2011
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2278-1_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Safety and Subjective Well-Being: A Perspective from the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
4

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
25
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Briefly, the measures used included the 6-item Kessler (K6) scale developed by Kessler et al (2002); three items from the Short Form Health (SFH) scale developed by Ware and Sherbourne (1990); three items from the Self-Esteem (SE) scale developed by Rosenberg (1965); two items from the Satisfaction with Life (SWL) scale developed by Diener et al (1985); four items from the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) developed by Cummins et al (2003). The K6 scale was rated across a scale from 0 to 4, the PWI scale was rated across a scale from 0 to 10, and all other scales (SFH, SE, and SWL) were rated across a scale from 1 to 7.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Briefly, the measures used included the 6-item Kessler (K6) scale developed by Kessler et al (2002); three items from the Short Form Health (SFH) scale developed by Ware and Sherbourne (1990); three items from the Self-Esteem (SE) scale developed by Rosenberg (1965); two items from the Satisfaction with Life (SWL) scale developed by Diener et al (1985); four items from the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) developed by Cummins et al (2003). The K6 scale was rated across a scale from 0 to 4, the PWI scale was rated across a scale from 0 to 10, and all other scales (SFH, SE, and SWL) were rated across a scale from 1 to 7.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Supporting research indicates that evaluations concerning personally important life domains (e.g., health, finances, relationships) are chronically accessible to individuals when forming LS judgments (Schimmack et al, ; Schimmack & Oishi, ). Furthermore, substantial amounts of variance in global LS evaluations can be explained by predictive models in which domain‐specific evaluations are treated as simultaneous predictors (Casas et al, ; Cummins et al, ; Gonzalez, Coenders, Saez, & Casas, ; Loewe, Bagherzadeh, Araya‐Castillo, Thieme, & Batista‐Foguet, ; Tiefenbach & Kohlbacher, ; van Praag, Frijters, & Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell, ). In such studies, multiple domain satisfactions make unique contributions to predicting overall LS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier versions of well-being indices (e.g., [6,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]) were determined to address two of the three pillars of well-being well but to either ignore the third pillar or inadequately address it [9]. The present HWBI described here includes critical aspects of all three pillars of well-being in a balanced manner such that all three pillars contribute to the well-being of the constituency being assessed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%