Reliability and Validity of Japanese Versions of the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience

Spanish Validation of the Flourishing Scale in the General Population

“…Low variability and a high mean may compromise the scale's cumulative error and could be one of the reasons why the percentage of explained variance is not as high as previous versions of the scale even though it showed good evidence of construct validity. Regarding other types of validity, the present study found similar levels of convergent and criterion validity as well as similar internal consistency compared with previous validations (Silva and Caetano 2013;Sumi 2014a). Temporal reliability is higher than the original validation of the scale (Diener et al 1985) but lower than japanese study (Sumi 2014b).…”

“…The CFI had values that were higher than those found in the Portugal, New Zealand and China validations (Hone et al 2014a, b;Silva and Caetano 2013;Tang et al 2014), but lower compared the Japanese validation (Sumi 2014a). The residual RMSEA values were lower than the ones found in the Japan and New Zealand validations (Hone et al 2014a, b;Sumi 2014a). In the latter adaptation, the RMSEA was found not to be adequate and only showed an acceptable value that was correlated with some items' errors (Hone et al 2014a, b).…”

“…Third, although the authors assessed invariance between samples, cross-cultural adaptations require semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence (Arafat et al 2016;Muñiz et al 2016), not only metric equivalence. Fourth, the Pozo-Muñoz version of the FS used a 5-point Likert scale rather than the 7-point Likert scale used by the original FS and all other validations (Diener et al 2010;Hone et al 2014a, b;Sumi 2014a;Silva and Caetano 2013;Tang et al 2014) not justifying the change theoretically nor statistically. Other limitations include a fully academic sample, the lack of psychometric analysis of features such as convergent and criterion validity, temporal reliability and using the same sample to analyse exploratory and confirmatory factor structures rather than randomly splitting it in two as suggested in the literature (Brown 2015).…”

Examining Well-Being in School Context: Weekly Experiences of Pupils and Teachers

“…For instance, studies have shown an invariant internal factorial structure across populations for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) , and the internal factorial structure of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (SPANE) (Silva & Caetano, 2011;Sumi, 2013). Where possible, we included the translated and adapted versions (in each language) of the scales.…”

Enhancing flourishing mental health in the general population as a new strategy for the prevention of anxiety and depressive disorders

“…Acceptable psychometric properties of the FS have been found in student samples (Diener et al, 2009b;Howell & Buro, 2014;Sumi, 2013), a full-time employee sample , a community sample (Tang, Duan, Wang, & Liu, 2014) and in a national representative population sample . All these studies found a single factor structure using exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA), and adequate to excellent reliability with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from .78 to .95.…”