Estimating the Reliability of Single-Item Life Satisfaction Measures: Results from Four National Panel Studies
Open accessAbstract
Life satisfaction is often assessed using single-item measures. However, estimating the reliability of these measures can be difficult because internal consistency coefficients cannot be calculated. Existing approaches use longitudinal data to isolate occasion-specific variance from variance that is either completely stable or variance that changes systematically over time. In these approaches, reliable occasion-specific variance is typically treated as measurement error, which would negatively bias reliability estimates. In the current studies, panel data and multivariate latent state-trait models are used to isolate reliable occasion-specific variance from random error and to estimate reliability for scores from single-item life satisfaction measures. Across four nationally representative panel studies with a combined sample size of over 68,000, reliability estimates increased by an average of 16% when the multivariate model was used instead of the more standard univariate longitudinal model.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The life satisfaction instrument was reliable with a retest reliability of around 0.70 and performs very similarly to its multiple-item counterpart.
“This instrument was found to be reliable with a retest reliability of around 0.70 (Lucas and Donnellan 2012) and to perform very similarly to its multiple-item counterpart (Cheung and Lucas 2014).”
From Patterns of Romantic Relationship Experiences and Psychosocial Adjustment From Adolescence to Young Adulthood (2021) · cites this paper as Lucas and Donnellan 2012
The Results report estimated single-item life-satisfaction reliability of 0.68–0.74 in the multivariate models, supporting 'around 0.70.' But these are model-based reliability estimates, not a reported test–retest reliability coefficient. The multiple-item comparison is attributed to Cheung and Lucas (2014), not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Alwin DF 2007 Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement New York Wiley
- Biemer PP Christ SL Wiesen CA 2009 A general approach for estimating scale score reliability from panel survey data Psychological Methods 14 400 412 10.1037/a0016618 19968400 PMC4028715 · DOI
- Brown TA 2006 Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research New York Guilford Press
- Ehrhardt JJ Saris WE Veenhoven R 2000 Stability of life-satisfaction over time: Analysis of change in ranks in a national population Journal of Happiness Studies 1 177 205 10.1023/A:1010084410679 · DOI
- Kenny DA Zautra A 1995 The trait-state-error model for multi-wave data Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63 52 59 10.1037/0022-006X.63.1.52 7896990 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., et al. (2018) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245918810225 · Cited by 944 · see citing works
Benke, C., Autenrieth, L. K., Asselmann, E., & Pané-Farré, C. A. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113462 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice
Lucas, R. E. (2023) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459231158378 · Cited by 361 · see citing works
Self-citationZhong, B.-L., Chen, S.-L., Tu, X., & Conwell, Y. (2017) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbw037 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Mund, M., Maes, M., Drewke, P. M., Gutzeit, A., Jaki, I., & Qualter, P. (2023) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/10731911221077227 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
A brief social-belonging intervention in college improves adult outcomes for black Americans
Brady, S. T., Cohen, G. L., Jarvis, S. N., & Walton, G. M. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay3689 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
“The fifth was based on a single-item life satisfaction measure widely used in national panel studies ( 39 ).”
MethodBenke, C., Autenrieth, L. K., Asselmann, E., & Pané-Farré, C. A. (2023) · European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/s00406-022-01400-0 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Gonzalez Avilés, T., Finn, C., & Neyer, F. J. (2021) · Journal of Youth and Adolescence · doi:10.1007/s10964-020-01350-7 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
The short-term stability of life satisfaction judgments
Lucas, R. E., Freedman, V. A., & Cornman, J. C. (2018) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000357 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationHajek, A., & König, H. (2022) · International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/gps.5631 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Trajectories of adolescent life satisfaction
Orben, A., Lucas, R. E., Fuhrmann, D., & Kievit, R. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/y8ruw · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Lucas, R. E., & Brent Donnellan, M.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lucas, Richard E.
- ORCID
- Lucas, Richard E.
- Venue
- Social Indicators Research
- Published
- 2011-01-13
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 323-331
- ISSN
- 0303-8300 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0921
- PMC
- PMC3475500
- OpenAlex
- W2051433150
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 21.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Social Indicators Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
- Economic and Social Research Council
- National Institute on Aging (R03AG032001)
- 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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- life satisfaction, single-item measures, reliability estimation, measurement error, latent state-trait models, panel data, subjective well-being
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
