One (Financial Well-Being) Model Fits All? Testing the Multidimensional Subjective Financial Well-Being Scale Across Nine Countries

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00708-z

Angela Sorgente, Bünyamin Atay, Marc Aubrey, Shikha Bhatia, Carla Crespo, Gabriela Fonseca, Oya Yerin Güneri, Žan Lep, David Lessard, Oana Negru-Subtirica, Alda Portugal, Mette Ranta, Ana Paula Relvas, Nidhi Singh, Ulrike Sirsch, Maja Zupančič, Margherita Lanz

{"title":"One (Financial Well-Being) Model Fits All? Testing the Multidimensional Subjective Financial Well-Being Scale Across Nine Countries","authors":"Angela Sorgente, Bünyamin Atay, Marc Aubrey, Shikha Bhatia, Carla Crespo, Gabriela Fonseca, Oya Yerin Güneri, Žan Lep, David Lessard, Oana Negru-Subtirica, Alda Portugal, Mette Ranta, Ana Paula Relvas, Nidhi Singh, Ulrike Sirsch, Maja Zupančič, Margherita Lanz","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00708-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A multidimensional model of emerging adults’ subjective financial well-being was proposed (Sorgente and Lanz, Int Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(5), 466–478 2019). The authors also developed a 5-factor scale (the Multidimensional Subjective Financial Well-being Scale, MSFWBS) intending to measure this construct in the European context. To date, data using this instrument have been collected in nine countries: Austria, Canada, Finland, India, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Turkey. In the current study, data from these countries were analysed to test the validity of this model internationally. In particular, using an international sample of 4,475 emerging adults, we collected the following kinds of validity evidence for the MSFWBS: score structure, reliability, generalizability, convergent, and criterion-related evidence. Findings suggest that the MSFWBS (1) yields valid and reliable scores, and (2) works well in individualistic and economically developed countries, producing comparable scores. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","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/s10902-024-00708-z","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

A multidimensional model of emerging adults’ subjective financial well-being was proposed (Sorgente and Lanz, Int Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(5), 466–478 2019). The authors also developed a 5-factor scale (the Multidimensional Subjective Financial Well-being Scale, MSFWBS) intending to measure this construct in the European context. To date, data using this instrument have been collected in nine countries: Austria, Canada, Finland, India, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Turkey. In the current study, data from these countries were analysed to test the validity of this model internationally. In particular, using an international sample of 4,475 emerging adults, we collected the following kinds of validity evidence for the MSFWBS: score structure, reliability, generalizability, convergent, and criterion-related evidence. Findings suggest that the MSFWBS (1) yields valid and reliable scores, and (2) works well in individualistic and economically developed countries, producing comparable scores. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

一种（财务状况）模式适合所有国家？在九个国家测试多维主观财务状况量表

有人提出了一个新兴成人主观财务幸福感的多维模型（Sorgente 和 Lanz，《行为发展国际期刊》，43（5），466-478 2019）。作者还开发了一个 5 要素量表（多维主观财务幸福感量表，MSFWBS），旨在欧洲范围内测量这一构型。迄今为止，已在九个国家收集了使用该工具的数据：奥地利、加拿大、芬兰、印度、意大利、葡萄牙、罗马尼亚、斯洛文尼亚和土耳其。本研究对这些国家的数据进行了分析，以检验该模型在国际上的有效性。特别是，我们使用了一个由 4475 名新兴成年人组成的国际样本，收集了 MSFWBS 的以下几种有效性证据：得分结构、可靠性、普遍性、趋同性和标准相关证据。研究结果表明：(1) MSFWBS 能产生有效、可靠的分数；(2) 在个人主义国家和经济发达的国家中效果良好，能产生可比分数。本文还讨论了对研究人员和从业人员的启示。

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?