CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Development and psychometric evaluation of the public health surveillance well-being scale

Bann, C. M., Kobau, R., Lewis, M. A., Zack, M. M., Luncheon, C., Thompson, W. W.·2012·Quality of Life Research
DOI 10.1007/s11136-011-0002-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose To develop and psychometrically evaluate the brief Public Health Surveillance Well-Being Scale (PHS-WB) that captures mental, physical, and social components of well-being.Methods Using data from 5,399 HealthStyles survey respondents, we conducted bi-factor, item response theory, and differential item functioning analyses to examine the psychometric properties of a pool of 34 well-being items. Based on the statistical results and content considerations, we developed a brief 10-item well-being scale and assessed its construct validity through comparisons of demographic subgroups and correlations with measures of related constructs.Results Based on the bi-factor analyses, the items grouped into both an overall factor and individual domain-specific factors. The PHS-WB scale demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha = 0.87) and correlated highly with scores for the entire item pool (r = 0.94). The well-being scale scores differed as expected across demographic groups and correlated with global and domain-specific measures of similar constructs, supporting its construct validity.Conclusion The 10-item PHS-WB scale demonstrates good psychometric properties, and its high correlation with the item pool suggests minimal loss of information with the use of fewer items. The brief PHS-WB allows for well-being assessment on national surveys or in other situations where a longer form may not be feasible.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-011-0002-9

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bann, C. M., Kobau, R., Lewis, M. A., Zack, M. M., Luncheon, C., & Thompson, W. W.
Affiliations
  • RTI International (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Bann, C. M.
ORCID
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-09-23
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
1031-1043
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
DOI
10.1007/s11136-011-0002-9
OpenAlex
W2028418617
Cited by
43
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
well-being, mental health, physical health, social well-being, scale development, psychometric properties, construct validity, item response theory, differential item functioning, brief scale
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Public Health Surveillance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review