Felix Cheung1, Richard E Lucas. 1. Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48823, USA, felixckc@msu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present paper assessed the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures by comparing single-item measures to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)-a more psychometrically established measure. METHODS: Two large samples from Washington (N = 13,064) and Oregon (N = 2,277) recruited by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a representative German sample (N = 1,312) recruited by the Germany Socio-Economic Panel were included in the present analyses. Single-item life satisfaction measures and the SWLS were correlated with theoretically relevant variables, such as demographics, subjective health, domain satisfaction, and affect. The correlations between the two life satisfaction measures and these variables were examined to assess the construct validity of single-item life satisfaction measures. RESULTS: Consistent across three samples, single-item life satisfaction measures demonstrated substantial degree of criterion validity with the SWLS (zero-order r = 0.62-0.64; disattenuated r = 0.78-0.80). Patterns of statistical significance for correlations with theoretically relevant variables were the same across single-item measures and the SWLS. Single-item measures did not produce systematically different correlations compared to the SWLS (average difference = 0.001-0.005). The average absolute difference in the magnitudes of the correlations produced by single-item measures and the SWLS was very small (average absolute difference = 0.015-0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Single-item life satisfaction measures performed very similarly compared to the multiple-item SWLS. Social scientists would get virtually identical answer to substantive questions regardless of which measure they use.
PURPOSE: The present paper assessed the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures by comparing single-item measures to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)-a more psychometrically established measure. METHODS: Two large samples from Washington (N = 13,064) and Oregon (N = 2,277) recruited by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a representative German sample (N = 1,312) recruited by the Germany Socio-Economic Panel were included in the present analyses. Single-item life satisfaction measures and the SWLS were correlated with theoretically relevant variables, such as demographics, subjective health, domain satisfaction, and affect. The correlations between the two life satisfaction measures and these variables were examined to assess the construct validity of single-item life satisfaction measures. RESULTS: Consistent across three samples, single-item life satisfaction measures demonstrated substantial degree of criterion validity with the SWLS (zero-order r = 0.62-0.64; disattenuated r = 0.78-0.80). Patterns of statistical significance for correlations with theoretically relevant variables were the same across single-item measures and the SWLS. Single-item measures did not produce systematically different correlations compared to the SWLS (average difference = 0.001-0.005). The average absolute difference in the magnitudes of the correlations produced by single-item measures and the SWLS was very small (average absolute difference = 0.015-0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Single-item life satisfaction measures performed very similarly compared to the multiple-item SWLS. Social scientists would get virtually identical answer to substantive questions regardless of which measure they use.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Rosemarie Kobau; Carla Bann; Megan Lewis; Matthew M Zack; Angela M Boardman; Renee Boyd; Kim C Lim; Tommy Holder; Anastacia Kl Hoff; Cecily Luncheon; William Thompson; Willi Horner-Johnson; Richard E Lucas Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2013-09-24
Authors: Claudia Trudel-Fitzgerald; Peter James; Eric S Kim; Emily S Zevon; Francine Grodstein; Laura D Kubzansky Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Renan C Castillo; Yanjie Huang; Daniel Scharfstein; Katherine Frey; Michael J Bosse; Andrew N Pollak; Heather A Vallier; Kristin R Archer; Robert A Hymes; Anna B Newcomb; Ellen J MacKenzie; Stephen Wegener; Joseph R Hsu; Madhav A Karunakar; Rachel B Seymour; Stephen H Sims; Eileen Flores; Christine Churchill; David J Hak; Corey E Henderson; Hassan R Mir; Daniel S Chan; Anjan R Shah; Barbara Steverson; Jerald Westberg; Joshua L Gary; Timothy S Achor; Andrew Choo; John W Munz; Melissa Porrey; Sarah Hendrickson; Mary A Breslin; Todd O McKinley; Greg E Gaski; Laurence B Kempton; Anthony T Sorkin; Walter W Virkus; Lauren C Hill; Clifford B Jones; Debra L Sietsema; Robert V O'Toole; Katherine Ordonio; Andrea L Howe; Timothy J Zerhusen; William Obremskey; Robert H Boyce; A Alex Jahangir; Cesar S Molina; Manish K Sethi; Susan W Vanston; Eben A Carroll; Danielle Yemiola Drye; Martha B Holden; Susan C Collins; Elizabeth Wysocki Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Lisa M Gargano; Ho Ki Mok; Melanie H Jacobson; Patricia Frazier; Sascha K Garrey; Lysa J Petrsoric; Robert M Brackbill Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 4.147