Abstract
Objectives
To translate, adapt, and validate into Spanish the “How I Feel About My School” scale, a 7‑item subjective well‑being questionnaire developed in the United Kingdom to assess how children aged 4 to 11 feel about different aspects of school.
Methods
The study consisted of two phases: a first phase involving the transcultural adaptation of the scale, and a second phase focusing on the psychometric validation of the scale. Phase I pursued to obtain a Spanish version that was conceptually equivalent to the original. It was conducted with 48 children and 10 teachers and was carried out in accordance with the Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, including cognitive debriefings. A content analysis followed over the data from the cognitive debriefing, which resulted in accepting the translated version. In Phase II, the number of participants involved in the study was 471 boys and girls. An exploratory factor analysis was performed, the number of factors being determined through parallel analysis. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed to explore internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
Results
In Phase I, participants found the questions in the scale easy to understand, including the younger children aged 4 and 5 years, who demonstrated good comprehension of the items. Analyses for Phase II indicated that one single factor was identified. Most correlations were significant, and the remaining items showed adequate loadings. The total sample demonstrated moderate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.64; ordinal alpha = 0.77; McDonald’s omega = 0.66; average inter-item correlation = 0.20).
Conclusion
The HIFAMS scale adapted to the Spanish context can be applied in early preschool/school settings. This adapted instrument could support understanding young children’s feelings in educational environments within Spanish populations, which can enable the prevention and management of potential risk situations.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-026-04061-z.
Keywords: Child, Well-being, Primary school, Validation study
Introduction
Research into child well-being has increased substantially in recent years [1, 2]. Well-being is a term that is commonly used but inconsistently defined in the study of child development [3]. Child well-being has been described from a wide range of different angles [4]. Two major perspectives on well-being focus either on happiness (hedonic) or on the realization of one’s potential (eudaimonic) [5]. The eudaimonic perspective focuses on the activity itself, whereas the hedonic perspective focuses on the emotional outcome.
Subjective well-being reflects the hedonic dimension of overall well-being, while psychological and social well-being represent the eudaimonic or functional aspects of a fulfilling life. Subjective well-being is a dynamic concept that refers to how the individual evaluates their life, with regards to both general and specific terms (friends, family, leisure time) [6]. Subjective well-being includes cognitive (satisfaction with one’s life) and affective components (presence of positive affect and absence of negative affect) [2, 7, 8]. The positive affect of happiness is one of the first emotions recognized by children and can be distinguished by children from the age of 5 [9, 10]. Subjective well-being allows us to understand children’s subjective experiences from an early age. These aspects are important because in those initial years of development, the child will generate their own framework, which in the medium and long term will help them understand and integrate the diverse experiences they have in different contexts [11].
Psychological well-being focuses on the development of human capacities and potential as key elements of positive functioning [5, 12, 13]. Social well-being is defined as the assessment we make of the circumstances and functioning within society.
The subjective, psychological, and social well-being are interconnected but empirically separable [14]. This article will focus on subjective well-being, which is the construct measured by the HIFAMS (the instrument assessed in the present study).
Subjective well-being in the school
Recent studies show that the subjective well-being of children at school during their developmental phase has an impact on their physical and mental health and on the type of interpersonal relationships they establish, and can even predict a satisfactory future [15]. Recent research illustrates how a sense of belonging at school, positive relationships with teachers and their peers and a positive learning environment predict more positive behavioural, emotional, school and educational results for children in the long term [16, 17]. By contrast, poor relationships with their teachers and peers, a lack of a sense of support and diminished feelings of belonging to the school are related to poor psychological adjustment, worse academic results, social exclusion and suicide [4, 18–20].
Accordingly, it is essential to ensure that we gather data from children about how they themselves evaluate and experience their life in a context that is one of the most influential on their development, as it is essential to educators, school nurses, and public health agents, and to plan universal and targeted response to prevent problems and promote healthy lifestyles in children [8, 19]. The goal is thus not only preventing risk behaviours but promoting positive functioning in young people, since health goes beyond the absence of disease.
Subjective well-being in the Spanish school context
Several studies have been conducted to measure the subjective well-being of children in school settings in Spain. These studies measure cognitive components of subjective well-being among 8 to 12 years old children [21, 22]. One such study assessed the subjective well-being of children attending 52 primary schools in Barcelona. Specifically, it measured their satisfaction with life as a student, the aspects they had learned at school, and their relationships with other children in their class, measured using 11-point scales, where 0 meant not at all satisfied and 10 totally satisfied. The study reported a mean satisfaction with “life as a student” of 8.42 (SD = 0.05). The mean for satisfaction with “things you have learned at school” was 8.98 (SD = 0.04), and the mean for satisfaction with “other children in your class” was 8.63 (SD = 0.04). Finally, the mean satisfaction with “your friends” was 9.02 (SD = 0.03) [21]. Other authors have utilised the Children’s Worlds study, funded by the Jacobs Foundation, to measure children’s well-being in their school lives among children aged 8 to 12 years. The mean satisfaction with life as a student in Spain was 8.07 (SD = 0.07) [22].
Studies have shown that children’s subjective well-being varies significantly depending on the school they attend. To fully understand children’s experiences within the school environment, it is essential to consider their relationships with both teachers and peers. One of the most influential factors affecting their well-being at school is the extent to which they feel listened to by their teachers. Furthermore, children tend to feel more secure when they receive support from their classmates. Aspects of subjective well-being related to affective components are highly relevant to children’s overall school experience [21, 22].
Tools to measure subjective well-being in the school
There are two main types of instruments used to measure the subjective well-being of children and young people. These are single-item scales and multiple-item scales, which are frequently used with children and adolescents, employing either the words ‘satisfaction’ or ‘happiness’ [6].
Firstly, it is important to point out that there is a lack of tools for measuring child well-being at school [2] particularly for very young children [4, 7]. Many publications that reference the subjective well-being of children do not ask the children themselves about their own perception [6, 19]. These studies transfer the voice of adults who act as a reference point in the life of the children, such as their parents, teachers, paediatricians [6, 19]. We assume that these people are able to offer more realistic answers about the children’s own lives. In fact, studies have reflected the fact that adults tend to have different versions of children’s well-being than those of children themselves, even if they are very close to them [2, 4, 19]. Thus, the Convention on the Rights of the Child indicates that not only are children individuals who need protection, but that their voices should also be heard when it comes to the issues that concern them [2, 23].
A few instruments have been found that are aimed at understanding the subjective well-being in schools: “Brief Adolescents’ Subjective Well-Being in School Scale” (BASWBSS) [24], the “Personal Well-being Index: School Children” PWI-SC [25] and “Brief Multidimensional Student´s Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS) [26]. These instruments have been utilised with children aged ten years and older and these instruments measure cognitive components of subjective-well-being.
Two instruments intended for children aged six years and older were also identified; however, no instrument has been found for younger children. One of these measures positive affect in children and adolescents in a clinical and community environment (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, PANAS-C) [4] and the other (Very Short Well-being Questionnaire for Children, VSWQ-C) measures how children feel at school, with their friends and with their own body [4].
To our knowledge, “How I Feel About My School” is the only scale that measures affective components of subjective well-being of children at school from the age of 4, an age at which children are capable of identifying and recognising their first emotions [1]. “How I Feel About My School” is a scale developed by Ford [1] that measures the well-being of boys and girls at school between the ages of 4 at 11. The scale consists of 7 items that provide an understanding of how children feel about different aspects of school. The scale was designed and tested in English and has been translated to and validated in other languages (Italian, Persian, Chinese and Swedish, https://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/phss/research/chyme/hifams/ [2].
The objective of this study was the translation, adaptation and validation of the scale “How I Feel About My School” (HIFAMS) into Spanish to be able to assess how boys and girls feel at school.
Method
The study consisted of two phases: A first phase of transcultural adaptation of the scale to obtain a Spanish version that was equivalent to the original at the conceptual level, and a second phase of psychometric validation.
Phase 1: transcultural adaptation of the scale
The transcultural adaptation was carried out based on the “Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures” [27]. This PRO guide was designed by the group “Translation and Cultural Adaptation” (TCA). TCA reviewed the 12 guides most used in scientific evidence for the transcultural adaptation of a scale. After reviewing and identifying certain gaps among the existing guides, they created the PRO guide. The PRO guide consists of 10 steps:
Preparation: Permission to use the instrument was requested from the original authors. One of the authors who designed the instrument was involved alongside the project manager in clarifying any doubts regarding the items and concepts of the questionnaire. It was established that the key in-country consultant (MBM) would work with the project manager throughout the entire transcultural adaptation process.
Forward translation: The key in-country consultant and the forward translator independently translated the original version to Spanish. The mother tongue of the key in-country consultant was Spanish and his proficiency in English was fluent; he had a high level of knowledge of the concept addressed in the original questionnaire. The forward translator was a professional translator and native Spanish speaker with fluent English proficiency.
Reconciliation: The objective of this phase is to obtain a first version of the questionnaire based on the two translations carried out in the previous phase.
Back translation: Two bilingual experts in idiomatic aspects back-translated the first version in Spanish into the original language.
Back translation review: The key in-country consultant and the project manager compared the back-translated version with the original instrument with the aim of detecting discrepancies between the original version and the reconciled version.
Harmonization: Since the scale only has 7 items, the articles published on the validation process carried out in other languages were reviewed to make sure there were no major discrepancies between the Spanish version and the English and Swedish version.
Cognitive debriefing: Three cognitive debriefings were carried out to test the instrument with a focus group of participants. Two of these were performed with boys and girls from between the first and fourth year of primary school (45 children aged between 6 and 10). The project manager asked the boys and girls the following questions: Are the questions on the sheet easy to understand? Do the faces help you answer? Why did you give this answer to this question? Is there any aspect/subject at school that makes you feel happy? Is there any aspect/subject at school that makes you feel sad? A third cognitive debriefing was conducted with 10 primary school teachers. They were asked the following questions: Do you consider the items to be clear? What do you think about each item? Do you consider the questionnaire to reflect important aspects of the well-being/happiness of the children and adolescents at the school? Do you think the questionnaire should measure other aspects? What aspects would you like to include? The questionnaire was also administered to three children aged four and five to test the instrument and verify whether they understood the questions. However, instead of a focus group, we worked individually with these participants to assess their understanding and reasoning.
Review cognitive debriefing: The project manager reviewed the results of the cognitive debriefing and the finalized adaptation process.
Proofreading: The key in-country consultant and other members of the research team reviewed the items to detect possible errors. In this phase, the translation and adaptation process was concluded.
Final report: The project manager wrote the final document describing what the entire process had looked like.
The table with the participants and their role in the transcultural adaptation of the questionnaire are in Supplementary Table1 (Appendix).
Phase 2: psychometric validation of the scale
A cross-sectional observational study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of HIFAMS questionnaire to establish acceptability, reliability and validity of the construct.
Sample/participants
Recommendations are for a minimum of 10 subjects per item for such studies [28]. Given that the HIFAMS questionnaire contains 7 items, a sample size of 70 pupils was estimated as a minimum target. However, an attempt was made to collect a larger sample in order to obtain a sufficient sample for each age group (4–11 years). To this end, all classes within these age ranges at participating schools were invited to participate.
A total of 471 children filled out the questionnaire (response rate 99.1%). The data of 4 participants was eliminated as they did not indicate their sex. Since sex was a variable of interest in the analyses examining students’ well-being, these cases could not be classified and were therefore removed. Additionally, missing key demographic information may reflect lower engagement with the survey, which could further compromise data quality.
Of these 467 participants in the sample, 266 belonged to one school [1] and the remaining 201 to another school (school 2). Both schools are subsidized centres with various educational levels: Pre-school, Primary, Secondary and High school (Sixth form). At the first school (school 1), 53.4% were boys and at the second school (school 2), 47.3%. At school 1, 36.8% of the participants were older than 8, compared to school 2, where most (46.8%) were younger than 7. The participants were in school years from year 2 pre-school to year 5 primary school. Table 1 presents various sociodemographic data on the participants.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic data of the participants
| School 1 | School 2 | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (N = 266) | (N = 201) | (N = 467) | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Sex | |||
| Boys | 142 (53.4) | 95 (47.3) | 237 (50.8) |
| Girls | 124 (46.6) | 106 (52.7) | 230 (49.3) |
| Age (years) | |||
| < 7 | 75 (28.2) | 94 (46.8) | 169 (36.2) |
| 7–8 | 93 (35.0) | 92 (45.8) | 185 (39.6) |
| > 8 | 98 (36.8) | 15 (7.5) | 113 (24.2) |
| School year | |||
| Preschool Year 2 | 32 (12.0) | 0 (0.0) | 32 (6.9) |
| Preschool Year 3 | 28 (10.5) | 53 (26.4) | 81 (17.3) |
| 1st Grade (Primary School) | 18 (6.8) | 48 (23.9) | 66 (14.1) |
| 2nd Grade (Primary School) | 46 (17.3) | 47 (23.4) | 93 (19.9) |
| 3rd Grade (Primary School) | 55 (20.7) | 53 (26.4) | 108 (23.1) |
| 4th Grade (Primary School) | 51 (19.2) | 0 (0.0) | 51 (10.9) |
| 5th Grade (Primary School) | 36 (13.5) | 0 (0.0) | 36 (7.7) |
Instrument
The HIFAMS [1] consists of 7 items grouped into a single factor and measures children’s happiness at school. The HIFAMS questionnaire comprises seven questions that ask children how they feel about different school-related situations: on the way to school, in the classroom, when doing work, in the playground, about other children, about their teacher and about school in general. Items are answered with a 3-point Likert scale, and response options are accompanied by a drawing of a face with different expressions: Sad (0 points, Blue sad face), OK (1 point, Green face with straight mouth), and Happy (2 points, Yellow smiley face), with a total range from 0 to 14 points. Evidence indicates that children as young as three years old demonstrate good performance in recognising and labelling emotions depicted through schematic drawings [29]. A higher score indicates a greater perception of happiness at school. Previous research showed a moderate test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.62). Factor analyses showed a one-factor structure where internal consistency was moderate (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.62 to 0.67) [1].
Procedure
The researchers contacted the school management and informed them about the project both verbally and in writing. Those schools that wished to participate signed an informed consent form, and information was disseminated to teachers and families through the school’s usual communication channels. In addition to informing the families, each child was provided with an informational sheet and an informed consent form. Parents who agreed to their child’s participation submitted the signed consent form to the class tutor. These forms were managed by the person responsible for the project at each school. A teacher was designated to oversee the project within each institution.
The questionnaire was distributed at two schools to 471 boys and girls aged between 4 and 11 years old (between January 2022 and April 2022), in Navarra. The inclusion criteria were that they understood Spanish, assented to participate and that the legal guardians signed the informed consent.
The researcher was present whilst the students completed the questionnaire. In instances where a student with special needs was completing the questionnaire, the class tutors of these students conveyed various strategies to the researcher to facilitate the completion process. This occurred in only two cases, and these students were given additional time to complete the questionnaire and received individual follow-up.
Following data collection, the forms were retained for six months before being securely destroyed. Teachers had access to the forms. The designated person, together with the class teacher and a member of the research team, organised a day for the completion of the questionnaire. On this day, the research team and the responsible individual administered the questionnaires. The research team entered the classroom once parental authorisation had been obtained for the selected students, ensuring that participants’ identities remained anonymous. Data from classes with fewer than six participants were not collected, as required by the ethics committee. In classes with fewer than six students, the likelihood of identifying participants would be high, which could further compromise anonymity and data quality. The researcher explained that students could leave the questionnaire blank if they chose not to complete it. Once completed, the questionnaires were collected and stored in accordance with regulatory requirements. Neither the school nor the teachers had access to the completed questionnaires.
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Navarra (CEI-UNAV). Based on the authorisation of each school, informed consent was given to the parents for the participation of the students in this study, and based on their authorisation, data collection was carried out.
Data analysis
All analyses were performed using the programme STATA 12.
A descriptive analysis of the sociodemographic variables (sex, age and school year) was carried out. The psychometric properties of the scale were estimated using the following analyses:
The main analysis consisted of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Firstly, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was applied, which measures the suitability of the sample for performing the factor analysis [30]. To determine the number of factors presented by the model, a parallel analysis was used, following the procedure developed by Horn [31] and Timmerman & Lozenzo-Seva [32]. Then, an EFA was conducted.
The reliability of the questionnaire was measured to explore internal consistency using the Cronbach alpha coefficient.
Results
Phase 1: transcultural adaptation of the scale
After applying the PRO-guide [27], the Spanish version of the HIFAMS scale was obtained. Table 2 presents the different versions developed throughout the entire process of cross-cultural adaptation, in accordance with the PRO-guide [27].
Table 2.
Cross-cultural adaptation process of the original version of the HIFAMS according to the PRO-guide
| Item | English version Original |
Spanish-translated version 1 | Spanish-translated version 2 | Reconciliated Spanish version | Back translation from Spanish to English a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | On my way to school I feel … | De camino al colegio me siento… | De camino al centro educativo, me siento… | De camino al colegio, me siento … | On my way to school, I feel… |
| 2 | When I am in the classroom I feel … | Cuando estoy en clase me siento… | Cuando estoy en clase, me siento… | Cuando estoy en clase, me siento… | When I am in class, I feel… |
| 3 | When I am doing my work I feel … | Cuando hago tareas me siento… | Cuando hago mis tareas, me siento… | Cuando hago mis tareas, me siento… | When I am doing my work, I feel… |
| 4 | When I am in the playground I feel … | Cuando estoy en el recreo me siento… | Cuando estoy en el recreo, me siento… | Cuando estoy en el recreo, me siento… | During playtime, I feel…. |
| 5 | When I think about the other children at school I feel … | Cuando pienso en los niños y niñas del colegio me siento… | Cuando pienso sobre otros niños del centro educativo, me siento… | Cuando pienso en otros niños y niñas del colegio, me siento… | When I think about other children at school, I feel… |
| 6 | When I think about my teacher I feel … | Cuando pienso en mis profesores o profesoras me siento… | Cuando pienso en mi profesor/a, me siento… | Cuando pienso en mis profesores o profesoras, me siento… | When I think about my teachers, I feel… |
| 7 | When I think about school I feel … | Cuando pienso en el colegio me siento… | Cuando pienso en el colegio, me siento… | Cuando pienso en el colegio me siento… | When I think about school I feel… |
a This version was considered adequate (sufficiently similar to the original items) by the author of the questionnaire
The participants of the various cognitive debriefings (45 children aged between 6 and 10, three children aged four and five and 10 primary school teachers of years 1–5) expressed that the questions in the scale were easy to understand. The means of response via the faces is considered suitable for the target population. The teachers answered that the questionnaire reflects important aspects of the well-being of the children at school, but that perhaps one or two questions could be added regarding how they feel in the dining hall, or the questionnaire could be carried out individually with each child so they can give a more detailed explanation of each item. The boys and girls suggested the possibility of including an item on how they feel when taking exams. However, implementing these recommendations would have required adding items to the questionnaire. Therefore, in order to preserve the fidelity of the Spanish version to the original content, we chose not to modify the scale.
Phase 2: Psychometric validation of the scale
Responses to the HIFAMS items
Most participants (91.6%) responded to all the items. Item #3 had the lowest response rate, with 26 children (5.6%) having left this item unanswered. The remaining items had 1 (0.2%) to 6 (1.3%) missing data.
The HIFAMS possible scores range from 0 to 14 points, with higher scores indicating a greater perceived level of happiness at school. Supplementary Table 2 (Appendix) presents more information on the results of each item by age and sex.
Factor analysis
Table 3 shows the correlation matrix among the seven items. Most correlations were significant (except for the correlations of item #4 with items #2 and #3), but all of them were weak or very weak. However, both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (KMO=0.745) and Bartlett’s sphericity test (p<.001) support performing a factor analysis on the data.
Table 3.
Correlation matrix
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 1 | ||||||
| Q2 | 0.171*** | 1 | |||||
| Q3 | 0.262*** | 0.275*** | 1 | ||||
| Q4 | 0.110* | 0.086 | -0.050 | 1 | |||
| Q5 | 0.169*** | 0.180*** | 0.200*** | 0.130** | 1 | ||
| Q6 | 0.303*** | 0.310*** | 0.305*** | 0.097* | 0.280*** | 1 | |
| Q7 | 0.319*** | 0.244*** | 0.286*** | 0.107* | 0.224*** | 0.245*** | 1 |
p-value: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Parallel analyses suggested to extract between one and three factors. However, Minimum Average Partial Correlation suggested one single factor. Furthermore, only one factor obtained an eigenvalue over 1 (the recommended threshold), with the eigenvalues for factors #2 and #3 being 0.16 and 0.10. In order to confirm whether more than one factor can be extracted, we extracted three factors, and then two factors. In both cases, only one or two items loaded (> 0.3) on factors #2 or #3, even after oblique rotation (Promax). Then factor analysis was repeated extracting one single factor. Factor loadings are show in Table 4. Item #4 had a very low loading (0.13). The remaining items had adequate loadings (between 0.45 and 0.56).
Table 4.
Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and uniqueness of variances
| Variable | Loading | Uniqueness |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 0.519 | 0.731 |
| Q2 | 0.465 | 0.784 |
| Q3 | 0.493 | 0.757 |
| Q4 | 0.126 | 0.984 |
| Q5 | 0.448 | 0.800 |
| Q6 | 0.562 | 0.684 |
| Q7 | 0.550 | 0.697 |
Internal consistency
The total sample demonstrated moderate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.64; ordinal alpha = 0.77; McDonald’s omega = 0.66; average inter-item correlation = 0.20). Deleting item #4, consistency improved slightly (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.66; ordinal alpha = 0.79; McDonald’s omega = 0.69; average inter-item correlation = 0.25). No further improvement in reliability was obtained by deleting any other of the items.
Discussion
This study shows that the Spanish version of the HIFAMS is a valid and reliable scale that consists of 7 items and can be used to measure the subjective well-being of children at schools aged between 4 and 11 years old. To our knowledge, there are no other tools that measure child well-being at school for younger children [2].
The translation process yielded an adequate Spanish version of the questionnaire, which back translation resulted in wordings that were very similar to the original ones. Moreover, the cognitive debriefing study showed that, despite the age of participants, the items were well understood. Regarding children with learning difficulties or special educational needs, help may be necessary and these students were given additional time to complete the questionnaire and received individual follow-up.
The psychometric properties of the scale obtained good results. The scale shows moderate internal consistency. Cronbach alpha (0.64) was very similar to the two other studies that used the tool, 0.63 [2] and between 0.62 and 0.67 [1]. Additional measures of internal consistency showed moderate values, too. These results may reflect the variety of experiences assessed by the scale across different school contexts, as represented in the content of the items.
The factor analysis shows a single factor with good adjustment. All items, with the exception of item #4 (“When I am in the playground I feel …”), show factorial saturation above 0.30. The study by Riad et al. [2] also indicates that item #4 has a factorial load that is lower than the rest of the items (0.38). Despite not obtaining factorial saturation above 0.30, we consider it to be a relevant and necessary item when it comes to the well-being of children at school. The literature shows that children have a total of 600 recreational breaks a year (3 times a day, 5 days a week, 39 weeks a year) [33]. It can therefore be said that they spend many hours on these breaks, and that this has a large impact on how children feel at school. Studies show that the recreation period, in addition to promoting physical activity, is a context in which coping skills are worked on and it is closely linked to the psychological well-being of children and the feeling of belonging to the school [33, 34]. The recreational break and rest periods offer a non-organized context to children, which may help children and young people to feel better or, on the other hand, may also lead to instances of bullying more easily [1]. Due to the impact of this item on the well-being of children, we do not deem it appropriate to eliminate it from the scale, despite the fact it does not exhibit satisfactory factorial saturation.
Studies also reflect that there is a major discrepancy between the perception of teachers and parents with regard to homework and how children feel. Parents and teachers suggested that homework did not have an impact on the development of children, specifically at the socio-emotional level [35, 36], but these negative emotions can cause distress that affects the academic performance of children [37, 38]. When they experience negative emotions while completing their homework assignments, children focus their attention on these emotions, which may impair processing of the educational information [39]. Studies suggest that children who are incapable of managing these emotions are more prone to manifesting difficulties in concentrating and developing or in facing challenges at school [37, 39, 40]. These discrepancies highlight the need to listen to children’s perceptions and for professionals to have instruments at their disposition that allow them to ask boys and girls directly about their well-being. The early detection of possible mental health problems, the evaluation thereof and support in schools can have a positive impact on the well-being of children. In this way, health interventions can be proposed that promote well-designed school contexts that improve the mental and physical health of children [33].
Limitations and strengths of the study
The data was collected at two schools, but with certain similar features. For example, both are subsidized schools. This fact may mean that we do not observe great variability between the students at the sociodemographic level. In light of the observed differences in item responses between boys and girls, future research could undertake formal measurement invariance analyses to ascertain whether the scale operates equivalently across sexes (check the data in the Appendix). Future studies should also employ the scale in contexts with greater diversity.
Conclusions
Our results support the appropriateness of the instrument as a measure of well-being across different contexts within the school experience. However, as suggested in the cognitive debriefing, additionally assessing how children feel during lunch-time and during the exam periods might permit a more comprehensive measure. Furthermore, employing the HIFAMS alongside a qualitative interview could enrich the information obtained and thereby better support the child.
This instrument represents the first validated and Spanish-translated measure designed to assess how children feel in the school, listening to their own voices, and in a way that is easy for them to respond. The HIFAMS scale adapted to the Spanish context can be a tool of great use for education centres, teachers, school nurses, school psychologists and social workers, families and children. Understanding how children feel in educational settings at early ages, when they are undergoing massive development, can help to prevent and work through many situations that could otherwise lead to risk situations for the children.
Supplementary Information
Abbreviations
- BASWBSS
Brief Adolescents’ Subjective Well-Being in School Scale
- HIFAMS
How I Feel About My School
- KMO
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test
- PANAS
C-Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children
- PRO
Patient-Reported Outcomes
- PWI
SC-Personal Well-being Index: School Children
- TCA
Translation and Cultural Adaptation
- UK
United Kingdom
- VSWQ
C-Very Short Well-being Questionnaire for Children
Authors’ contributions
Made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data: M.B.; A.O.; T.F.Involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content: M.B.; A.O.; P.A.P.M.Given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content: M.B.; A.O.; P.A.P.M.; T.F.Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: M.B.; A.O.; P.A.P.M.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Navarra (protocol code: 2021.122). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Consent for publication
“Not Applicable” for participants identifying data.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Allen K, Marlow R, Edwards V, Parker C, Rodgers L, Ukoumunne OC, et al. How I feel about my school’: the construction and validation of a measure of wellbeing at school for primary school children. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;23(1):25–41. 10.1177/1359104516687612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Riad R, Allodi M, Siljehag E, Wikman C, Ford T, Bölte S. How I feel about my School—Adaptation and validation of an educational Well-Being measure among young children in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5075. 10.3390/ijerph18105075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Pollard EL, Lee PD. Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Soc Indic Res. 2003;61(1):59–78. 10.1023/A:1021284215801. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Smees R, Rinaldi LJ, Simner J. Well-being measures for younger children. Psychol Assess. 2020;32(2):154–69. 10.1037/pas0000768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Santander Mercado W. Características del bienestar subjetivo, social y psicológico en las mujeres en calidad de desplazamiento político en Colombia. [Barranquilla]: Universidad del Norte; 2015. https://manglar.uninorte.edu.co/handle/10584/8393?show=full. Accessed 14 Jul 2025.
- 6.Casas F. Introduction to the special section on children’s subjective Well-Being. Child Dev. 2019;90(2):333–43. 10.1111/cdev.13129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cho EYN, Yu FY. A review of measurement tools for child wellbeing. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;119:105576. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105576. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gómez-Baya D, García-Moro FJ, Muñoz-Silva A, Martín-Romero N. School satisfaction and happiness in 10-Year-Old children from seven European countries. Children. 2021;8(5):370. 10.3390/children8050370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Durand K, Gallay M, Seigneuric A, Robichon F, Baudouin JY. The development of facial emotion recognition: the role of configural information. J Exp Child Psychol. 2007;97(1):14–27. 10.1016/j.jecp.2006.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lewis M, Michalson L. The measurement of emotion. In: Lewis M, Michalson L, editors. Children´s emocional and moods: developmental theory and measurement. Eds. Boston: Springer; 1983. pp. 231–62. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Valeski TN, Stipek DJ. Young children’s feelings about school. Child Dev. 2001;72(4):1198–213. 10.1111/1467-8624.00342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Díaz D, Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Blanco A, Moreno-Jiménez B, Gallardo I, Valle C et al. Adaptación española de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff. Psicothema. 2006;18(3):572–7. https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/PST/article/view/8474. Accessed 14 Jul 2025. [PubMed]
- 13.Buelvas F, Amarís M. Comprensión Del bienestar En Una persona desplazada Por La violencia sociopolítica. Psicología Del Caribe. 2010;26:156–77. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3661836. Accessed 14 Jul 2025. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Joshanloo M, Sirgy MJ, Park J. Directionality of the relationship between social well-being and subjective well-being: evidence from a 20-year longitudinal study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(8):2137–45. 10.1007/s11136-018-1865-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yang Q, Tian L, Huebner ES, Zhu X. Relations among academic achievement, self-esteem, and subjective well-being in school among elementary school students: A longitudinal mediation model. School Psychol. 2019;34(3):328–40. 10.1037/spq0000292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hughes K, Bullock A, Coplan RJ. A person-centred analysis of teacher–child relationships in early childhood. Br J Educ Psychol. 2014;84(2):253–67. 10.1111/bjep.12029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Spilt JL, Koomen HMY, Harrison LJ. Language development in the early school years: the importance of close relationships with teachers. Dev Psychol. 2015;51(2):185–96. 10.1037/a0038540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Datu JAD, Park N. Perceived school kindness and academic engagement: the mediational roles of achievement goal orientations. Sch Psychol Int. 2019;40(5):456–73. 10.1177/0143034319854474. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Loft L, Waldfogel J. Socioeconomic status gradients in young children’s well-being at school. Child Dev. 2021;92(1). 10.1111/cdev.13453. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 20.Kaluzeviciute G, Jessiman T, Burn AM, Ford T, Kidger J, Leonard N, et al. Studying mental health in schools: A participatory action research (PAR) approach in public mental health. J Concur Disorders. 2021. 10.54127/rnuo8607. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Corominas M, González-Carrasco M, Casas F. Children’s school subjective Well-Being: the importance of schools in perception of support received from classmates. Psicol Educ (Madr). 2022;28(2):99–109. 10.5093/psed2021a7. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Mari Barrance R, May Hampton J. The relationship between subjective well-being in school and children’s participation rights: international evidence from the children’s worlds survey. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2023;151:107038. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107038. [Google Scholar]
- 23.United Nations General Assembly. United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series. United Nations, editor. Vol. 1577. New York: United Nations. 1989. 1–3 p. https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html. Accessed 14 Jul 2025.
- 24.Tian L, Zheng J, Huebner ES, Liu W. Brief adolescents’ subjective well-being in school scale: measurement invariance and latent mean differences across school levels among Chinese students. Curr Psychol. 2022;41(5):3135–43. 10.1007/s12144-020-00841-x. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tomyn AJ, Stokes MA, Cummins RA, Dias PC. A Rasch analysis of the personal Well-Being index in school children. Eval Health Prof. 2020;43(2):110–9. 10.1177/0163278718819219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Seligson JL, Huebner ES, Valois RF. Preliminary validation of the brief multidimensional Students´Life satisfaction scale. Soc Indic Res. 2003;61(2):121–45. 10.1023/A:1021326822957. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. In: Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH, editors. Psychometric theory. 3 ed. New York: MacGraw-Hill; 1994.
- 29.MacDonald PM, Kirkpatrick SW. Schematic drawings of facial for emotion recognition and interpretation by Preschool-Age children. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr. 1996;122:375–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6. 10.1007/BF02291575. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30(2):179–85. 10.1007/BF02289447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods. 2011;16(2):209–20. 10.1037/a0023353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hyndman BP, Benson AC, Ullah S, Telford A. Evaluating the effects of the lunchtime enjoyment activity and play (LEAP) school playground intervention on children’s quality of life, enjoyment and participation in physical activity. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):164. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Dudley D, Cotton W, Peralta L, Winslade M. A stepped-wedge implementation and evaluation of the healthy active peaceful playgrounds for youth (HAPPY) intervention. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):532. 10.1186/s12889-018-5397-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lynn M. Caring for the youngest students: the ABCs of preschool nursing. NASN School Nurse. 2020;35(3):147–51. 10.1177/1942602x19899703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Holland M, Courtney M, Vergara J, McIntyre D, Nix S, Marion A, et al. Homework and children in grades 3–6: Purpose, policy and Non-Academic impact. Child Youth Care Forum. 2021;50(4):631–51. 10.1007/s10566-021-09602-8. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Andrés ML, Stelzer F, Vernucci S, Canet Juric L, Galli JI, Navarro Guzmán JI. Regulación emocional y habilidades académicas: relación En niños de 9 a 11 años de edad. Suma Psicológica. 2017;24(2):79–86. 10.1016/j.sumpsi.2017.07.001. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Graziano PA, Reavis RD, Keane SP, Calkins SD. The role of emotion regulation in children’s early academic success. J Sch Psychol. 2007;45(1):3–19. 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Ivcevic Z, Brackett M. Predicting school success: comparing Conscientiousness, Grit, and emotion regulation ability. J Res Pers. 2014;52:29–36. 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.005. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Luo W, Ng PT, Lee K, Aye KM. Self-efficacy, value, and achievement emotions as mediators between parenting practice and homework behavior: A control-value theory perspective. Learn Individ Differ. 2016;50:275–82. 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.017. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.