4.2 Article

The LIVES Daily Hassles Scale and Its Relation to Life Satisfaction

Journal

ASSESSMENT
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 348-363

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10731911211047894

Keywords

daily hassles; LIVES Daily Hassles Scale; life satisfaction; scale development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study introduces a new tool, the LIVES-Daily Hassles Scale (LIVES-DHS), to assess daily hassles and examines its relation to life satisfaction. The results show that LIVES-DHS effectively measures daily hassles in different domains and negatively predicts life satisfaction.
Although daily hassles have been of interest since the 1980s, only a few tools have been developed to assess them. Most of them are checklists or open-ended questions that are demanding for participants in panel surveys. Therefore, to facilitate daily hassles integration into large surveys, the aim of this study was to present a new tool assessing daily hassles, the LIVES-Daily Hassles Scale (LIVES-DHS), and to examine its relation to life satisfaction, in a sample of 1,170 French- and German-speaking adults living in Switzerland. In a first random subsample, we conducted a principal axis factor analysis, and the results suggested a five-factor solution. Furthermore, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on a second random subsample, and it supported the hierarchical factor structure of the scale. The LIVES-DHS consists of 18 items represented by five factors that describe five sources of daily hassles: financial, physical, relational, environmental, and professional. The bivariate correlations showed that the LIVES-DHS could differentiate the concept of daily hassles from associated concepts. Finally, the hierarchical regression showed that daily hassles negatively predicted life satisfaction and added a significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by age, gender, household income, education level, and personality traits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available