4.5 Article

Adaptation into Spanish of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and preliminary validation in a student sample

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 1099-1104

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0238-z

关键词

Positive mental health; Mental well-being; Positive affect; Subjective well-being; Assessment scales; Quality of life

资金

  1. Juan de la Cierva FSE [JCI-2009-05486]
  2. DIUE of Generalitat de Catalunya [2009 SGR 1095]
  3. Subdireccio General de Drogodependencies, Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing interest in the assessment of positive mental health as a global indicator of societal wealth. We aimed to adapt the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being scale (WEMWBS) into Spanish and to perform a preliminary evaluation of its metric properties. Forward and back-translations and cognitive debriefing were carried out. University students (n = 148) were recruited to evaluate the final Spanish version, following the UK original study. Distribution of WEMWBS responses, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and factor structure were assessed. Only 4 (out of 14) items of the initial Spanish version were not rated as conceptually and linguistically equivalent to the original and were modified. The final version was clear and comprehensible. Global score's Cronbach's alpha (0.90), item-total score correlations (0.44-0.76), and test-retest ICC (0.84) were all satisfactory. Moderate to high correlations (r = 0.45-0.70) were observed between the WEMWBS and validity scales. Preliminary confirmatory factor analyses did not support the hypothesis of a single factor. A conceptually equivalent Spanish version of the WEMWBS was obtained with high internal consistency, good test-retest reliability, and similar construct validity as the original instrument. Further validity and factorial studies are necessary in larger and more heterogeneous samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据