeing as a construct (see Buzzai et al., 2020, for some related discussion), we incorporate a range of psychological wellbeing outcomes that cover both mental health and mental wellbeing (see Hone et al., 2014), as well as "hedonic" (the affective or "feeling good" dimension) and "eudaimonic" (the psychological functioning or "living well" dimension) aspects (see Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). ...
... There have been calls for research of this kind to incorporate measures of both mental health and mental wellbeing (Hone et al., 2014), and to capture both "hedonic" wellbeing (i.e., the affective or "feeling good" dimension, such as lifesatisfaction) and "eudaimonic" wellbeing (the psychological functioning or "living well" dimension, such as personal growth/flourishing) (see Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). Therefore, to respond to such calls, in the present study, we include three measures of psychological wellbeing: Flourishing; Distress; and Life Satisfaction. ...
Article
Full-text available
University entry represents a period of significant change for students. The extent to which students are able to effectively navigate this change (e.g., via their personal adaptability and social support) will likely impact upon their psychological wellbeing (a finding corroborated by recent studies). However, no study to date has examined these relations among overseas, international students, who represent an increasing proportion of university students in the UK and where the degree of change, novelty, and uncertainty is often exacerbated. In the present study, 325 Chinese international (overseas) students at UK universities, were surveyed for their adaptability and social support as well as their psychological wellbeing outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, flourishing, and distress). A series of moderated regression analyses revealed that adaptability and social support operate largely as independent predictors of psychological wellbeing (all outcomes). Further, social support was found to moderate the association between adaptability and two of the psychological wellbeing outcomes: life satisfaction and psychological distress. These findings have important implications for educators and researchers, who are seeking to support the transition of international (overseas) students to university and optimise their experience.
... This scale includes eight items, which measure a wide set of aspects of socialpsychological prosperity that complement existing measures of wellbeing (Diener et al., 2010;Hone et al., 2013). The FS was first introduced as the Psychological Flourishing Scale in a 12item format (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008;Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016) and refined to eight items. The eight-items of FS assessing self-perceived success in areas identified as important for psychological flourishing, including relationships, meaning and purpose, self-esteem and optimism (Diener et al., 2010;Hone et al., 2013). ...
... The FS also adapted in countries such Netherlands (Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016), Russian (Didino et al., 2019), New Zealand (Hone et al., 2013), Pakistan (Choudhry et al., 2018), China(Tong, & Wang, 2017), and Iran(Fassih-Ramandi et al., 2020). The acceptable psychometric properties of the FS have been found in adults(Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016; Didino et al., 2019; Choudhry et al., 2018) and nationally adult sample ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The current study intended to validate the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) and Flourishing Scale (FS) in the Malay language. The scales of MHC-SF and FS are used to measure emotional, social and psychological wellbeing. Both instruments have been employed in assessing flourishing mental health and positive human functioning of university students. A total of 131 undergraduate students (29 males and 102 females) from a public university in Sabah aged 19-26 years old participated in the study. Partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is used to generate the result of measurement model. The findings showed that the MHC-SF and FS in the Malay language demonstrated a sufficient convergent and discriminant validity. The level of internal consistency for MHC-SF and FS was at an acceptable level. Both Malay versions of MHC-SF and FS have been proven as valid and reliable instruments to be used in the contexts of public undergraduate students in Malaysia, particularly in the state of Sabah.
... Two recent short scales that seem to achieve a satisfying balance between psychometric properties and respondent burden are the "flourishing scale", and the "Scale of Positive and Negative Experience" (Diener et al., 2010;Hone, Jarden and Schofield, 2014;Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). The former is a brief 8-item measure of psychological "flourishment" capturing selfperceived success in relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism, whereas the latter is a 12item brief scale of positive and negative feelings supposed to better capture a wider range of emotions and a longer period (over the past 4 weeks) compared to the PANAS used in Chapter 5. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
Over the last 30 years we have observed dramatic declines in mental health worldwide, with nearly 450 million people currently suffering from a mental or behavioral disorder. Globally, there is less than 1 mental health professional for every 10,000 people, with 76-85% of the population in low and middle-income countries without access to treatment. The overarching aim of this thesis is the identification of novel and cost-effective methods for measuring, detecting, and assessing well-being. In the first study of this research project, we validated the ability of a quick global scale to capture multidimensional well-being on 1,615 participants that participated in an online survey, identified some predictors of well-being, and observed improvements from online interventions. Mental health and individual well-being also influences the structure and function of our brains across the lifespan, which in turn, mediate well-being levels. While progress has been made regarding our understanding of the interacting relationships between well-being and brain function, much is still unknown. Recent technological advances have led to the development of affordable, light-weight, wearable, and wireless electroencephalography (EEG) technologies that offer fast preparation time, high mobility, and that facilitate the collection of EEG data over large and diversified populations by increasing access to populations that were previously difficult to study with conventional systems. The analysis of large datasets with robust statistical methods or advanced machine-learning algorithms can ease the identification of trends, the mediator role of covariables, and the classification of mental states. While low-cost, low-density EEG systems have presented significant challenges for conducting EEG research, here we validated a wearable system for recording spectral measures relevant to the study of well-being, by comparison with a state-of-the-art system (study 2). In study 3, we used the tools validated in studies 1 and 2 to examine the relation between EEG and multidimensional well-being in a large sample (N = 353). We found a potential EEG marker of well-being, consistent with some literature on anxiety and depression, with age as a mediator. We discuss interpretations and limitations related to the studies and the broader field, as well as future directions (e.g., real-world EEG monitoring, dyadic or multimodal applications, brain-computer interfaces, neurofeedback training) and ethical implications for the field. The broader applications of this line of research will hopefully help to reduce the prevalence of mental health disparities worldwide (e.g., chronic stress, anxiety disorder, depression, psychiatric conditions), and will also help to predict and prevent mental illness in the broader population.
... This concept is linked to the Aristotelian philosophy of eudaimonia. Although traditionally most SWB research focused on the hedonic perspective (affective or 'feeling good' dimension) of wellbeing, there has been a growing interest in the eudaimonic perspective of well-being (the 'living well' dimension) (Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). Eudaimonia, as Aristotle understood it, is living a complete human life by realizing one's full human potential through virtuous activity (arête) (Fowers, 2012 (Baumeister, 1991;Bauer et al., 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Although extensive research has been conducted to explain what contributes to subjective wellbeing, still a substantial part of its variance remains unexplained. This study investigated whether psychological concepts ‘peace of mind’ and ‘meaningfulness’ contribute to SWB beyond the basic and psychological needs while using several needs theories as a theoretical basis and thereby hypothesizing that both concepts are actionable and help enhance SWB. Methods The cross-sectional data (N = 3770) of the Belgian National happiness study (2018) were used. Three components of SWB (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect) were identified as predicted variables and used in threefold stepwise forward regression analyses. Results As expected both basic and psychological needs explained a considerable part of the three SWB components. However, including meaningfulness and peace of mind in the last step of the models resulted in a substantially higher total variance that was explained in these components (i.e. 56.7% for life satisfaction, 37.2% for positive affect, and 56.1% for negative affect). More specific, in the final models: basic needs, feelings of autonomy and relatedness, peace of mind and meaningfulness were significantly associated with the life satisfaction component. For the positive affect component: psychological needs, peace of mind, and meaningfulness were the significantly associated factors. Finally, the negative affect component was most significantly associated with basic needs, psychological needs, and peace of mind, while meaningfulness did not play a significant role in explaining negative affect. Discussion This study reconfirms the value of several needs theories in explaining the components of SWB and the role of universal needs. The final steps of the models also indicate that different needs contribute independently to the different SWB components. This is the first study demonstrating that ‘meaningfulness’ and ‘peace of mind’ contribute substantially to SWB beyond the typical basic and psychological needs.
... The FOHS overall score ranges from 4 (all responses from one student is "strongly disagree") to 28 (all responses from one student is "strongly agree"). For all three of these instruments, the reliability and validity have been established in various settings [13][14][15][16][17][18]. ...
Article
Full-text available
There has been a preponderance of studies on student mental health, wellbeing and flourishing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies have compared data on student mental health and wellbeing before and during the pandemic. The purpose of the current study was to compare mental health and wellbeing in undergraduate students before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey research was conducted with three groups of undergraduate students (n = 905) from diverse scientific fields at a large, urban university in South Africa. Data was collected by means of electronic surveys, combining full-scale items from three instruments, the Mental Health Continuum Short Form, the Flourishing Scale and the Fragility of Happiness Scale. Data was analysed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) and R software. The results indicate that while the mental health and wellbeing of students declined during the pandemic concerning their perceived ability to contribute to society, having supportive and rewarding social relationships and them being engaged and interested in their daily activities, it also improved in terms of their perceived ability to manage their daily lives (environmental mastery), being challenged to grow (personal growth) and in terms of their views that society was becoming better (social growth/actualisation).
... Furthermore, many studies have revealed that basic psychological needs, anxiety, mental pressure and athletic burnout were both correlated. A moderate to strong negative relationship was found between basic psychological needs and anxiety [55]. It is also possible for individuals to experience pressure and burnout due to inadequate responses to basic psychological needs [56,57]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 poses a significant threat to mental health, which may lead to psychological stress in a number of individuals. Athlete burnout is a common psychological phenomenon that has a negative influence on their sports career. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between psychological distress and athletic burnout among Chinese college football athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the mediating role of basic psychological needs, anxiety and mental pressure. In an online cross-sectional survey conducted in February 2022, the team coaches sent an electronic questionnaire to college football athletes. Participants completed questionnaires on relevant variables. Pearson correlation analysis and mediation effect analysis were carried out by using SPSS software and its plug-in process V3.3. The study included 672 participants and the results showed that: (1) psychological distress, basic psychological needs, anxiety, mental pressure and athletic burnout were significantly pairwise correlated, (2) mental pressure, anxiety and basic psychological needs play a mediating role between psychological distress and athletic burnout respectively, and (3) basic psychological needs and anxiety, basic psychological needs and mental pressure, anxiety and mental pressure, as well as mental pressure, anxiety and basic psychological needs respectively play a chain mediating role between psychological distress and athletic burnout. In conclusion, psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic is an important factor leading to athletic burnout among Chinese college football athletes and may further affect the level of athletic burnout through basic psychological needs, anxiety and mental pressure. The government and schools should strengthen the recognition of these factors in order to improve the situation of athletic burnout among Chinese college football athletes.
Article
Full-text available
Resumen El presente trabajo se ocupa de evaluar las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de florecimiento (EF) en Argentina, para ello se realizó un proceso de traducción/adaptación para el contexto local. Participaron del estudio 363 adultos con edades comprendidas entre 18 y 68 años y de ambos sexos (Mujeres = 73%, Hombres= 27%). El CFA del modelo (NNFI= .9; CFI= .95; RMSEA= .053) y la consistencia interna (α =.89; ω=.91) arrojaron resultados aceptables para la EF. Por otro lado, la validación externa se realizó estudiando la correlación con los instrumentos MHC-SF y SWLS, obteniendo valores significativos. A su vez, la validación cruzada se realizó dividiendo la muestra en mujeres y hombres, hallándose resultados que confirman la validez del instrumento. En conclusión, se considera a partir de los resultados que la escala EF es un instrumento fiable para el estudio del bienestar en población argentina. Palabras Clave Florecimiento; Validación; Bienestar. Abstract
Article
The Flourishing Scale is a new scale designed to measure psychological well–being. FS has been translated into more than 10 languages (e.g., Portuguese, Russian, Turki, Spanish, Egyptian, French, Chinses, Japanese, Malay, Urdu, and Persian). The psychometric analysis of the Flourishing Scale has not been explored in the Malaysian context. The aims of the current study were to examine the factor structure, reliability, concurrent validity (correlate with Satisfaction with Life Scale [SWLS] and Life Project Reflexivity Scale [LPRS]) of the Flourishing Scale (FS). The EFA was conducted to explore the factor structure of FS in the Malaysian context. Then, CFA was run to test the model fit of the FS in the Malaysian context. Test of measurement invariance was also conducted to ascertain the generalizability of the factor structure of FS across gender groups. A cross-sectional survey with 663 university students (435 female students and 228 male students) from a public university in Sabah, Malaysia was conducted. The EFA results revealed a single factor solution with a total explained variance of 68.31%. The CFA result also revealed a one-factor structure with all eight items loaded in one factor. The multi-group analysis of this model demonstrated invariance by gender. FS also demonstrated high reliability and good concurrent validity. The FS was positively and significantly correlated with Satisfaction with Life Scale scores, Life Project Reflexivity Scale score and its subscale. The results supported FS appears to be a valid measure of a flourishing state, and its utilities in the Malaysian context is proven, including gender comparisons.
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter focuses on the creation of synergy between institutional preparedness and student preparedness with data and various types of analytics. Most theory-based approaches, whether focused on student success or systemic change, adopt stakeholder-driven approaches and data-based decisionmaking, supported by the development of systematic tools. All South African universities have, at a minimum, an institutional research office mandated to collect the data needed for reporting on the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS). The data are normally highly aggregated, not allowing for a focus on the individual student. While such capacity within an institution is a necessary condition for pursuing analytics, it is not sufficient to allow for an intensive focus on data and student success. Furthermore, capacity building is core to taking analytics into the mainstream. Such capacity building would need to be systematic and intentional. Data literacy should not be over-estimated. In this chapter, various types of analytics are defined. The development of learner as analytics and learning analytics at the University is traced, as is capacity building through a central data committee and working with individual faculties, departments or lecturers. Moving from descriptive to predictive analytics is a trajectory that is considered as well. Through all this activity, the ethical use of student data should be paramount.
Article
Full-text available
Positive psychology interventions have been found to enhance well-being and decrease clinical symptomatology. However, it is still unknown how flourishing can also be increased. Although multicomponent interventions seem to be necessary for this purpose, different formats can be used. A cost-effective approach could be a positive psychology-based self-help book with tailored email support to reach large target groups and to prevent dropout. This study will evaluate the efficacy of a comprehensive multicomponent self-help intervention with or without email support on well-being and flourishing, and will seek to determine the working mechanisms underlying the intervention. In this 3-armed, parallel, randomized controlled trial, 396 participants with low or moderate levels of well-being and without clinical symptomatology will be randomly assigned to (1) a self-help book condition with weekly email support, (2) a self-help book condition without email support but with a weekly information email, or (3) a waiting list control condition. Online measurements will be assessed at baseline, at post-test (3 months after baseline), and at 6 and 12 months after baseline. The primary outcomes are well-being and flourishing (ie, high levels of well-being). Secondary outcomes are the well-being components included in the intervention: positive emotion, use of strengths, optimism, self-compassion, resilience, and positive relations. Other measures include depressive and anxiety symptoms, personality traits, direct medical and non-medical costs, life-events, and client satisfaction. This study will add knowledge to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent positive psychology intervention. We will also explore who can benefit most from this intervention. If the intervention is found to be effective, our results will be especially relevant for public mental health services, governments, and primary care. The Netherlands Trial Register NTR4297; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4297 (Archived by WebCite at http://webcitation.org/6Uwb5SUUM).
Book
The Collected Works of Ed Diener, in 3 volumes, present the major works of the leading research scientist studying happiness and well-being. Professor Diener has studied subjective well-being, people’s life satisfaction and positive emotions, for over a quarter of a century, and has published 200 works on the topic, many more than any other scholar. He has studied hundreds of thousands of people in over 140 nations of the world, and the Collected Works present the major findings from those studies. Diener has made many of the major discoveries about well-being, which are outlined in the chapters. The first volume presents the major theory and review papers of Ed Diener. These publications give a broad overview of findings in the field, and the theories of well-being. As such, the first volume is an absolute must for beginning scholars in this area, and offers a clear tutorial to the history of the field and major findings. The second volume focuses on culture. This volume is most unique, and could sell on its own, as it should appeal to cultural psychologists and anthropologists. The findings in the culture area are mostly all derived from the Diener laboratory and his students. Thus, the papers in this volume represent most of the major publications on culture and well-being. Furthermore, this is the area that is least well-known by most scholars. The third volume on measurement is the most applied and practical one because it discusses all the measures used, and presents new measures. Even for those who do not want to study well-being per se, but want to use some well-being measures in their research, this volume will be of enormous help. Volume 1: Gives a broad overview of findings and theories on subjective well-being. Volume 2: Presents most of the major papers on well-being and culture, and the international differences in well-being Volume 3: Presents discussions of measures of well-being and new measures of well-being, and is thus of great value to those who want to select measurement scales for their research Endorsements Over the past several decades Professor Diener has contributed more than any other psychologist to the rigorous research of subjective well-being. The collection of this work in this series is going to be of invaluable help to anyone interested in the study of happiness, life-satisfaction, and the emerging discipline of positive psychology. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Professor of Psychology And Management, Claremont Graduate University Ed Diener, the Jedi Master of the world's happiness researchers, has inspired and informed all of us who have studied and written about happiness. His life's work epitomizes a humanly significant psychological science. How wonderful to have his pioneering writings collected and preserved for future students of human well-being, and for practitioners and social policy makers who are working to promote human flourishing. David G. Myers, Hope College, and author, The Pursuit of Happiness. Ed Diener's work on life satisfaction -- theory and research -- has been ground-breaking. Having his collected works available will be a great boon to psychologists and policy-makers alike. Christopher Peterson, Professor of Psychology, Univ. of Michigan By looking at happiness and well-being in many different cultures and societies, from East to West, from New York City to Calcutta slums, and beyond, Ed Diener has forever transformed the field of culture in psychology. Filled with bold theoretical insights and rigorous and, yet, imaginative empirical studies, this volume will be absolutely indispensable for all social and behavioral scientists interested in transformative power of culture on human psychology. Shinobu Kitayama, Professor and Director of the Culture and Cognition Program, Univ. of Michigan Ed Diener is one of the most productive psychologists in the world working in the field of perceived quality of life or, as he prefers, subjective wellbeing. He has served the profession as a researcher, writer, teacher, officer in professional organizations, editor of leading journals, a member of the editorial board of still more journals as well as a member of the board of the Social Indicators Research Book Series. As an admirer of his work and a good friend, I have learned a lot from him, from his students, his relatives and collaborators. The idea of producing a collection of his works came to me as a result of spending a great deal of time trying to keep up with his work. What a wonderful public and professional service it would be, I thought, as well as a time-saver for me, if we could get a substantial number of his works assembled in one collection. In these three volumes we have not only a fine selection of past works but a good number of new ones as well. So, it is with considerable delight that I write these lines to thank Ed and to lend my support to this important publication. Alex C. Michalos, Ph.D., F.R.S.C., Chancellor, Director, Institute for Social Research and Evaluation, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Univ. of Northern British Columbia
Article
Utilizing sophisticated methodology and three decades of research by the world's leading expert on happiness, Happiness challenges the present thinking of the causes and consequences of happiness and redefines our modern notions of happiness. shares the results of three decades of research on our notions of happiness covers the most important advances in our understanding of happiness offers readers unparalleled access to the world's leading experts on happiness provides "real world" examples that will resonate with general readers as well as scholars Winner of the 2008 PSP Prose Award for Excellence in Psychology, Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers.
Article
This study examined the construct validity of the Dutch Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) in two samples; one sample of patients with psychiatric disorders (n=157) and one sample of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=83). Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the LOT-R was not sufficiently unidimensional and could be better explained by two underlying factors consisting of positively and negatively worded items, respectively. This two-factor solution fitted the data significantly better than the one-factor solution in both groups, but satisfied all criteria for good model fit in the psychiatric patient sample only. One-factor models allowing correlated error terms between the positively or negatively worded items performed equally better than the original one-factor solution in both groups, indicating that the two factors may be the result of the specific wording of the items. However, the two factors were differentially associated with other relevant psychological constructs and correlation patterns differed substantially between both populations, indicating possible conceptual differences between optimism and pessimism. Overall, the findings suggest that the positively and negatively worded items of the Dutch LOT-R do not reflect a true unidimensional construct, but two underlying factors which may reflect a complex combination of methodological artefact and substantive differences. Therefore, researchers using the Dutch LOT-R are encouraged to not only rely on total scale scores, but to use additional sub-scores for optimism and pessimism to better examine possible relationships and effects in optimism research.
Article
This article is at www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt83b.htm