Assessing mental wellbeing using the Mental Health Continuum—Short Form: A systematic review and meta-analytic structural equation modelling.

Abstract

Mental wellbeing is an increasingly relevant outcome in clinical psychology, and rigorous measurement tools are required to ensure high quality data. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the factor structure of a popular measurement tool of mental wellbeing, the Mental Health Continuum—Short Form (MHC-SF). The systematic review identified 46 studies which investigated the performance of the MHC-SF, which consistently supported the psychometric properties of the scale. Meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) was used with data extracted from 26 studies (n = 108,603). MASEM indicated support for the original tripartite structure of the MHC-SF, as well as a hierarchical model and a bifactor model. The hierarchical model (and the nested tripartite model) was supported theoretically and performed similarly across clinical and general populations. The current study demonstrates that the MHC-SF is a valid measure of general mental wellbeing, which taps into concepts of emotional, social, and psychological wellbeing in general and clinical populations. Caution may be required when comparing scores across clinical and non-clinical cohorts.

The Effect of Psychological Distress on Measurement Invariance in Measures of Mental Wellbeing

“…This finding indicates that the MHC-SF displayed configural invariance across the two groups, meaning that the same factor structure was retained across both samples. This is in line with prior research demonstrating that the factor structure of the scale is similar across both clinical and non-clinical groups [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Despite the finding of metric non-invariance (discussed below), responses from distressed and non-distressed individuals indicated the presence of emotional wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, and social wellbeing.…”

“…The findings from this study support previous research, confirming the factor structure of MHC-SF into emotional, psychological, and social factors, regardless of psychological distress [ 24 ]. This suggests that the assessment of mental wellbeing is relevant despite the presence of distress, and scales such as the MHC-SF could be used to assess changes in these aspects of wellbeing in clinical settings.…”

“…For example, researchers may notice differences in the wellbeing of two groups which are artifacts of the level of distress in the two groups. While the results from this study support those identified at the meta-analytic level for the MHC-SF [ 24 ], more research is needed to confirm if measurement invariance is an issue in other populations using different measures of wellbeing and distress. Further research is required to understand the primary source(s) of metric invariance between clinical or distressed and non-distressed groups.…”

“…Mental wellbeing was measured using the MHC-SF [ 25 ]. The MHC-SF is a valid and reliable measure of mental wellbeing [ 24 ], providing a continuous measure of three key domains of wellbeing (i.e., emotional, psychological, and social well-being). The measure also facilitates an overall categorical score on whether someone has high, moderate, or low wellbeing.…”

“…This study aims to determine measurement invariance in one such measure of wellbeing, the MHC-SF, between individuals who are highly distressed and individuals who do not display current distress. A large meta-analytic structural equation modelling study of the MHC-SF, using data from more than 100,000 participants [ 24 ], found an overall consistent-factor structure for the MHC-SF across clinical and non-clinical groups. However, there were discrepancies between item loadings for all three latent factors (i.e., emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing) of the MHC-SF in clinical and non-clinical populations, providing preliminary evidence of metric invariance within the MHC-SF.…”