Intellectual and moral well-being as dimensions of human flourishing: the development and validation of a multidimensional scale

Abstract

This study developed and validated an expanded multidimensional measure of flourishing that incorporates moral and intellectual well-being. Two studies were conducted with university students in Argentina. Study 1 (N = 560) used exploratory factor analysis to identify a 20-item, five-factor structure comprising emotional, social, psychological, moral, and intellectual well-being. Study 2 (N = 427) tested this structure using confirmatory factor analysis, which indicated good fit (CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05). Internal consistency was adequate for the total scale (Ω = .86) and acceptable for most subscales, although moral and intellectual well-being subscales showed lower but acceptable reliability. Convergent validity was supported by positive associations with personal growth, academic engagement, and perseverance. The five-factor model demonstrated superior fit compared to alternative structures, supporting the distinctiveness of moral and intellectual well-being within the broader flourishing construct. These findings extend prevailing models of flourishing by providing empirical support for a more comprehensive conceptualization of well-being. The resulting scale offers a concise and psychometrically robust instrument suitable for research in positive psychology and educational contexts, and may inform interventions aimed at fostering both ethical and intellectual growth.

Introduction

In the study of flourishing, its philosophical foundations, theoretical constructs, and measurement tools must be distinguished. Philosophical approaches to flourishing address its essence, components, and defining properties, seeking to understand what flourishing truly is. In contrast, empirical psychology develops constructs to describe and operationalize the phenomena that constitute the focus of scientific inquiry. Because such constructs must have observable manifestations, measurement involves assigning numerical values that capture meaningful variations in the level of the construct being assessed.

Drawing on Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, positive psychology has generated a substantial body of literature on human flourishing over the past forty years. This literature frequently cites Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as a primary source of inspiration [2]. For eudaimonists, a prudentially valuable life is one that fulfills human nature. Thus, ‘the best life for a person is to function at the highest level a normal human could, which involves exercising distinctly human virtues of justice, friendship, [and] contemplation’ [1], p. 160).

The eudaimonic school emerged in the late 1980s. Eudaimonic psychologists propose more nuanced conceptualizations of well-being and more comprehensive methods for assessing individuals’ wellness than simply measuring hedonic well-being or happiness [19–21]. They distinguish well-being as a multidimensional phenomenon that encompasses both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects. Huppert and So [11] defined flourishing as a ‘combination of feeling good and functioning effectively’ (p. 838). It is characterized by mental well-being and the experience of ‘life going well’ (p. 838). In accordance with this model, flourishing was evaluated using a core feature and additional features. The core features include positive emotions (happiness), engagement (love of learning), and meaningfulness (feeling that your life is worthwhile). Additional features include self-esteem, optimism, resilience, and positive relationships. They developed an operational definition of flourishing that gained prominence. This was largely due to the survey they created, which was employed to cross-nationally identify, characterize, and rank the flourishing levels of adults across 23 European countries.

Another well-known conceptualization of human flourishing is provided by Martin Seligman’s model, which identifies five essential elements of well-being: positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and achievement [26]. Positive emotions refer to hedonic aspects of well-being, such as happiness and life satisfaction, understood as pleasures in the present. Engagement reflects a person's level of absorption and interest in their activities as a subjective state evoked by a retrospective experience of pleasure. Relationships denotes the capacity to maintain positive connections with others. Meaning refers to the perception of purpose and direction in life. Achievement involves the pursuit of success, accomplishment, and personal mastery. The acronym PERMA is typically used to refer to this model. On the basis of this framework, Butler and Kern [4] developed and validated the PERMA-Profiler, a 15-item scale designed to assess these five dimensions of flourishing. Moreover, Donaldson and Donaldson [7] proposed the PERMA + 4 model designed to measure flourishing in the workplace, which adds physical health (biological, functional, and psychological health perception), the environment (workplace conditions that foster employees’ optimal functioning), economic security (indicators of individuals’ financial stability and security), and mindset (positive psychological resources that support motivation, perseverance, and future-oriented functioning) as aspects of flourishing.

In parallel, Weziak-Bialowska, McNeely, and VanderWeele [29] proposed five dimensions of human well-being for the Flourish Index: (i) happiness and life satisfaction, (ii) physical and mental health, (iii) meaning and purpose, (iv) character and virtues, and (v) close social relationships. The Secure Flourish Index further incorporates the dimension of financial and material stability to evaluate flourishing [29]. Its most significant contribution is the inclusion of character and virtue as integral aspects of flourishing, grounded in the Aristotelian tradition. The factorial structure of the Flourish Index has been examined, and a second-order model has been confirmed with good fit indices. However, since this instrument has only two items per dimension, its conceptual coverage and reliability are limited. Moreover, VanderWeele and Johnson are currently leading the Global Flourishing Study. This study collects information on more than 70 indicators of flourishing across 22 countries with diverse cultural heritages, political systems, and levels of development. It adopts a comprehensive approach by recognizing multiple factors that influence well-being across different contexts, accounting for the intricate components of flourishing, and considering the multitude of cultural perspectives on its conceptualization [5, 12].

Previously, Keyes proposed that human flourishing is characterized by positive emotions (emotional well-being) in conjunction with psychological and social functioning (psychological and social well-being). He emphasized the importance of social well-being, which is grounded in an individual’s satisfaction with their cultural and social environment [12]. According to Keyes, flourishing extends beyond self-satisfaction, personal prospects, or access to resources to include the perceived quality of the society in which one lives. Building on Keyes’ conceptual framework, Mesurado and colleagues developed the 12-item multidimensional flourishing scale, encompassing emotional, psychological, and social well-being, and validated it in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain (2018). This scale demonstrated robust internal consistency reliability across countries and provides a solid foundation for further development. Furthermore, the instrument has been applied in India, where it similarly exhibited high validity and strong internal consistency [6]. Indeed, a previous Indian study confirmed the multidimensional structure of the scale, identifying three factors: social, psychological, and emotional well-being [22].

These instruments were developed with different yet complementary aims. Some measures have the advantage of identifying flourishing indicators that have been used in sociological studies, allowing researchers to describe and compare flourishing levels in large samples across cultures. However, these scales often include only one or two items per feature, limiting psychometric robustness and construct coverage (e.g., the European Social Survey, Global Flourishing Study, and Flourishing Index). This limitation introduces statistical challenges. The models are often weakly identified, relying on the minimum number of parameters required to estimate the factor variances and factor loadings. As a result, estimates may be compromised, and additional constraints are sometimes needed to achieve model identification (e.g., fixing a factor loading or the factor variance). Furthermore, having only two items per dimension also reduces reliability. In contrast, other scales aim to establish an operational definition of flourishing supported by solid psychometric validation across countries (e.g., the PERMA Profiler and the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale).

Moreover, regarding the conceptualization of flourishing, several convergences can be identified across scales. For example, all of them include hedonic well-being as a component of flourishing (e.g., positive emotions in the PERMA model; happiness and life satisfaction in the Flourish Index; and emotional well-being in the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale).

Similarly, all of them include eudaimonic well-being. This typically involves an assessment of an optimal functional psychological aspect related to meaning and purpose in life (e.g., meaning and accomplishment in the PERMA model; meaning and purpose in the Flourish Index; and psychological well-being in the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale). Finally, all models assess relational well-being (e.g., relationships in the PERMA model; close relationships in the Flourish Index; and social well-being in the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale). Despite these convergences, an important limitation remains. Existing measures capture emotional states, dimensions related to meaning and purpose in life, and relational well-being. However, they do not always explicitly incorporate the experiential dimension associated with engaging in what individuals consider to be true or good. In particular, the extent to which individuals experience their moral and intellectual engagement as intrinsically meaningful or fulfilling is often underrepresented in current psychometric approaches to flourishing.

This review revealed that the moral and intellectual aspects of flourishing are not only underrepresented but also insufficiently specified at the level of lived experience. The moral dimension appears only in the Flourish Index under ‘character and virtue,’ whereas the intellectual aspect was slightly considered in the dimension of engagement in Huppert and So (e.g., ‘love of learning’) and in one item of the PERMA-profiler (e.g., ‘feel excited and interested in things’). However, these approaches do not fully capture whether individuals experience their engagement with moral and intellectual goods as intrinsically valuable or fulfilling, which constitutes a central aspect of flourishing in classical accounts. This conceptual and experiential gap provides the primary rationale for the present study, which aims to incorporate these dimensions explicitly into the measurement of flourishing.

The aim of the present study is to develop an instrument for assessing flourishing that incorporates intellectual and moral dimensions while maintaining psychometric robustness. Specifically, the study seeks to capture not only the presence of moral and intellectual orientations, but also the extent to which individuals experience these orientations as meaningful and intrinsically satisfying. The Multidimensional Flourishing Scale by Mesurado et al. [15] was selected as the starting point because it is grounded in Keyes’s multidimensional framework, encompassing emotional, psychological, and social well-being, and has been validated across multiple countries, including several in Latin America. While other instruments provide valuable perspectives, the Mesurado scale offers a combination of theoretical grounding, cross-cultural validity, psychometric strength, and practical feasibility, making it particularly suitable for adaptation to Spanish-speaking participants and the inclusion of intellectual and moral dimensions.

The conceptualization of intellectual and moral well-being

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes virtue as a disposition to think, feel, and act ‘at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way’ (NE 1106b21–24). From his perspective, moral virtue constitutes a crucial component of eudaimonia, and the virtuous person naturally takes pleasure in performing noble actions so that acting well is enjoyable in itself; just acts are pleasant to the lover of justice, virtuous acts are pleasant to the lover of virtue (NE I, 1099a), the pleasure or pain accompanying acts reveals the state of character (NE II, 1104b), and virtuous actions possess pleasures proper to them (NE X, 1174b–1175a). This intrinsic enjoyment forms the basis of moral well-being, understood as the emotional fulfillment arising from enacting dispositions ordered toward genuinely good human ends.

Similarly, Aristotle emphasizes that the exercise of intellectual virtues—particularly contemplation—represents the fullest realization of human nature, for ‘happiness extends, then, just as far as contemplation does, and those to whom contemplation more fully belongs are more truly happy… for this in itself is precious. Happiness therefore must be some kind of contemplation’ (NE X, 1178b28–32). Intellectual well-being can thus be defined as the experiential dimension of developing one’s intellectual capacities, manifested in the enjoyment of learning, the satisfaction of achieving deeper understanding, the delight in perceiving connections among knowledge, and the enthusiasm for engaging with challenging intellectual tasks.

Notably, moral and intellectual well-being do not duplicate the concepts of moral and intellectual virtue but rather denote lived, pleasurable outcomes of exercising dispositions oriented toward human and epistemic goods. Together, these forms of well-being highlight that virtue is not only a matter of correct action or thought but also a source of intrinsic pleasure, thereby linking Aristotelian virtue to experiential well-being and the full flourishing of the human person. As Kristjánsson claims, ‘flourishing implies not only having virtues but also expressing them; therefore, it constitutes an activity rather than a state’ (2025, p. 5).

Building on the conceptual framework outlined above, this study proposes a five-dimensional model of flourishing, encompassing the three dimensions of the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale by Mesurado et al. [15]—emotional, psychological, and social well-being—along with two newly introduced dimensions: moral and intellectual well-being. This expanded model conceptualizes flourishing as encompassing not only positive emotions, a sense of purpose or life mission, and an awareness of one’s contribution to society but also the active realization of one’s moral and intellectual potential. This five-dimensional notion of flourishing is expected to be related to constructs commonly associated with student development and scholarly success, including personal growth [18], grit [8], and academic engagement (Wilmar B. [23, 24]. Accordingly, the proposed scale is especially well-suited for a more comprehensive evaluation of flourishing, providing a coherent framework for examining its convergent validity and its links with established markers of personal and academic development.

This study aimed to validate a scale that assesses five aspects of flourishing: emotional, social, psychological, moral, and intellectual well-being. To address this aim, two studies were conducted. Study 1 examines the construct validity and reliability of the new scale. Study 2 aims to confirm the scale’s factorial structure and evaluate its convergent and divergent validity, as well as its reliability.

Methods

Study 1

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Austral University (CIE N° P24-003).

Development of the items

Two senior researchers—a philosopher specializing in virtue epistemology and a psychologist specializing in psychological well-being and psychometrics—developed the thirteen items to assess intellectual and moral well-being on the basis of a thorough review of the literature on virtue epistemology, virtue ethics, and flourishing.

These items were incorporated into the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale, which originally assessed three dimensions of well-being: social, psychological, and emotional. With the addition of these new items, the scale now includes two additional dimensions: intellectual well-being (measured through statements such as ‘I enjoy learning more,’ and ‘I like getting to the bottom of things’) and moral well-being (measured through statements such as ‘I feel good when I choose what is best, even if it’s not the easiest’ and ‘It gives me peace to think before acting in order to choose what is good’).

Content validity

Four researchers who had prior experience working with this topic were invited to serve as expert judges. They were asked to evaluate (a) the relevance of each proposed item in relation to intellectual and moral well-being and (b) the clarity of its wording. The results showed full (100%) agreement among the judges on 13 items regarding relevance and clarity. In addition, the judges were invited to suggest changes or improvements if deemed necessary, and none of them proposed modifications to the wording of the items.

Procedure

Initially, the directors of an Argentine University were contacted and informed of the research objectives. After expressing interest in the study, they facilitated communication with the heads of the institution's academic programs. Once their approval was obtained, a member of the research team visited the classroom during regular class hours to present the study to the students and invite them to participate. Interested students signed an informed consent form and were informed that participation would be anonymous and voluntary and that they would not receive any compensation for taking part.

Participants

A total of 560 participants, of whom 59.3% were identified as women, 40.2% as men, and 0.5% as nonbinary, participated in the study. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 24 years (M = 20.03, SD = 1.22). All the participants were university students enrolled in 28 different academic programs, including law, medicine, engineering, and social communication.

With respect to the highest educational level of the students’ fathers or guardians, 4.1% had completed primary education, 30% had completed secondary education, 41.6% had completed university education, and 22.3% held a postgraduate degree, while 2% chose not to answer this question. For mothers or female guardians, 2.1% had completed primary education, 21.3% had completed secondary education, 57.7% had completed university education, and 17.7% held a postgraduate degree, while 1.3% preferred not to respond.

Original instruments and inclusion of new items

The Multidimensional Flourishing Scale developed by Mesurado and colleagues [15] captures three components of flourishing: social well-being (e.g., ‘I am committed to addressing the problems faced by society’), psychological well-being (e.g., ‘I find my life to be full of meaning’), and emotional well-being (e.g., ‘sad vs. happy’). On the basis of the 12-item multidimensional flourishing scale, 13 additional items were added to assess intellectual and moral well-being.

The participants rated the social, psychological, moral, and intellectual well-being items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The emotional well-being subscale was assessed using a five-point semantic differential format, in which respondents chose between pairs of opposite adjectives (e.g., sad–happy) on a scale from 1 (negative emotions) to 5 (positive emotions). Each pair was presented with five response options (1 = sad, 2 = sometimes sad, 3 = neither sad nor happy, 4 = sometimes happy, 5 = happy), indicating how participants had felt over the past two weeks.

Mean scores were computed for each dimension, and a global flourishing score was obtained by averaging all the items.

Data analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the construct validity of the new version of the instrument. Maximum likelihood extraction with varimax rotation was used, as this was the procedure employed by the original authors of the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale developed by Mesurado and colleagues. The number of factors to retain was determined using the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues > 1), the scree plot, and parallel analysis. Collinearity among the items was assessed using tolerance and the variance inflation factor (VIF), as indicators of potential redundancy among items, which could affect the stability and interpretability of the factor solution.

Finally, reliability was examined through corrected item–total correlations, which assess the strength of the relationship between each item and the overall scale score, as well as through internal consistency using the Omega coefficient. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 29.

Results

Factorial validity

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using the maximum likelihood extraction method and varimax rotation. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity obtained was 2842.95, df = 190, p < 0.001, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) coefficient was 0.87; these indices suggest that the relationships among the items included in the scale were sufficiently strong to proceed with the following analysis. In accordance with the eigenvalues and the scree plot in SPSS, five dimensions or factors were identified (see Fig. 1). Moreover, parallel analysis was conducted in the JASP, yielding the same results; the five dimensions were emotional, social, intellectual, psychological, and moral well-being.

Fig. 1.

Study 1. Scree plot

Five items developed to measure intellectual and moral well-being had loadings below 0.35 and were therefore excluded, following recommended guidelines for scale development, which suggest deleting items with primary loadings below 0.32 [30]. This resulted in a new 20-item scale with four items per well-being dimension. The instrument explained 40.31% of the variance.

Table 1 includes the items’ factor loadings, tolerances, and variance inflation factors (VIFs) for each item. The tolerance values were greater than 0.20, and the variance inflation factor was lower than five, suggesting the absence of collinearity.

Table 1.

Study 1. The items’ factor loadings, tolerances, and variance inflation factors (VIFs) for each item

	Factor					Tolerance	VIF
	1	2	3	4	5
Negative vs Positive	.621					.56	1.79
Disagreeable vs Friendly	.662					.55	1.82
Sad vs Happy	.757					.45	2.21
Angry vs Content	.738					.52	1.93
I feel like an important member of society		.598				.65	1.55
I feel close to other members of society		.445				.72	1.38
I am committed to addressing the problems faced by society		.540				.69	1.44
I believe that my work contributes to the well-being of my society		.654				.65	1.55
I find learning more enjoyable			.551			.72	1.40
I like getting to the bottom of things			.539			.78	1.28
I enjoy making connections between the different things I’m learning			.598			.70	1.42
I’m enthusiastic about studying something challenging			.571			.71	1.40
I find my life to be full of meaning. (I have a compass, a sense of mission that makes my life fulfilling and helps me to overcome the possible failures or contradictions that I experience)				.441		.60	1.66
I am committed to my daily activities (e.g. work and family activities, etc.)				.404		.72	1.38
I am happy with my current lifestyle	.390			.531		.64	1.67
I am happy with my family				.462		.76	1.32
It gives me a sense of peace to think before acting so I can choose what's right					.653	.74	1.36
It feels good to choose what's best, even when it isn't the easiest option					.496	.77	1.31
I feel good when I don't act on impulse					.368	.85	1.17
I take satisfaction in everyone getting what is fair, even when it puts me at a disadvantage					.385	.84	1.19

Reliability

The corrected item–total correlations are presented in Table 2. An acceptable item–total correlation value was obtained for most items, with the following exceptions: ‘I feel good when I don't act on impulse’ from the moral well-being subscale, which presented a weak correlation lower than 0.25. Additionally, the Omega coefficient for the total score of the instrument was 0.84 and 0.83 for the emotional well-being subscale, 0.71 for the social well-being subscale, 0.69 for the intellectual well-being subscale, 0.67 for the psychological well-being subscale, and 0.58 for the moral well-being subscale. Good reliability was observed for the overall scale, and the reliability of the subscales was acceptable.

Table 2.

Corrected item–total correlations for the samples of Study 1 and Study 2

	Study 1 Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Study 2 Corrected Item-Total Correlation
I find learning more enjoyable	.403	.442
I like getting to the bottom of things	.260	.235
I enjoy making connections between the different things I’m learning	.359	.304
I’m enthusiastic about studying something challenging	.368	.355
I feel like an important member of society	.462	.449
I feel close to other members of society	.444	.427
I am committed to addressing the problems faced by society	.431	.340
I believe that my work contributes to the well-being of my society	.417	.373
I find my life to be full of meaning. (I have a compass, a sense of mission that makes my life fulfilling and helps me to overcome the possible failures or contradictions that I experience)	.578	.558
I am committed to my daily activities (e.g. work and family activities, etc.)	.450	.490
I am happy with my current lifestyle	.485	.483
I am happy with my family	.320	.275
Negative vs Positive	.524	.514
Disagreeable vs Friendly	.497	.553
Sad vs Happy	.540	.523
Angry vs Content	.507	.494
It gives me a sense of peace to think before acting so I can choose what's right	.432	.307
It feels good to choose what's best, even when it isn't the easiest option	.353	.389
I feel good when I don't act on impulse	.217	.279
I take satisfaction in everyone getting what is fair, even when it puts me at a disadvantage	.309	.206

Study 2

Building on the findings and structure tested in Study 1, Study 2 was conducted.

Procedure

The same procedure described in study 1 was followed in study 2.

Participants

A total of 427 participants, 57.8% of whom were women and 42.2% of whom were men, participated in the study. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 24 years (M = 20.00, SD = 1.11). All the participants were university students enrolled in 26 different academic programs, including law, medicine, engineering, and social communication. With respect to the highest educational level of the students’ fathers or guardians, 4% had completed primary education, 29.5% secondary education, 39.6% university education, and 25.8% held a postgraduate degree, while 1.2% chose not to answer this question. For mothers or female guardians, 0.9% had completed primary education, 21.5% had completed secondary education, 56.2% had completed university education, and 19.9% held a postgraduate degree, while 1.4% preferred not to respond.

Instruments

The 20-item multidimensional flourishing scale was used to measure emotional, social, psychological, intellectual, and moral well-being.

Personal growth was assessed using the 16-item Personal Growth Initiative Scale–II developed by Robitschek [17] and validated in Argentina by Schönfeld and Mesurado [25]. This scale assesses four dimensions: Readiness for Change (four items,e.g., ‘I know when I need to make a change in myself’), Planning (five items,e.g., ‘I know how to set realistic goals to make changes in myself’), and the use of Resources (three items; e.g., ‘I ask for help when I try to change something about myself’) and Intentional Behavior (four items; e.g., ‘I take every opportunity to grow that comes my way’). The participants rated each item on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In this study, we used the global score to measure personal growth. The Omega coefficient for the instrument's total score was 0.86.

Academic engagement was measured using the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students developed by 24, 25 and validated in Argentina [16]. The instrument includes three dimensions of engagement: Vigor (e.g., ‘When studying, I feel strong and full of energy’), Absorption (e.g., ‘When I study, I become completely immersed in the task’), and Dedication (e.g., ‘My studies inspire me with a sense of meaning and purpose’). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). In this study, we used the global score to measure engagement. the Omega coefficient for the instrument's total score was 0.87.

Perseverance was assessed using the Perseverance of Effort subscale of the Grit–Original Scale Grit-O developed by Duckworth et al. [8] and validated in Argentina by Tortul et al. [27]. The Grit-O is a 12-item instrument designed to evaluate individuals’ persistence and passion in pursuing long-term goals. It comprises two dimensions—Consistency of Interest and Perseverance of Effort—each containing six items. Responses are provided on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). The Omega coefficient for the perseverance of effort subscale score was 0.75.

Data analysis

Following the exploratory analyses in Study 1, the data in Study 2 were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the proposed five-factor structure. The multivariate normality of the data was assessed using Mardia’s test.

To study the model’s adjustment to the data, the chi-square (χ²), ratio of χ² to degrees of freedom (χ²/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) were calculated.

Convergent validity was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE) index, which indicates how well the items represent the factor or dimension of social, psychological, emotional, moral, or intellectual well-being. An AVE above 0.50 demonstrates that more than half of the item variance is captured by the construct, indicating good convergent validity [10]. Moreover, convergent validity was assessed through correlations between the five dimensions of the new version of the multidimensional flourishing scale and personal growth, perseverance, and academic engagement. It is hypothesized that emotional, psychological, social, and moral well-being are strongly associated with personal growth and perseverance, whereas intellectual well-being is associated with academic engagement.

Discriminant validity was tested using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of the correlations. For conceptually similar constructs, HTMT values greater than 0.90 indicate inadequate discriminant validity, whereas for conceptually distinct constructs, values exceeding 0.85 reflect the same concern [10].

Results

Mardia’s test of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in JASP was used to test multivariate normality. The results revealed significant multivariate skewness, χ2(816) = 2042.26, p < 0.001, and significant multivariate kurtosis, z = 21.53, p < 0.001, indicating violation of the assumption of multivariate normality.

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the 5-factor structure of the new version of the scale in MPLUS 9. The MLM (maximum likelihood mean-adjusted) estimator, a robust variant of the traditional maximum likelihood (ML) method, was used. This estimator corrects standard errors and model fit indices when the data violate the assumption of multivariate normality.

The fit indices obtained were χ2(160) = 271.49, p < 0.001, indicating that the model did not perfectly fit the data. However, given the sensitivity of the chi-square statistic to sample size, additional fit indices were examined to evaluate the overall model fit. The chi-square ratio was χ2/df = 1.70, with ratios of 2 or below typically indicating an acceptable fit [28]. The comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.93, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) was 0.92, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.04, and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) was 0.05. According to Wang and Wang [28], a common rule of thumb is that cutoff values of 0.90 or higher for the CFI and TLI indicate acceptable model fit.

Convergent validity

Convergent validity was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE) index. The values obtained were as follows: emotional well-being, AVE = 0.56; social well-being, AVE = 0.35; psychological well-being, AVE = 0.36; intellectual well-being, AVE = 0.30; and moral well-being, AVE = 0.22. The factors had slightly lower AVE values than those suggested in the literature, except emotional well-being, which exceeded 0.50 [9].

Pearson correlation analyses indicated that intellectual well-being, social well-being, psychological well-being, emotional well-being, and moral well-being were all positively and significantly associated with engagement, personal growth, and perseverance (p < 0.001). Intellectual well-being showed moderate correlations with engagement (r = 0.44), personal growth (r = 0.34), and perseverance (r = 0.35). Social well-being was positively associated with engagement (r = 0.29), personal growth (r = 0.35), and perseverance (r = 0.31). Psychological well-being showed moderate associations with engagement (r = 0.39), personal growth (r = 0.44), and perseverance (r = 0.40), whereas emotional well-being showed small-to-moderate correlations with engagement (r = 0.32), personal growth (r = 0.36), and perseverance (r = 0.34). Moral well-being was also positively associated with engagement (r = 0.30), personal growth (r = 0.32), and perseverance (r = 0.23). Overall, the pattern of correlations indicates that higher levels of well-being across domains were consistently associated with greater engagement, personal growth, and perseverance.

Discriminant validity

In addition to assessing convergent validity, discriminant validity was examined to ensure that each dimension of well-being represents a distinct construct. Discriminant validity was measured via the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of the correlations. The HTMT value between intellectual and social well-being was 0.53; that between intellectual and psychological well-being was 0.42; that between intellectual and emotional well-being was 0.28; that between intellectual and moral well-being was 0.51; that between social and psychological well-being was 0.41; that between social and emotional well-being was 0.35; that between social and moral well-being was 0.47; that between psychological and emotional well-being was 0.76; that between psychological and moral well-being was 0.47; and that between emotional and moral well-being was 0.35. These results suggest the presence of discriminant validity, as no HTMT value was found to exceed 0.85 or 0.90.

Reliability

Finally, reliability analyses were conducted to evaluate the internal consistency of the total scale and its subscales. The corrected item–total correlations are presented in Table 2. Two items showed a weak correlation of less than 0.25. In addition, the Omega coefficient for the instrument's total score was 0.86, and it was 0.84 for the emotional well-being subscale, 0.68 for the social and psychological well-being subscale, 0.62 for the intellectual well-being subscale, and 0.52 for the moral well-being subscale. Good reliability was observed for the overall scale, and the reliability of the subscales was acceptable.

Discussion

The present findings provide support for a five-factor structure of flourishing, encompassing emotional, social, psychological, moral, and intellectual well-being. Notably, the inclusion of moral and intellectual dimensions broadens existing conceptualizations, offering a more comprehensive account of human flourishing. Furthermore, the results highlight key strengths of the instrument: the clearly defined five-factor structure identified through confirmatory analysis, together with evidence of discriminant validity and theoretically consistent associations with related constructs, reinforces its conceptual and empirical robustness.

At the same time, the findings suggest that while the scale's overall structure captures meaningful and distinct dimensions of flourishing, further refinement is needed to comprehensively capture human flourishing. Total variance explained by the five-factor solution in Study 1 was modest (40.31%). This result is consistent with previous research on multidimensional measures of flourishing and psychological well-being. In instruments that assess broad and complex constructs—encompassing emotional, social, psychological, and virtue-related dimensions—it is common for variance to be distributed across multiple relatively independent factors, rather than concentrated in a smaller number of dimensions. For example, the Multidimensional Flourishing Scale [15], on which the present instrument is based, also reports moderate levels of explained variance in exploratory analyses, consistent with the complexity of the construct. Likewise, other prominent measures of flourishing, such as PERMA-based instruments [4], are typically validated using confirmatory approaches that prioritize model fit over high explained variance. Additionally, frameworks such as the Flourish Index [29], which include only a small number of items per dimension, are not designed to maximize explained variance but rather to ensure conceptual breadth and cross-domain coverage. Taken together, these considerations suggest that the level of variance explained in the present study is appropriate given the multidimensional and theoretically integrative nature of the construct.

Overall, the scale demonstrated good levels of reliability, although some subscales—particularly psychological and moral well-being—had lower than ideal Omega coefficients. It is important to consider that each subscale comprises only four items, which can limit internal consistency estimates. Evidence for convergent validity was mixed: average variance extracted (AVE) values fell below recommended thresholds, whereas the pattern of correlations supported the distinctiveness of the subscales. This finding may reflect the conceptual breadth of flourishing, which encompasses related but nonredundant domains and therefore does not necessarily yield high internal homogeneity. Importantly, convergent validity was also supported by significant associations with related constructs such as engagement, personal growth, and perseverance. Moreover, discriminant validity analyses indicated that each subscale represents a distinct aspect of the construct, supporting the multidimensional structure.

Conceptually, the new scale aligns with the multidimensional flourishing scale developed by Mesurado et al. [15] in highlighting the relevance of emotional, social, and psychological well-being. Moreover, it complements models such as PERMA [26] and the Flourish Index [29] by explicitly incorporating intellectual and moral dimensions into the conceptualization of flourishing, thereby reinforcing the Aristotelian view that eudaimonia involves the exercise of virtues and intellectual capacities.

Building on this conceptual expansion, an important theoretical question emerges: specifically, how should moral and intellectual well-being be understood in relation to moral and intellectual virtues? One possibility would be to identify the virtues themselves with the dimensions of well-being. However, a more nuanced perspective—aligned with the Aristotelian tradition—distinguishes between the two: virtues function as conditions that promote flourishing, while moral and intellectual well-being reflect the experiential pleasure derived from exercising those virtues. To our knowledge, the literature has not yet provided systematic empirical evidence addressing this distinction. The present study contributes to this gap by providing initial data suggesting that moral and intellectual well-being constitute distinct dimensions of flourishing, reflecting the experiential aspect of virtuous activity rather than the mere possession of virtue.

This empirical distinction has important implications for ongoing philosophical debates regarding the role of virtue in accounts of flourishing. Situating this question within the broader literature helps clarify its theoretical significance. Whereas the relationship between moral virtue and flourishing has been extensively examined in philosophical work [3, 13, 14], the role of intellectual virtues in accounts of flourishing has received considerably less attention in the flourishing literature. As Linda Zagzebski already observed in the late 1990s, ‘I see no reason to think that the relation between flourishing and the intellectual virtues will be any weaker than the relation between flourishing and the moral virtues’ [31], p. 200).

Notably, in this theoretical context, the relative absence of intellectual virtues and intellectual well-being in existing measures of flourishing remains theoretically puzzling, particularly in instruments that explicitly claim inspiration from Aristotelian ethics. Given the central role that intellectual activity and intellectual virtue play in Aristotle’s account of eudaimonia, their systematic omission calls for further examination. Several factors may help explain this tendency. First, contemporary neo-Aristotelian approaches have understandably welcomed the growing inclusion of ‘character and virtues’ in flourishing instruments; however, in practice, these measures tend to operationalize virtue almost exclusively in moral terms, leaving intellectual virtues largely unexamined. Second, although increasing empirical attention has been devoted to practical wisdom (phronesis), its prominence may have inadvertently obscured the relevance of other intellectual virtues—such as curiosity, intellectual humility, and wonder—which are likewise central to intellectual flourishing. Third, long-standing interpretive controversies surrounding Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics, where Aristotle emphasizes contemplative activity as the highest form of happiness, may have led some Aristotelian-inspired researchers to avoid engaging with the more demanding domain of intellectual virtue, focusing instead on the comparatively less contested terrain of moral character.

Nevertheless, none of these considerations provide a compelling justification for excluding intellectual well-being from comprehensive accounts of human flourishing. Moreover, the absence of intellectual virtues is equally striking in flourishing measures that do not explicitly draw on Aristotelian philosophy. One possible explanation is a broader cultural ambivalence toward intellectual excellence and expertise in contemporary societies, where concerns about overintellectualization coexist with increasing skepticism toward intellectual authority. From this perspective, the systematic neglect of intellectual well-being may reflect not only theoretical oversight but also wider sociocultural attitudes that merit critical examination. Against this backdrop, the inclusion of intellectual well-being as a distinct experiential dimension of flourishing appears both theoretically well grounded and empirically justified.

Additionally, the scale developed in the present study has practical implications for education and applied settings. Its brevity and ease of administration make it a suitable tool for assessing students’ holistic development, capturing not only emotional and social well-being but also intellectual and moral growth. Consequently, it is particularly well suited for evaluating educational programs and interventions aimed at fostering both ethical and academic formation. By linking empirical measurement with the cultivation of virtues, the present instrument provides a concrete method for translating philosophical insights into flourishing into applied educational practice.

Despite these contributions, the present study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. For example, the sample was limited to university students in Argentina, so greater cultural and age representativeness and educational diversity are needed. Future studies could validate the scale in samples from different age groups, cultural contexts, and educational levels. Longitudinal research would allow for the examination of changes in flourishing and moral and intellectual well-being over time. Moreover, it would be valuable to investigate interventions specifically designed to enhance moral and intellectual well-being in educational settings. Finally, exploring the relationship between holistic flourishing and academic or professional performance could yield further insight into the practical significance of these dimensions of well-being.

Conclusions

The results of this study confirm that flourishing can be understood as a multidimensional construct encompassing emotional, social, psychological, moral, and intellectual well-being. By empirically distinguishing moral and intellectual well-being as the experiential dimension of exercising virtues, this research bridges philosophical accounts of virtue and empirical approaches to human flourishing. The developed scale offers a practical, reliable tool for assessing holistic well-being, with particular applicability in educational contexts and interventions aimed at fostering ethical and intellectual growth. While this study is limited by its sample and cross-sectional design, its findings provide a foundation for future research on cultural, developmental, and longitudinal aspects of flourishing. Overall, this work contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of human well-being and the role of virtues in promoting a flourishing life.

Appendix

Appendix. The Multidimensional Flourishing Scale, new version

	Spanish version	English version
	Instrucciones A continuación se presentan una serie de afirmaciones sobre ti mismo con las que puedes estar de acuerdo o en desacuerdo. Lea con atención e indica en una escala de 1 al 5 cuál es tu experiencia 1. Fuertemente en desacuerdo 2. En desacuerdo 3. Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo 4. De acuerdo 5. Fuertemente de acuerdo	Instructions Below you will find a series of statements about yourself, which you can agree or disagree with. Read them carefully and answer on a scale of 1 to 5, based your experience 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree
Renumbering of items for final version	Bienestar Social	Social well-being
1	Me siento una parte importante de la sociedad	I feel like an important member of society
2	Me siento cercano/a a las personas que son parte de la sociedad	I feel close to other members of society
3	Estoy comprometido/a con los problemas de la sociedad	I am committed to addressing the problems faced by society
4	Pienso que con mi trabajo contribuyo al bienestar de mi sociedad	I believe that my work contributes to the well-being of my society
5	Bienestar Psicológico	Psychological well-being
	Encuentro mi vida llena de sentido. (Tengo un norte, un sentido de misión que llena mi vida que me ayuda a superar los posibles fracasos o contradicciones que experimento)	I find my life to be full of meaning. (I have a compass, a sense of mission that makes my life fulfilling and helps me to overcome the possible failures or contradictions that I experience)
6	Estoy comprometido con mis actividades diarias (ej. Actividades laborales, familiares, etc.)	I am committed to my daily activities (e.g. work and family activities, etc.)
7	Estoy contento con el estilo de vida que llevo	I am happy with my current lifestyle
8	Me siento contento con la familia que tengo	I am happy with my family
	Bienestar Intelectual	Intellectual well-being
9	Disfruto aprendiendo más	I find learning more enjoyable
10	Me gusta llegar al fondo de las cosas	I like getting to the bottom of things
11	Me gusta hacer conexiones entre diferentes cosas que estoy aprendiendo	I enjoy making connections between the different things I’m learning
12	Me entusiasma estudiar algo desafiante	I’m enthusiastic about studying something challenging
	Bienestar Moral	Moral well-being
13	Me da paz pensar antes de actuar para elegir lo que es bueno	It gives me a sense of peace to think before acting so I can choose what's right
14	Me siento bien cuando elijo lo mejor aunque no sea lo más fácil	It feels good to choose what's best, even when it isn't the easiest option
15	Me siento bien cuando no actúo por impulso	I feel good when I don't act on impulse
16	Disfruto cuando a cada uno le toca lo justo aunque a mí me perjudique	I take satisfaction in everyone getting what is fair, even when it puts me at a disadvantage
	Bienestar Emocional	Emotional well-being
	Instrucciones A continuación te exponemos, en dos columnas pares de adjetivos bipolares que pueden describir cómo te sentiste las últimas dos semanas. Hay cinco números entre cada pareja de adjetivos y tú debes encerrar con un círculo el número que más próximo esté al estado que mejor te describa	Instructions Below you will find a series of adjectives, in two parallel columns, that describe how you have felt over the past two weeks. There are five numbers between each pair of adjectives. Please circle the number that most closely describes your experience
17	Negativo 1 2 3 4 5 Positivo	Negative 1 2 3 4 5 Positive
18	Desagradable 1 2 3 4 5 Amable	Disagreeable 1 2 3 4 5 Friendly
19	Triste 1 2 3 4 5 Feliz	Sad 1 2 3 4 5 Happy
20	Enojado 1 2 3 4 5 Contento	Angry 1 2 3 4 5 Content

Authors’ contributions

Claudia E. Vanney and Belén Mesurado contributed equally to this work. Both authors were involved in conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition, and supervision. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (Grant #63242). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available at the following anonymized OSF link: [https://osf.io/y9kqm/overview?view_only=bc248bfb8ad14591a65e213125985eda] (https:/osf.io/y9kqm/overview?view_only=bc248bfb8ad14591a65e213125985eda).

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Austral University (CIE N° P24-003). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.