LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Stewart-Brown, Sarah L.; Tennant, Ruth; Tennant, Alan; Platt, Stephen; Parkinson, Jane; Weich, Scott (2009)
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF
Background: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) was developed to meet demand for instruments\ud to measure mental well-being. It comprises 14 positively phrased Likert-style items and fulfils classic criteria for scale development. We report here the internal construct validity of WEMWBS from the perspective of the Rasch measurement model.\ud Methods: The model was applied to data collected from 779 respondents in Wave 12 (Autumn 2006) of the Scottish Health\ud Education Population Survey. Respondents were aged 16–74 (average 41.9) yrs.\ud Results: Initial fit to model expectations was poor. The items 'I've been feeling good about myself', 'I've been interested in new things' and 'I've been feeling cheerful' all showed significant misfit to model expectations, and were deleted. This led to a marginal improvement in fit to the model. After further analysis, more items were deleted and a strict unidimensional seven item scale (the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS)) was resolved. Many items deleted because of misfit with\ud model expectations showed considerable bias for gender. Two retained items also demonstrated bias for gender but, at the\ud scale level, cancelled out. One further retained item 'I've been feeling optimistic about the future' showed bias for age. The correlation between the 14 item and 7 item versions was 0.954. Given fit to the Rasch model, and strict unidimensionality, SWEMWBS provides an interval scale estimate of mental well-being.\ud Conclusion: A short 7 item version of WEMWBS was found to satisfy the strict unidimensionality expectations of the Rasch model, and be largely free of bias. This scale, SWEMWBS, provides a raw score-interval scale transformation for use in parametric procedures. In terms of face validity, SWEMWBS presents a more restricted view of mental well-being than the 14 item WEMWBS, with most items representing aspects of psychological and eudemonic well-being, and few covering hedonic well-being or affect. However, robust measurement properties combined with brevity make SWEMWBS preferable to WEMWBS at present for monitoring mental well-being in populations. Where face validity is an issue there remain arguments for continuing to collect data on the full 14 item WEMWBS.\ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. World Health Organisation: Promoting Mental Health; Concepts emerging evidence and practice. In Summary report Geneva; World Health Organisation; 2004.
    • 2. World Health Organisation: Strengthening mental health promotion. Geneva; World Health Organisation; 2001.
    • 3. Ryan RM, Deci EL: On happiness and human potential: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review Psychology 2001, 52:141-166.
    • 4. Huppert FA, Wittington JE: Positive mental health in individuals and populations. In The Science of Well-being Edited by: Huppert FA, Baylis N. Keverne Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004:307-340.
    • 5. Linley PA, Joseph S, Eds: Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2004.
    • 6. Joseph S, Linley PA: Positive therapy: a meta-theory for positive psychological practice. Routledge 2006.
    • 7. Hu Y, Stewart-Brown S, Twigg L, Weich S: Can the 12 item General Health Questionnaire be used to measure positive mental health? Psychological Medicine 2007, 37(7):1005-13.
    • 8. Tennant Ruth, Hiller Louise, Fishwick Ruth, Platt Stephen, Joseph Stephen, Weich Scott, Parkinson Jane, Secker Jenny, Sarah StewartBrown: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2007, 5:63.
    • 9. Nunally JC: Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
    • 10. Cronbach LJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
    • 11. Green SB, Lissitz RW, Mulaik SA: Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurements 1977, 37:827-838.
    • 12. McDonald RP, Ahlawat KS: Difficulty factors in binary data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1974, 27:82-99.
    • 13. Pallant JF: SPSS Survival Manual. Second edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.
    • 14. Rasch G: Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
    • 15. Guttman LA: The basis for Scalogram analysis. In Studies in social psychology in World War II: Measurement and Prediction Volume 4. Edited by: Stouffer SA, Guttman LA, Suchman FA, Lazarsfeld PF, Star SA, Clausen JA. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1950:60-90.
    • 16. Karabatos G: The Rasch model, additive conjoint measurement, and new models of probabilistic measurement theory. Journal of Applied Measurement 2001, 2:389-423.
    • 17. Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K: Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures. Statistical Medicine 2000, 19:1651-83.
    • 18. Wright BD, Stone G: Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press; 1979.
    • 19. Svensson E: Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2001, 33:47-48.
    • 20. Luce RD, Tukey JW: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1964, 1:1-27.
    • 21. Andrich D: Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978, 43:561-573.
    • 22. Masters G: Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982, 47:149-174.
    • 23. Pallant JF, Tennant A: An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2007, 46:1-18.
    • 24. Tennant A, Conaghan PG: The Rasch Measurement Model in Rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheumatism 2007, 57:1358-1362.
    • 25. Bland JM, Altman DG: Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. British Medical Journal 1995, 310:170.
    • 26. Holland PW, Wainer H: Differential Item Functioning. In Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993.
    • 27. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard J-L, Slade A, Lawton G, Simone A, Carter J, Lundgren-Nilsson A, Tripolski M, Ring H, Biering-Sørensen F, Marincek C, Burger H, Phillips S: Assessing and adjusting for cross cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through Differential Item Functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the Pro-ESOR project. Medical Care 2004, 42:37-48.
    • 28. Tennant A, Pallant JF: DIF matters: A practical approach to test if Differential Item Functioning (DIF) makes a difference. Rasch Measurement Transactions 2007, 20:1082-1084.
    • 29. Smith EV: Detecting and evaluation the impact of multidimensionality using tem fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement 2002, 3:205-231.
    • 30. Tennant A, Pallant JF: Multidimensionality matters. Rasch Measurement Transactions 2006, 20:1048-1051.
    • 31. Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridon B, Luo G: RUMM 2020. Perth: RUMM Laboratory; 2003.
    • 32. Keenan A-M, Redmond A, Horton M, Conaghan P, Tennant A: The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot specific outcome measure. Archives Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2007, 88:88-93.
    • 33. Kyriakides L, Kaloyirou C, Lindsay G: An analysis of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2006, 76(4):781-801.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    48
    48%
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article