Cited by 638Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth, psychology, and well-being

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 35 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time

Open access
Linton, Myles-Jay, Dieppe, Paul, Medina-Lara, Antonieta·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: Investigators within many disciplines are using measures of well-being, but it is not always clear what they are measuring, or which instruments may best meet their objectives. The aims of this review were to: systematically identify well-being instruments, explore the variety of well-being dimensions within instruments and describe how the production of instruments has developed over time. Design: Systematic searches, thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from 1993 to 2014 complemented by web searches and expert consultations through 2015. Eligibility criteria: Instruments were selected for review if they were designed for adults (≥18 years old), generic (ie, non-disease or context specific) and available in an English version. Results: A total of 99 measures of well-being were included, and 196 dimensions of well-being were identified within them. Dimensions clustered around 6 key thematic domains: mental well-being, social well-being, physical well-being, spiritual well-being, activities and functioning, and personal circumstances. Authors were rarely explicit about how existing theories had influenced the design of their tools; however, the 2 most referenced theories were Diener's model of subjective well-being and the WHO definition of health. The period between 1990 and 1999 produced the greatest number of newly developed well-being instruments (n=27). An illustration of the dimensions identified and the instruments that measure them is provided within a thematic framework of well-being. Conclusions: This review provides researchers with an organised toolkit of instruments, dimensions and an accompanying glossary. The striking variability between instruments supports the need to pay close attention to what is being assessed under the umbrella of ‘well-being’ measurement.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review identified 99 generic self-report well-being measures for adults and catalogued 196 dimensions, clustering into six key thematic domains plus a global well-being set. It found substantial variability in definitions, dimensions and instrument design, with Diener’s subjective well-being model and the WHO definition of health as the most referenced theories.

Key findings

  • 99 measures were included and 196 dimensions of well-being were identified; dimensions clustered around 6 key thematic domains: mental well-being, social well-being, physical well-being, spiritual well-being, activities and functioning, and personal circumstances, with a seventh set measuring global well-being overall.
  • 67/99 instruments were multidimensional, containing on average 5 dimensions (range 1–15); 69% of dimensions (136/196) appeared in only one instrument. Recurring dimensions included psychological well-being overall (n=13), physical well-being overall (n=12), social well-being overall (n=9), depression (n=9), positive affect (n=8) and relationships (n=8).
  • The period 1990–1999 produced the greatest number of newly developed well-being instruments (n=27); since 2010, 14 new tools and 8 revisions had been published. The oldest instruments were from 1961 and the newest from 2015.
  • The two most referenced theories were Diener’s model of subjective well-being and the WHO definition of health; however, authors were rarely explicit about how existing theories influenced their tool design. Compared with the largest review of the topic to date, this review contained an additional 40 instruments.

Methods

  • Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from 1993 to 2014, complemented by web searches and expert consultations through 2015; 2520 unique records were screened, 129 instruments assessed for eligibility, 30 excluded, and 99 included.
  • Instruments were included if designed for adults (≥18 years), generic (non-disease or context-specific), available in English, and intended to assess well-being including concepts such as quality of life, happiness and wellness; disease-specific, context-specific, and child/adolescent instruments were excluded.
  • Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers, and dimensions were organised using thematic analysis in NVivo V.8, with discrepancies resolved through discussion with a third reviewer; results were synthesised narratively.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the review was limited to adult generic measures due to practical constraints, so condition-specific instruments and tools for children and adolescents were not included.
  • Stated in the paper: the extensive literature, inconsistent phrasing and disorganisation make a definitive list of instruments unlikely; the review does not recommend any one specific instrument, and further research is needed on psychometric properties, especially content and construct validity.
  • Evident from the text: the review does not assess the psychometric quality, validity or reliability of the included instruments; definitions of well-being and dimensions were often incomplete or unclear, and dimensions may overlap or be used inconsistently.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010641

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 30 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 44
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 26
59 of 59
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Definitions of well-being often differ by discipline and are frequently confused with related topics such as health-related quality of life, happiness and wellness.

    “For example, definitions of well-being often differ by discipline, and are frequently confused with related topics such as health-related quality of life, happiness and wellness.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Relatively little attention has been paid to how varying perspectives have influenced the development and range of well-being measurement instruments.

    “However, relatively little attention has been paid to how these varying perspectives have influenced the development and range of well-being measurement instruments in existence.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Ambiguity is caused by variability in the dimensions of well-being used between instruments.

    “Ambiguity is also caused by variability in the dimensions of well-being used between instruments.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is no agency or group that oversees and coordinates the development and organisation of well-being measures.

    “As with most domains of measurement, there is no agency or group that oversees and coordinates the development and organisation of well-being measures.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many previous reviews focused on psychometric properties such as validity and reliability, but the tools themselves are typically listed without clear analysis of how their content differs.

    “Many of the reviews to date have focused on psychometric properties such as validity and reliability; however, the tools themselves are typically listed without clear analysis of how their content differs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The evolution of instruments over time and their theoretical underpinnings have not been described.

    “Further, the evolution of instruments over time and their theoretical underpinnings have not been described.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    What is a priority for measuring well-being in one discipline may not be a priority in another context.

    “Further, what is a priority for measuring well-being in one discipline, such as health economics, may not be a priority in another context, such as clinical psychology.”
7 of 7

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Warwick-Edinburgh scale is given the wrong tool number

    Minor

    The text identifies the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale as tool 96, but table 1 lists it as tool 95; tool 96 is the Well-Being Picture Scale.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 141 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Sintonen, 1989, A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D), J Soc Med, 26, 85
  2. Prawitz, 2006, InCharge financial distress/financial well-being scale: development, administration, and score interpretation, J Financ Counsel Plan, 17, 34
  3. World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization, as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. 1948. Constitution of the World Health Organization. 2006. www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 638

Metadata

Authors
Linton, M.-J., Dieppe, P., & Medina-Lara, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Health Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Corresponding author
Linton, Myles-Jay
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-07
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
e010641
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2460276213
Cited by
638
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Exeter
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
well-being, self-report measures, well-being dimensions, psychological well-being, social well-being, physical well-being, spiritual well-being, subjective well-being, WHO definition of health, instrument development, adults
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Health Status, Humans, Mental Health, Surveys and Questionnaires, Spirituality, Self Report

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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