The Long and Short-Form Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00715-0

Diane Elizabeth Mack, Kevin Than Vo, Philip M. Wilson

{"title":"The Long and Short-Form Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis","authors":"Diane Elizabeth Mack, Kevin Than Vo, Philip M. Wilson","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00715-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Score reliability is an essential property of the measurement process with implications for validity of scores and subsequent inferences. Using a reliability generalization (RG) approach, score reliability estimates produced by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) were synthesized then evaluated. More specifically, the following questions were addressed: (1) What is the typical reliability coefficient for scores generated by using the WEMWBS/SWEMWBS? and (2) What (if any) factors impact score reliability estimates across studies using the WEMWBS/SWEMWBS? This study used non-experimental research design with archival data. Guided by systematic inclusion/exclusion criteria, electronic database searches identified 294 published articles reporting estimates of score reliability for either the WEMWBS or SWEMWBS. Sample, design and instrument characteristics were extracted then coded examined to address factors that may impact score reliability for both instruments. Across all published studies, mean score reliability estimates for the WEMWBS and SWEMWBS were 0.89 and 0.81 respectively across published studies. Moderator analyses revealed select sample (e.g., Age) and instrument characteristics (e.g., standard deviation of scores) that influenced score reliability. Limited error of measurement was evident based on average score reliability estimates for the WEMWBS/SWEMWBS. Further, interpretation of the moderator analyses demonstrated scale scores are quite robust to test administration in different samples, instrument versions and study designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00715-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Score reliability is an essential property of the measurement process with implications for validity of scores and subsequent inferences. Using a reliability generalization (RG) approach, score reliability estimates produced by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) were synthesized then evaluated. More specifically, the following questions were addressed: (1) What is the typical reliability coefficient for scores generated by using the WEMWBS/SWEMWBS? and (2) What (if any) factors impact score reliability estimates across studies using the WEMWBS/SWEMWBS? This study used non-experimental research design with archival data. Guided by systematic inclusion/exclusion criteria, electronic database searches identified 294 published articles reporting estimates of score reliability for either the WEMWBS or SWEMWBS. Sample, design and instrument characteristics were extracted then coded examined to address factors that may impact score reliability for both instruments. Across all published studies, mean score reliability estimates for the WEMWBS and SWEMWBS were 0.89 and 0.81 respectively across published studies. Moderator analyses revealed select sample (e.g., Age) and instrument characteristics (e.g., standard deviation of scores) that influenced score reliability. Limited error of measurement was evident based on average score reliability estimates for the WEMWBS/SWEMWBS. Further, interpretation of the moderator analyses demonstrated scale scores are quite robust to test administration in different samples, instrument versions and study designs.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

华威-爱丁堡心理幸福感长短量表：可靠性归纳元分析

评分信度是测量过程的一个基本属性，对评分的有效性和后续推论都有影响。本研究采用信度泛化（RG）方法，对华威-爱丁堡心理健康量表（WEMWBS）和简易华威-爱丁堡心理健康量表（SWEMWBS）产生的得分信度估计值进行了综合，然后进行了评估。更具体地说，我们探讨了以下问题：(1) 使用 WEMWBS/SWEMWBS 生成的分数的典型信度系数是多少？ (2) 在使用 WEMWBS/SWEMWBS 的各项研究中，哪些因素（如果有的话）会影响分数信度估计值？本研究采用档案数据的非实验研究设计。在系统性纳入/排除标准的指导下，通过电子数据库检索发现了 294 篇已发表的文章，这些文章报告了 WEMWBS 或 SWEMWBS 的评分可靠性估计值。对样本、设计和工具特征进行提取，然后进行编码检查，以解决可能影响两种工具得分可靠性的因素。在所有已发表的研究中，WEMWBS 和 SWEMWBS 的平均得分可靠性估计值分别为 0.89 和 0.81。调节因素分析显示，选定的样本（如年龄）和工具特征（如分数标准差）会影响得分可靠性。根据 WEMWBS/SWEMWBS 的平均得分信度估计，测量误差有限。此外，对调节分析的解释表明，量表得分在不同样本、工具版本和研究设计的测试管理中具有相当的稳健性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?