Measures of self-perceived well-being
Abstract
Unlabelled As people lead longer and generally healthier lives, aspirations and expectations of health care extend to include well-being and enhanced quality of life. Several measurement scales exist to evaluate how well health care reaches these goals. However, the definitions of well-being or quality of life remain open to considerable debate, which complicates the design, validation, and subsequent choice of an appropriate measurement.Objective This article reviews nine measures of psychological well-being, tracing their origins in alternative conceptual approaches to defining well-being. It compares their psychometric properties and suggests how they may be used.Methods The review covers the Life Satisfaction Index, the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale, single-item measures, the Philadelphia Morale scale, the General Well-Being Schedule, the Satisfaction With Life scale, the Positive and Negative Affect Scale, the World Health Organization 5-item well-being index, and the Ryff's scales of psychological well-being.Results Scales range in size from a single item to 22; levels of reliability and validity range from good to excellent, although for some of the newer scales we lack information on some forms of validity.Conclusion Measures exist to assess several conceptions of psychological well-being. Most instruments perform adequately for survey research, but we know less about their adequacy for use in evaluating health care interventions. There remains active debate over how adequately the questions included portray the theoretical definition of well-being on which they are based.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 WHO-5 has validity and reliability supported by a vast set of literature in several populations.
“A vast set of literature supports the validity and reliability of the measure in several populations [42-45].”
From A Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Chatbot (Otis) for Health Anxiety Management: Mixed Methods Pilot Study (2022) · cites this paper as [43]
Previous reviews have highlighted some available tools, but not all have used systematic methods for identifying measures.
“Previous reviews have highlighted some of the available tools.29–31 However, not all have used systematic methods for identifying measures.”
From Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time (2016) · cites this paper as [30]
Previous reviews identified 60 or fewer well-being instruments.
“In previous reviews,30 31 60 or fewer instruments were identified; however, in our review 99 are reported.”
From Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time (2016) · cites this paper as [30]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 121 · Cited by 388
- Authors
- McDowell, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- McDowell, Ian
- ORCID
- McDowell, Ian
- Venue
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-07
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-79
- ISSN
- 0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2142512343
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 121
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 11.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, psychology, and well-being
- Keywords
- psychological well-being, quality of life, psychometric properties, Life Satisfaction Index, Satisfaction with Life Scale, PANAS, Ryff scale, General Well-Being Schedule, single-item measures, health care outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Health Surveys, Humans, Personal Satisfaction, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Quality of Life
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