Table 3.
Characteristics of articles reporting psychometric validation of previously developed instruments.
| References | Instrument | Version | Study | Demographics | Validity | Internal | Test-retest | Measurement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country/language of | population | Age: mean (SD) | Validity | consistency | error | |||
| study | N | (α) | ||||||
| Aim of study | % Female | |||||||
| Demo and Paschoal (64) | Wellbeing at Work Scale (WBWS) | 29-item, 3-factor scale | Employees from a wide range of industries in the United States | Age: N/R | Structural | Factors: Positive Affect: 0.92 Negative Affect: 0.94 Fulfillment: 0.92 |
N/E | N/E |
| USA/English | Originally developed by Paschoal and Tamayo (76) | Study 1: n = 409 Study 2: n = 400 | % Female Study 1: 33% Study 2: 42% |
Construct | ||||
| Aim: to look for evidence of validity in the US regarding the wellbeing at work scale, which was first validated in Brazil to measure employee wellbeing perceptions | ||||||||
| Gurková et al. (65) | Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) | Slovak and Czech versions | Hospital staff nurses from 12 hospitals in the Czech and Slovak Republics | Age: 39.8 (10.06) | Structural | Czech: 0.85 | N/E | N/E |
| Slovakia and Czech Republic/Slovak and Czech | Originally designed by Cummins et al. (77) | n = 1,043 | % Female: 98.40% | Construct | Slovak: 0.86 | |||
| Aim: Investigate the psychometric properties of the Slovak and Czech versions of PWI in population of nurses in both countries | ||||||||
| Laguna et al. (75) | Job-related affective wellbeing scale (12-item) | Spanish, Polish and Dutch versions | Employees from three countries (Netherlands, Poland, Spain) from small- and medium-sized enterprises | Age Spanish: 40.44 (9.31) Dutch: 44.07 (11.28) Polish: 40.36 (11.19) |
Structural | Spanish: 0.65 to 0.84 Dutch: 0.65 to 0.83 Poland: 0.78 to 0.90 | N/E | N/E |
| Netherlands, Poland, Spain/Dutch, Polish, Spanish | Originally designed by Warr (78) | Spanish n = 207 Dutch n = 254 Polish n = 346 | % Female Spanish: 37.7% Dutch: 34.6% Polish: 47% |
Construct | ||||
| Aim: Test the measurement invariance of the instrument across cultures | Cross-cultural validity\measurement invariance | |||||||
| Lorente et al. (67) | Spanish Orientation to Happiness Scale | Spanish | Spanish workers | Age | Structural | Composite reliability: Hedonic factor: 0.76 Eudemonic factor: 0.73 |
N/E | N/E |
| Spanish | Originally designed by Peterson et al. (79) | N/R | Construct | |||||
| Aim: Adapt and validate the Spanish Orientations to Happiness Scale | % Female: 54.5 | |||||||
| Love et al. (68) | WHO-5 and WHO-10 | Swedish versions | Three cohorts of Swedes: Randomized general population cohort (n = 4,027) Employees sick-listed reported by the employer (n = 3,310) Self-certified sick-listed individuals (n = 498) | Age Randomized general population cohort: 42 (13.1) Employees sick-listed reported by the employer: 47 (11.8) Self-certified sick-listed individuals: 41 (11) |
Structural | WHO-10: Randomized general population cohort: 0.92 Employees sick-listed reported by the employer: 0.92 Self-certified sick-listed individuals: 0.95 |
N/E | N/E |
| Sweden/Swedish | ||||||||
| Aim: validate the Swedish translation of the WHO (Ten) and WHO (Five) Wellbeing Questionnaires | % Female Randomized general population cohort: 55% Employees sick-listed reported by the employer: 66.3% Self-certified sick-listed individuals: 65% |
WHO-5: Randomized general population cohort:0.83 Employees sick-listed reported by the employer:0.82 Self-certified sick-listed individuals: 0.88 |
||||||
| Mielniczuk and Łaguna (69) | Job-related affective wellbeing Scale | Polish version | Polish employees from various professions | Age: 32.81 (8.8) | Structural | Anxiety: 0.88 Comfort: 0.87 Depression: 0.91 Enthusiasm: 0.93 | Pearson correlations: 0.76 for enthusiasm 0.72 for comfort 0.68 for depression 0.65 for anxiety | N/E |
| Poland/Polish | Construct | |||||||
| Aim: to test the factorial structure of job-related affect in a Polish sample | Originally designed by Warr (78) | % Female: 65% | ||||||
| Rautenbach and Rothmann (70) | Flourishing-at-Work Scale Short Form | A stratified random sample of employees of an alcoholic beverage company | Age: N/R | Structural | Emotional WB: 0.77 Psychological WB: 0.89 Social WB: 0.89 | N/E | N/E | |
| South Africa | Originally designed by Rautenbach (80) | n = 779 | % Female: 40.40% | |||||
| Aim: validate the Flourishing-at-Work Scale Short Form (FWS-SF) in a South African fast-moving consumable goods industry | ||||||||
| Sandilya and Shahnawaz (71) | The Index for Psychological Wellbeing at Work (IPWBW) | Employees from automobile and automotive parts manufacturers | Age: 33.74 | Structural | Instrument: 0.83 | N/E | N/E | |
| India/not reported | Designed by Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (49) | n = 387 | % Female: 19% | Subscales: Interpersonal Fit at Work: 0.76 Thriving at work: 0.97 Feeling of Competency at work: 0.79 Perceived Recognition at work: 0.82 Desire for Involvement at work: 0.73 |
||||
| Aim: to validate an existing tool for the Indian working population | ||||||||
| Senol-Durak and Durak (72) | The Flourishing Scale | Turkish translations | Turkish employed adults. | Age: 34.79 (9.32) | Structural | The Flourishing Scale: 0.89 | N/E | N/E |
| Turkey/Turkish | Originally developed by Diener et al. (81) | n = 180 | Construct | |||||
| Aim: assess the psychometric distinctive features of The Flourishing Scale | % Female: 47.80% | Cross-cultural validity\measurement invariance | ||||||
| Watanabe et al. (73) | The Workplace PERMA-Profiler | Japanese version | Workers registered as respondents of an Internet survey company | Age Baseline: 44.9 (13.6) Follow-up: 45.8 (13) |
Structural | Positive emotion: 0.92 | ICCs (1-month interval between T1 and T2): Positive emotion: 0.86 Engagement: 0.83 Relationships: 0.83 Meaning: 0.77 Accomplishment: 0.77 | Smallest detectable change: Positive emotion: 2.49 Engagement: 2.42 Relationships: 2.27 Meaning: 2.56 Accomplishment: 2.56 |
| Japan/Japanese | Originally designed by Kern (82) | Baseline N = 310 | Construct | Engagement: 0.85 | ||||
| Aim: to investigate the validity of the Japanese version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler | 11-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 0 to 10) | Follow-up: N = 86 | % Female Baseline: 44.9% Follow-up: 45.8% |
Relationships: 0.75 | ||||
| Weziak-Białowolska et al. (74) | Flourish Index and Secure Flourish Index | Employees of two US Fortune 500 companies | Age: 42 (12.4) | Structural | Flourishing Index: 0.89 | N/E | N/E | |
| English/USA | Originally developed by VanderWeele (83) and VanderWeele et al. (84) | N = 5,565 | % Female: Company 1: 44.5% Company 2: 30.4%% |
Construct | Secure Flourishing Index: 0.86 | |||
| Aim: to validate the psychometric properties of the Flourish Index (FI) and Secure Flourish Index (SFI) in the workplace setting |
N/E, not explored; N/R, not reported.