Table 4.
Methodological quality of studies that psychometrically validate previously developed instruments and measurement properties of the instruments.
| Instrument [references] | Structural validity | Internal consistency | Cross cultural validity/ measurement invariance | Reliability | Measurement error | Criterion validity | Construct validity | Responsiveness | Interpretability | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Instrument | Study | Instrument | Study | Instrument | Study | Instrument | Study | Instrument | Study | Instrument | Study | Instrument | Study | Instrument | Instruments only | |
| Wellbeing at Work Scale (WBWS), Demo and Paschoal (64) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Very good | + | N/E | N/E | N |
| Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI), Gurková, DŽuka (65) | Adequate | N/E‡ | Very Good | § | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Inadequate | + | N/E | N/E | Y |
| Job-related Affective Wellbeing Scale, Laguna et al. (75) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Y |
| Spanish Orientation to Happiness Scale, Lorente, Tordera (67) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Very good | + | N/E | N/E | Y |
| WHO-5 and WHO-10, Love, Andersson (68) | Adequate | N/E‡ | Very Good | § | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Inadequate | + | N/E | N/E | Y |
| Job-related Affective Wellbeing Scale, Mielniczuk and Łaguna (69) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | Doubtful | ? | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Very good | + | N/E | N/E | Y |
| Flourishing-at-Work Scale Short Form, Rautenbach and Rothmann (70) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Y |
| The Index for Psychological Wellbeing at Work (IPWBW), Sandilya and Shahnawaz (71) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N |
| The Flourishing Scale, Senol-Durak and Durak (72) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Very good | + | N/E | N/E | Y |
| The Workplace PERMA-Profiler, Watanabe et al. (73) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | Adequate | + | Adequate | ? | N/E | N/E | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | Y |
| Flourish Index and Secure Flourish Index, Weziak-Białowolska, Białowolski (74) | Very Good | + | Very Good | + | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | N/E | Inadequate | + | N/E | N/E | Y |
Assessment criteria for methodological quality of studies: “Very Good,” “Adequate,” “Doubtful,” or “Inadequate” quality according to COSMIN Risk of Bias Assessment; Quality criteria for appraisal of of measurement properties of instruments: Sufficient (+), indeterminate (?), insufficient (–) according to Terwee et al. (23).
CFA, confirmatory factor analysis; EFA, exploratory factor analysis; N/E, not explored means the measurement property was not explored in the included study.
Indicates that EFA (not CFA) was carried out.
Indicates that internal consistency for scale was reported, but in accordance with the COSMIN scoring criteria, cannot be interpreted due to absence of evidence for structural validity with confirmatory factor analysis; Y indicates that “Yes” at least some descriptive statistics are reported for the instrument; N indicates that “No” descriptive statistics are reported for the instrument.