Validity and Reliability of the Iranian Version of the Short Form Social Well Being Scale in a General Urban Population

  • Zeinab SHAYEGHIAN Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Parisa AMIRI Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Golnaz VAHEDI-NOTASH Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Mehrdad KARIMI Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Fereidoun AZIZI Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Psychometric properties, Social well-being, Validity, Reliability, Iran

Abstract

Background: We aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Iranian version of the short form social well-being scale.

Methods: After linguistic validation, the Iranian version of social well-being scale was completed by 715 participants, aged ≥ 18 yr between Jan and Sep 2015. Concurrent validity was examined by calculating the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the dimensions of social well-being and social support. Internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, confirmatory and explanatory factor analyses were also examined.

Results: The internal consistency as measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients was 0.72 for total score. No ceiling and floor effect was found in total score or any of the subscales. The concurrent correlation coefficients between social well-being and social support ranged from good to excellent agreement. Exploratory factor analysis supported mainly comparable results with the original US English dialect version. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis for 5-factor models indicated acceptable fit for the proposed research models.

Conclusion: The findings support the initial reliability and validity of the Iranian version of the social well-being scale in the research and community settings in Iran.

 

 

References

1. Andrews FM, McKennell AC (1980). Measures of self-reported well-being: Their affective, cognitive, and other components. Soc Indic Res, 8:127-155.
2. Franc R, Prizmic-Larsen Z, Lipovčan LK (2012). Personal security and fear of crime as predictors of subjective well-being. In: Subjective well-being and security. Ed(s): Springer, 45-67.
3. Kuppens P, Realo A, Diener E (2008). The role of positive and negative emotions in life satisfaction judgment across nations. J Pers Soc Psychol, 95:66-75.
4. Keyes CL, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. J Pers Soc Psychol, 82:1007-22.
5. Li M, Yang D, Ding C, Kong F (2015). Validation of the Social Well-being Scale in a Chinese Sample and Invariance Across Gender. Soc Indic Res, 121:607-618.
6. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol, 52:141-166.
7. Henderson LW, Knight T (2012). Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand wellbeing and pathways to wellbeing. IJW, 2(3), 196-221.
8. Sapmaz F, Yıldırım M, Nalbant PTD, Sızır U (2016). Gratitude, Forgiveness and Humility as Predictors of Subjective Well-being among University Students. Int Online J Educ Sci, 8 (1), 38 – 47.
9. Lewis GJ, Kanai R, Rees G, Bates TC (2014). Neural correlates of the ‘good life’: Eudaimonic well-being is associated with insular cortex volume. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci., 9:615-618.
10. Waterman AS, Schwartz SJ, Zamboanga BL et al (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. J Posit Psychol, 5:41-61.
11. Keyes CL, Shapiro AD (2004). Social well-being in the United States: A descriptive epidemiology. How healthy are we,350-372.
12. Hill PL, Turiano NA, Mroczek DK, Roberts BW (2012). Examining concurrent and longitudinal relations between personality traits and social well-being in adulthood. Soc Psychol Personal Sci, 3:698-705.
13. Mozaffari N, Peyrovi H, Nayeri ND (2015). The social well-being of nurses shows a thirst for a holistic support: A qualitative study. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being, 10(1), 27749
14. Montpetit MA, Kapp AE, Bergeman CS (2015). Financial Stress, Neighborhood Stress, and Well-Being: Mediational and Moderational Models. J Community Psychol, 43(3):364-376.
15. WHO (1958). The first ten years of the World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37089
16. Shapiro A, Keyes CLM (2008). Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always better off? Soc Indic Res, 88:329-346.
17. Callaghan L (2008). Social Well-Being in Extra-Care Housing: An Overview of the Literature (PSSRU Discussion Paper 2528).
18. Larson JS (1993). The measurement of social well-being. Soc Indic Res, 28:285-296.
19. Thorbecke E (2009). Social Well-being and Progress. Realidad, datos y espacio revista internacional de estadística y geografía: 96.
20. Cicognani E, Pirini C, Keyes C, Joshanloo M, Rostami R, Nosratabadi M (2008). Social participation, sense of community and social well being: A study on American, Italian and Iranian university students. Soc Indic Res, 89:97-112.
21. Van Der Westhuizen S, Visser D, De Jager M (2008). Dimensions of Social Well-Being in a Motor Manufacturing Organisation in South Africa. J Psychol Afr, 18(1), 57-64.
22. Azizi F, Rahmani M, Emami H et al (2002). Cardiovascular risk factors in an Iranian urban population: Tehran lipid and glucose study (phase 1). Soz Praventivmed, 47:408-426.
23. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess, 52:30-41.
24. Edwards LM (2004). Measuring perceived social support in Mexican American youth: Psychometric properties of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Hisp J Behav Sci, 26:187-194.
25. Bagherian-Sararoudi R, Hajian A, Ehsan HB, Sarafraz MR, Zimet GD (2013). Psychometric properties of the persian version of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in iran. nt J Prev Med, 4(11), 1277-81.
26. Keyes CLM (1998). Social well-being. Soc Psychol Q:121-140.
27. Cicognani E, Mazzoni D, Albanesi C, Zani B (2015). Sense of Community and Empowerment Among Young People: Understanding Pathways from Civic Participation to Social Well-Being. Int J Volunt and Nonprofit Organ, 26:24-44.
28. De Piccoli N, Tartaglia S (2006). Social well-being and participation in a local community. Learning communities and sustainable social-economic city development: 22.
29. Chao RC-L (2015). Counseling Psychology: An Integrated Positive Psychological Approach. ed. John Wiley & Sons.
30. Markus KA (2012). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling by Rex B. Kline. Struc Equation Modeling, 19:509-512.
31. Cronbach LJ (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16:297-334.
32. Guion RM, Cranny CJ (1982). A note on concurrent and predictive validity designs: A critical reanalysis.
33. Statistics IS (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. IBM Corp., Armonk, New York.
34. Dhar N, Chaturvedi S, Nandan D (2011). Spiritual health scale 2011: Defining and measuring 4 th dimension of health. Indian J Community Med, 36:275-282.
Published
2019-07-18
How to Cite
1.
SHAYEGHIAN Z, AMIRI P, VAHEDI-NOTASH G, KARIMI M, AZIZI F. Validity and Reliability of the Iranian Version of the Short Form Social Well Being Scale in a General Urban Population. Iran J Public Health. 48(8):1478-1487.
Section
Original Article(s)