Elsevier

Personality and Individual Differences

Volume 117, 15 October 2017, Pages 236-241
Personality and Individual Differences

The questionnaire for Eudaimonic well-being (QEWB): Psychometric properties in a non-western adolescent sample

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.018Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The QEWB has high internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability.

  • The QEWB has good factorial, convergent, discriminant, and construct validity.

  • The QEWB is gender invariant at the configural, metric, and scalar levels.

Abstract

In the present study, we examined the reliability and validity of the Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (QEWB; Waterman et al., 2010) in a sample of 708 adolescent students belonging to one of the southern states in India, Kerala. The internal consistency reliability estimate suggested that the QEWB was reliable. Results of confirmatory factor analysis provided support for factorial validity of the QEWB. Results of bivariate correlational analyses provided support for convergent validity (relations with global and domain-specific life satisfaction), discriminant validity (relations with Big Five personality traits), and construct validity (relations with global self-esteem and social anxiety) of the QEWB. The test-retest reliability coefficient demonstrated the temporal stability of the QEWB (n = 526). Results of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the QEWB was invariant across genders.

Introduction

Descriptions of eudaimonia vary widely in the hitherto research literature on eudaimonic conception of psychological well-being (see Huta and Waterman, 2014, Vittersø, 2016a). However, there is growing consensus among researchers that fulfillment or realization of one's full, natural potential is a fundamental characteristic of eudaimonia (see Vittersø, 2016b). The three predominant psychological theories of eudaimonia, rooted in this conception of eudaimonia, include eudaimonic identity theory (Waterman, 1984, Waterman, 1993), theory of psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989), and self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985, Ryan and Deci, 2000). Although these psychological theories of eudaimonia were initially developed well over two decades ago, the psychological arena of eudaimonia research is still underdeveloped or immature (Waterman, 2008). As a result, there has been an acute shortage of psychometrically reliable and valid measures of eudaimonic well-being, deeply rooted in the modern conceptions of eudaimonic functioning, to assess the eudaimonic well-being of children, adolescents, and adults alike at the trait level (see Cooke, Melchert, & Connor, 2016). Because prior studies of eudaimonia, employing a wide array of conceptualizations of eudaimonia, have demonstrated the strong relationships of diverse aspects of eudaimonia with several positive outcomes (see Vittersø, 2016b, for a review), it is crucial that the measurement instruments used to assess eudaimonic well-being are reliable, valid, and generalizable.

Waterman et al.’s (2010) Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (QEWB) is one among the very few reliable and valid measurement instruments currently available for assessing eudaimonic functioning at the trait level. The QEWB is composed of items pertaining to six interrelated aspects of eudaimonic functioning: self-discovery, perceived development of one's best potentials, a sense of purpose and meaning in life, investment of significant effort in the pursuit of excellence, intense involvement in activities, and enjoyment of activities as personally expressive (Waterman et al., 2010). These six interrelated elements are indicators of subjective components of edudaimonia (Fowers, 2016), particularly focusing on “subjective experiences such as engagement or meaning and on personal traits rather than concrete activities” (Fowers, 2016, p. 74).

The psychometric properties of the QEWB was evaluated employing two samples of students, primarily comprising European Americans, drawn from colleges and universities in the United States. The internal consistency reliability of the QEWB was found to be high in samples 1 and 2 (Cronbach's alpha = 0.85 and 0.86, respectively). Because the QEWB comprised 21 items, Waterman et al. (2010) evaluated the factorial validity of the QEWB using five parceled indicators by averaging responses. Adjacent items were combined to form four item parcels comprising four items in each parcel, and the fifth parcel contained five adjacent items. However, there is no consensus among researchers as to the validity and accuracy of diverse item parceling techniques employed in structural equation modeling procedures (see Bandalos, 2008, Little, 2013, Little et al., 2002, Little et al., 2013, Perron and Gillespie, 2015). Moreover, the authors did not indicate whether or not the items in each parcel were tested for unidimensionality, prior to forming the item parcels (see Bandalos and Finney, 2001, Kline, 2016). Little et al. (2002) posit that items parceled from a unidimensional scale can alone be effective.

The authors assessed the convergent validity of the QEWB by examining the associations of eudaimonic well-being with indicators of identity commitment and subjective and psychological well-being. Strong, statistically significant relations of eudaimonic well-being with these measures provided support for convergent validity of the QEWB. The low-to-modest correlations of eudaimonic well-being with Big Five personality traits and measures of identity exploration provided support for discriminant validity of the QEWB. The significant positive associations of eudaimonic well-being with measures of positive psychological functioning, such as self-esteem and internal locus of control; and the significant negative relations of eudaimonic well-being with measures of negative psychological functioning, such as general anxiety, social anxiety, and depression, provided evidence for construct validity of the QEWB. Incremental validity of the QEWB was evaluated by comparing the unique contributions of eudaimonic, subjective, and psychological well-being in explaining the variance in indicators of identity commitment and positive as well as negative psychological functioning. Compared to subjective and psychological well-being, eudaimonic well-being made the largest unique contribution to explaining variance in most of these measures, thereby providing support for incremental validity of the QEWB. However, Waterman et al. (2010) did not assess the test-retest reliability of the QEWB or measurement invariance of the QEWB across genders and cultures.

Waterman and colleagues' initial validation study also explored whether or not eudaimonic well-being varied by gender, age, ethnicity, family income, and family structure. Females reported significantly higher levels of eudaimonic well-being than did their male counterparts. Moreover, statistically significant differences in eudaimonic well-being were also found between different age groups in the study. However, small, but statistically significant, differences were observed for ethnicity, family income, and family structure as well. The eudaimonic identity theory, nevertheless, postulates that demographic characteristics, except possibly age, cannot be linked to the level of eudaimonic well-being (Waterman et al., 2010).

To the best of our knowledge, only one study has investigated the reliability and validity of the QEWB in another context. Schutte, Wissing, and Khumalo (2013) examined the reliability and structural, convergent, and discriminant validity of the QEWB in a sample 325 students drawn from a university in South Africa. The results of the study provided adequate evidence for reliability and convergent as well as discriminant validity of the QEWB. However, the authors did not find adequate support for structural validity of the QEWB, i.e., a unidimensional one-factor model of eudaimonic well-being. Furthermore, Schutte et al. (2013) did not observe significant gender or age differences in level of eudaimonic well-being. However, the authors, like Waterman et al. (2010), did not assess the test-retest reliability or gender invariance of the QEWB. Given the inconsistency in findings and severe lack of research validating the QEWB in other contexts, further research is needed to examine whether or not the QEWB is a reliable, valid, and generalizable measure of eudaimonic well-being across genders, countries, and cultures. Because the QEWB was primarily validated in Western cultural settings, such studies are warranted to examine whether or not findings from Western cultures hold true in Eastern cultures. To this end, Joshanloo (2014) has listed six major differences between Western and Eastern conceptualizations of mental well-being. Whereas the Eastern conceptualization of mental well-being tend to consider self-transcendence, eudaimonism, harmony, contentment, valuing, and religion and spirituality as critical ingredients of well-being, the Western conceptualization of mental well-being tend to value self-enhancement, hedonism, environmental mastery and control, life satisfaction, and avoidance of hardships as integral to well-being (Joshanloo, 2014). Given the cultural differences, it is crucial to evaluate the psychometric properties of the QEWB in a sample drawn from an Eastern cultural setting.

The present study aimed at examining the internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, factorial, convergent, discriminant, and construct validity, and gender invariance of the QEWB in a sample of adolescent students drawn from a non-Western setting. We examined the convergent validity of the QEWB in terms of eudaimonic well-being's relations with global and domain-specific life satisfaction. Evidence for discriminant validity was evaluated by exploring the associations of eudaimonic well-being with Big Five personality traits. Construct validity of the QEWB was assessed by examining the relationships of eudaimonic well-being with global self-esteem and social anxiety. These measures were selected to evaluate the validity of the QEWB because there is growing evidence that these are directly linked to an individual's eudaimonic well-being (e.g., Church et al., 2014, Henderson et al., 2013, Keyes et al., 2015, Park and Jeong, 2015).

We hypothesized that the internal consistency reliability of the QEWB would be comparable to the findings of the original validation study. We also hypothesized that the test-retest reliability of the QEWB would be high. Moreover, eudaimonic well-being was hypothesized to be strongly and positively correlated with measures of life satisfaction, whereas eudaimonic well-being was hypothesized to be moderately positively correlated with personality traits. Eudaimonic well-being was also hypothesized to be positively correlated with global self-esteem, while it was hypothesized to be negatively correlated with social anxiety. Finally, the QEWB was hypothesized to be invariant across genders. Thus, the present study should not only provide further empirical evidence of the psychometric properties of the QEWB but also contribute to our understanding of how this instrument may perform as a measure of eudaimonic well-being in a sample adolescent students drawn from a developing, non-Western country.

Section snippets

Participants

A convenience sample, comprising 756 adolescent students (Grades 9–12), was drawn from one of the southern states in India, Kerala. Of these, 22 participants did not have the complete data for the variables of interest in the study, and another 26 participants were identified as univariate and multivariate outliers. Hence, these participants were excluded from the present study, resulting in a final sample of 708 adolescent students (Mage = 15.89 years, SD = 0.78; female = 398 [56%], male = 310 [44%]).

Results

The skewness and kurtosis values for all variables were within acceptable limits (< ± 3 and < ± 10, respectively). Seven cases were identified as univariate outliers (z > ± 3.29), whereas 19 cases were identified as multivariate outliers (Mahalanobis distance with p < 0.001). These cases were not included in subsequent analyses. The descriptive statistics for variables of interest in the study are reported in Table 1. The independent samples t-test indicated that males and females did not differ

Discussion

The present study evaluated the psychometric properties of the QEWB in a sample of adolescents drawn from the southernmost state in India, Kerala. Congruent with the findings of Waterman et al. (2010), the results of CFAs in the current study indicated that the QEWB items loaded well on a single factor, thereby providing empirical evidence for the factorial validity of the QEWB in a sample of adolescents hailing from a non-Western, developing country. Moreover, consistent with the findings of

References (44)

  • G.W. Cheung et al.

    Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance

    Structural Equation Modeling

    (2002)
  • A.T. Church et al.

    Relating self-concept consistency to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in eight cultures

    Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

    (2014)
  • P.J. Cooke et al.

    Measuring well-being: A review of instruments

    The Counseling Psychologist

    (2016)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior

    (1985)
  • B.J. Fowers

    Aristotle on Eudaimonia: On the virtue of returning to the source

  • R.M. Furr et al.

    Psychometrics: An introduction

    (2014)
  • R. Gilman et al.

    Review of life satisfaction measures for adolescents

    Behaviour Change

    (2000)
  • L.W. Henderson et al.

    An exploration of the well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic behavior

    The Journal of Positive Psychology

    (2013)
  • G. Hofstede

    Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations

    (2001)
  • M. Houben et al.

    The relation between short-term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis

    Psychological Bulletin

    (2015)
  • E.S. Huebner

    Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents

    Social Indicators Research

    (2004)
  • V. Huta et al.

    Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions

    Journal of Happiness Studies

    (2014)
  • View full text