Validation of the Italian Versions of the Flourishing Scale and of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience

Abstract

It may be simpler to consider well-being to be a unidimensional construct, as hypothesized, for example, by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Hills & Argyle, 2002) or by the single-item measures proposed in several contexts (

A 3-Faced Construct Validation and a Bifactor Subjective Well-Being Model Using the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience, Greek Version

“…This cross-validation was performed for both versions of SPANE (12 & 8). This bi-dimensional, cross-validated solution for SPANE 12 is in line with many other similar empirical findings (Giuntoli et al, 2017;Singh et al, 2017;Rahm et al, 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014, attributed to Diener et al, 2010 and it was supported for SPANE-8 as well. Also, in line with previous CFA research, the two SPANE factors were intercorrelated with a strong negative correlation (Giuntoli et al, 2017;Singh et al, 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Li et al, 2013).…”

“…To summarize the findings in the CFA 1 subsample (N = 910), the following models showed an overall optimal fit after considering fit measures, factor loadings and factor intercorrelations: 1) for SPANE-12, the 2-factor ICM-CFA with 3 error covariances permitted in items 3 -5, 7 -12 and 2 -8 (MODEL 3); 2) for SPANE-8, the 2-factor ICM-CFA. This bi-dimensional structure has also been proposed by many studies as optimal (Giuntoli et al, 2017;Singh et al, 2017;Rahm et al, 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014), supporting these preliminary findings further.…”

“…The main findings that emerged for both SPANE versions are: 1) the two factor model (with SPANE-P and SPANE-N as dimensions) showed the optimal fit (also proposed by Giuntoli et al, 2017;Singh et al, 2017;Rahm et al, 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014 andattributed to Diener et al, 2010); 2) full, strict measurement invariance across gender was supported; 3) alpha and omega reliability and AVE convergent validity were adequate; 4) a consistent, overarching pattern of relationships was present from the correlation analysis, common for both versions; 5) the SPANE-12 and SPANE-8 had a high positive correlation indicating that on average 97% of the variance in SPANE-12 is explained by SPANE-8; 6) a Bifactor CFA Subjective well-being model (in a similar vein by Linley et al, 2009) was tenable in our data using both SPANE-12 and SPANE-8 to measure affect.…”

“…MODEL 2 has positive and negative experiences separated into two factors (also proposed by Giuntoli et al, 2017;Singh et al, 2017;Rahm et al, 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014). MODEL 3 is a variation of MODEL 2 with three error covariances added.…”

“…The scale performed well in terms of convergent validity with other measures of emotion, happiness, and life satisfaction such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the construct validity of SPANE-P, SPANE-N and SPANE-B was good, with moderate to extremely high correlations with scores of several other well-being measures. Finally, the scale has been translated into more than 9 languages and has been investigated for its psychometric properties across several cultures including Portugal (Silva & Caetano, 2013), China (Li, Bai, & Wang, 2013;Tong & Wang, 2017), Japan (Sumi, 2014), Turkey (Telef, 2015), Italy (Giuntoli et al, 2017), Germany (Rahm, Heise, & Schuldt, 2017), India (Singh, Junnarkar, & Jaswal, 2017), and Serbia (Jovanović, 2015).…”