Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Sep 29.
Published before final editing as: J Latinx Psychol. 2026 Sep 24:10.1037/lat0000325. doi: 10.1037/lat0000325

El Bienestar no se Encuentra, se Construye: Development and Initial Structure of the Latine Well-being Scale

Oscar F Rojas Perez 1, Alejandro L Vázquez 2, Monique T Cano 1, Lisa Y Flores 3
PMCID: PMC13618878  NIHMSID: NIHMS2210783  PMID: 42807714

Abstract

While there is consensus that well-being is a multidimensional construct shaped by various factors, there is a significant knowledge gap on what constitutes well-being for communities immersed in cultural collectivism. This discrepancy limits the field’s knowledge on what constitutes well-being for Latine communities, who often prioritize interpersonal relationships over the self. For this reason, the current study sought to develop and determine the initial factor structure of a measure assessing Latine well-being. The Latine Well-being Scale (LWBS), a self-report measure of well-being, was developed and administered to a sample of Spanish- and English-speaking Latine adults (N = 239). The scale factor structure was explored, and internal consistency and construct validity were examined. The results of an exploratory factor analysis tentatively supported a 51-item scale with 4 factors: Spiritual well-being, Adaptive well-being, Collective well-being, and Convivial well-being. Cronbach’s alphas for the LWBS and subscales demonstrated strong internal consistency. Construct validity analyses revealed that the LWBS scores were positively associated with a measure of well-being, familism, and Latine culture, but not associated with life satisfaction. The present study identified a tentative factor solution and initial evidence of construct validity for the LWBS derived from an EFA, providing foundational empirical guidance for subsequent research using Confirmatory Factor Analyses to determine the measure’s research and clinical utility.

Keywords: Latine, well-being, mental health, culture

An urgent call to the field of psychological science has been made to expand the conceptualization of well-being to encompass a more holistic and diverse understanding of the factors that contribute to it (Campos & Sanchez Hernandez, 2023). The call specifically advocates for a more comprehensive approach to the conceptualization and operationalization of well-being, emphasizing the need to include the experiences of well-being among individuals from marginalized groups (e.g., racial and ethnic communities; Campos & Sanchez Hernandez, 2023). To date, the most common theories and frameworks utilized to understand well-being draw heavily from non-racial-ethnic worldviews (Rojas Perez et al., 2022), hedonic (e.g., pleasure and happiness) and eudaimonic (e.g., optimal functioning) perspectives (Diener, 1984; Ryff, 2014; Zhang et al., 2024), or measures that underscore the importance of physical health and generic happiness (Zhang et al., 2024). Additional views suggest that well-being can be explained through the absence of ill-being, low levels of psychological distress, or overall good mental and physical health (American Psychological Association, 2018; Jarden & Roache, 2023; Ruggeri et al., 2020). While there is consensus that well-being is a multidimensional construct informed by various factors (Jarden & Roache, 2023), there is disagreement in what constitutes well-being for communities immersed in cultural collectivism (Campos & Sanchez Hernandez, 2023; Rojas Perez et al., 2022). This limits the field’s knowledge of what constitutes well-being for Latine communities, who often prioritize interpersonal relationships over the self.

Over the past 30 years, research has consistently demonstrated the importance of understanding and measuring well-being in the United States and globally (Constantine & Sue, 2006; Jarden & Roache, 2023; Lomas & Ivtzan, 2016; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2020; Ryff, 1995; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The increased attention to the study of well-being has led to the development of more than 100 validated well-being measures (Cook et al., 2016; Tov, 2018). The presence of multiple measures has contributed to a larger debate regarding the conceptualization, key components and characteristics, and dimensions that comprise the construct of well-being. Given that well-being is a multidimensional construct and that its measurement varies across studies and contexts, Zhang and colleagues (2024) conducted a scoping review to identify common components and characteristics used in well-being measures. According to Zhang et al. (2023), the core dimensions used to assess overall well-being in research include general happiness, physical health, a sense of purpose (eudaimonic well-being), and/or the experience of pleasure or positive feelings (hedonic well-being). However, to our knowledge, no well-being measure exists that specifically accounts for Latine culture (e.g., collectivism), context (e.g., acculturation), values (e.g., familism), and lived experience as a minoritized ethnic community in the United States. The lack of a culturally valid measure limits the field’s knowledge of what informs and promotes well-being for Latine populations.

Although several multidimensional measures of well-being (e.g., WHOQOL-SRPB, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) include domains of relational, spiritual, physical, and psychological well-being, they often remain conceptually broad and culturally generic. For example, the WHOQOL-SRPB operationalizes physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being through a lens that emphasizes symptom reduction, personal meaning, and personal satisfaction, reflecting an individualistic orientation that is incongruent with Latine cultural values (Moreira-Almeida & Koenig, 2006). Similarly, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy scale conceptualizes social-familial well-being as the presence or absence of social support or satisfaction with emotional support received, emphasizing self-orientation. Furthermore, well-being measures with a spiritual domain often assess general personal beliefs or the meaning of life (e.g., WHOQOL-SRPB; World Health Organization, 2002) and incorporate items that reflect hopelessness or a lack of purpose that overlap conceptually with depressive symptoms (Spiritual Well-being Scale; Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). As a result, multidimensional well-being measures that go beyond hedonic and eudaimonic indicators often fail to capture the culturally embedded, relational nature of well-being in collectivistic contexts (Campos & Sanchez Hernandez, 2023). In collectivist cultures (e.g., Latine), identity is interdependent, morality is rooted in communal obligation, religious-spiritual traditions are lived communally rather than individually, and physical and psychological health are deeply linked to family-community harmony (Campos et al., 2014; Rojas Perez et al., 2022). Standard multidimensional well-being measures rarely capture how emotional distress may be understood as a disruption of family balance, how spiritual well-being is enacted through shared religious-spiritual practice, or how personal success is evaluated in terms of collective uplift. Thus, despite their multidimensional design, many prevailing well-being measures remain surface-level in their treatment of relationality and fail to reflect the nuanced, culturally grounded meanings of well-being embedded in Latine collectivistic worldviews.

A significant number of empirical studies have been conducted to understand and assess levels of well-being among Latine communities using a myriad of conceptual approaches and measures. For example, researchers have utilized both qualitative (e.g., Hernandez et al., 2016; Rojas Perez et al., 2022) and quantitative (e.g., Coverdill et al., 2011; Gloria et al., 2009) methodologies, as well as hedonic (e.g., Marquine et al., 2015) and eudaimonic (e.g., Castellanos et al., 2018) measures to understand and identify what informs well-being for Latine communities. Additionally, investigators have examined the construct of well-being across racial and ethnic groups with specific attention to Latine communities (e.g., Espinosa et al., 2021). However, evidence across studies on what informs and contributes to well-being among Latine communities appears to be mixed. For example, in their qualitative study, Hernandez and colleagues (2016) found that faith-religiosity, physical health, harmonious social relationships, financial security, and open communication with family and friends contributed to well-being among a group of Latine churchgoers. Nevertheless, another quantitative study found that the best predictors of well-being for Latine college students were ethnic identity and cultural congruity (Gloria et al., 2009). Furthermore, studies that have used hedonic measures of well-being have found that Latine adults report low levels of life satisfaction (Barger et al., 2009), whereas studies that assess well-being through a eudaimonic lens have found high levels of well-being among Latine college students (Castellanos et al., 2018). Finally, comparative studies have found low, similar, and high levels of well-being among Latine communities when compared to other racial and ethnic groups (Coverdill et al., 2011; Espinosa et al., 2021; Kobau et al., 2010; Marquine et al., 2015). These mixed findings suggest that several factors (e.g., context, sampling, measurement, methodology, frameworks, and theories) contribute to conflicting evidence. The lack of a culturally informed measure of well-being suitable for studies with Latine samples further limits scholarship in this area.

For this reason, the current study sought to develop the Latine Well-being Scale (LWBS) and to assess its initial factor structure and construct validity. Scale items were developed using a multiprong approach and intended to capture the unique cultural dimensions of well-being for Latine communities. Researchers conducted analyses to establish the tentative factor structure of the scale, internal consistency, and construct validity. We expected the LWBS to have a strong positive correlation with alignment with Latine culture and the Latine value of familism, as well as with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being (convergent evidence). We elected to compare the LWBS to alignment with Latine culture and to the Latine cultural value of familism because the LWBS reflects Latine culture and values. Individuals who report stronger identification with Latine cultural values and practices are theoretically more likely to endorse culturally grounded indicators of well-being captured by the LWBS (Castellanos et al., 2018; Gloria et al., 2009). Similarly, we expected strong positive associations with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being because the LWBS underpinnings measure meaning and purpose, although operationalized through other orientation. In contrast, the LWBS is not intended to reflect assimilation to dominant Anglo cultural norms, general ethnic identity affirmation, or social desirability (discriminant evidence). Alignment with Anglo culture represents a distinct cultural orientation that does not necessarily encompass collectivistic or relational constructs central to the LWBS. Similarly, ethnic identity reflects group belonging and affirmation, whereas social desirability reflects response bias, and neither inherently assesses culturally grounded well-being processes. As a result, we hypothesize that there is no statistically significant relationship between LWBS and alignment with Anglo culture, ethnic identity, or social desirability.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 239 (Spanish survey = 212, English survey = 27) self-identified Latine adults aged 18 to 72 years (M = 38.7, SD = 14.1). More than half of the participants self-identified as female (56.4%, n = 133), with the rest identifying as male (42.8%, n = 101), transgender (.8%, n = 2), and (1.2% n = 3) did not report gender. Most of the sample were of Mexican ancestry (74.2%, n = 173), followed by Central American (21%, n = 49), South American (3%, n = 7), and Caribbean (.9%, n = 2). Approximately (63.2%, n = 146) were born outside the United States. Most reported being second (49.3%, n = 109) or first generation in the U.S (48.6%, n = 108), were married (42.5%, n = 99), had a trade school educational background (47.4%, n = 111), and were biological parents (66.8%, n = 155). The monthly mean income reported by participants was $3,797 (range: $0 to $7,500), with most participants (63.6%, n = 145) holding full-time employment. Finally, more than half indicated residing near a family member (69.1%, n = 141) and self-identified as spiritual and/or believing in a higher power (78.3%, n = 181). Table 1 displays participants’ characteristics.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of the study population.

Participantsa
(N = 239)
n %
Survey language
 Spanish 212 88.7
 English 27 11.3
Age (mean ± standard deviation) 38.7 ± 14.1
 Age range 18 – 72
Self-reported gender
 Women 133 56.4
 Men 101 42.8
 Transgender 2 .8
Ethnicity
 Mexican 173 74.2
 Central American 49 21.0
 South American 7 3.0
 Caribbean 2 .9
Birthplace
 United States 85 36.8
 Outside United States 146 63.2
Generation status
 First 108 48.6
 Second 109 49.3
Relationship
 Married 99 42.4
 Single 87 37.3
 Committed relationship 16 6.9
Education
 Elementary 24 10
 Jr. high 8 3.3
 High school 47 19.7
 Trade school 111 47.4
 Bachelor’s 12 5
 Post bachelors (MA/Ph.D) 23 9.6
Biological parents
 Yes 155 66.8
 No 77 33.2
Monthly income (mean) $3,797
Employment
 Full-time 145 63.6
 Part-time 38 11.7
 Unemployed 7 3
 Retired 6 2.6
Residing near family
 Yes 141 69.1
 No 63 30.9
Spiritual
 A lot 181 78.3
 A little 35 14.6
 Not at all 8 3.3
 Unsure 7 3
Open in a new tab
a

Due to missing data, percentages may not add up to 100%

Development of the Latine Well-being Scale

Following the guidelines for scale development outlined by DeVellis (2012), the research team first established an understanding of the concept of well-being and the need for a Latine-specific well-being measure. Next, we generated an item pool (n = 72) in Spanish from a qualitative study (see Rojas Perez et al., 2022) that explored the meaning of well-being among a sample of Spanish-speaking Latine immigrants. A second pool of items (n = 12) was developed from the available literature on well-being in a Latine cultural context. Finally, a third pool of items (n = 25) was generated by a diverse team of graduate-level students and one Latina faculty member. Our measure blueprint allocated items to key concepts found in Rojas Perez et al. (2022) and literature on Latine well-being. The original version of the scale consisted of 109 items designed to capture our operationalized definition of well-being, which was informed by the five themes (Interconnected Tranquility, Ability to Share Life with Others, Responsibility to the Family, having a relationship with God and Faith, Physical health) identified in Rojas Perez et al. (2022). The items were first written in Spanish by the lead author, a bilingual and bicultural Latino immigrant psychologist. Items were then translated into English by a bilingual and bicultural Latino faculty member and back-translated into Spanish by a bilingual and bicultural Latina doctoral student to complete the back-translation process (Brislin, 1970).

The next step involved subjecting the initial item pool to a panel of three experts’ review. Reviewers were deemed experts based on the following criteria: 1) possessed more than 10 years of experience conducting research in the fields of Latine psychology, cross-cultural psychology, or multicultural psychology, and 2) held a doctoral degree in psychology (e.g., clinical, counseling, community). Our expert panel consisted of one Latina counseling psychologist with over 40 years of research experience with Latine populations, one Latino clinical psychologist with over 25 years of research experience and clinical practice with Latine and other racial and ethnic minoritized communities, and one White counseling psychologist with over 40 years of research experience and clinical practice with racial and ethnic minoritized populations. The expert panel assessed the adequacy and relevance of each item’s content (e.g., content validity; DeVellis, 2013). Next, panelists rated the cultural validity, representativeness, utility, and clarity of each of the 109 items and provided qualitative feedback (Lambie et al., 2017; Quintana et al., 2001). The panelists used 5-point scales (e.g., 1 = not at all representative/clear, 5 = very representative/clear) to rate the representativeness and clarity of each item. Based on the panelists’ ratings (using Kim et al.’s [1999] criteria) and feedback, all 109 items were retained.

Measures

Sociodemographic questionnaire

Participants were asked to report their demographic information: age, self-identified gender, Latine ethnicity, country of origin, generation status in the United States, relationship status, educational level, parental status, and whether they lived near a family member. Participants also reported their employment status, monthly income, and religious/spiritual affiliation.

Satisfaction with life

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985; Pavot & Diener, 1993) is a five-item self-report, one-factor measure that assesses global life satisfaction. Individuals rate their level of satisfaction with their lives on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item includes, “I am satisfied with my life.” Performance of the SWLS has been evaluated in various languages (e.g., Nooripour et al., 2021; Sancho et al., 2014) and with different racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Aishvarya et al., 2014; Rinki, 2020), including Latine (e.g., Lucas-Carrasco et al., 2014; Bagherzadeh et al., 2018), with results suggesting sound psychometric properties and measurement invariance. A previous study with Latine immigrants residing in the Midwest reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .79; Flores et al., 2019). The SWLS had excellent internal consistency with the present sample (Cronbach’s α overall = .87; Spanish = .88; English = .79).

Scale of Psychological Well-being Short

The Scale of Psychological Well-being Short (SPWBS; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keys, 1995) is an 18-item self-report measure of psychological well-being. The SPWBS assesses various aspects of well-being, including autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. Individuals rate their level of agreement with the various facets of psychological well-being using a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). A sample item includes, “I live life one day at a time and don’t really think about the future.” High scores reflect high levels of well-being (Ryff & Ketes, 1995). Performance of the SPWBS has been evaluated in various languages (e.g., Fernandes et al., 2010; Gao et al., 2018) and with different racial and ethnic groups (Burns & Machin, 2009), including Latine (Castellanos et al., 2018; Gloria et al., 2009), with results suggesting mixed reliability and validity. However, a recent study with Mexican students from four Mexican universities reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .73; Nava et al., 2018). The SPWBS showed excellent internal consistency with the present sample’s autonomy (Cronbach’s α α overall = .86; Spanish = .86; English = .83).

Acculturation

The Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS; Marin & Gamba, 1996) is a 24-item self-report measure that assesses behavioral adaptations to Latine and Anglo culture. The BAS comprises two subscales: Latine (12 items) and Anglo (12 items) acculturation. The scale asks individuals to rate their level of agreement with items across three domains (general language, language proficiency, and language use in media) using a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (poorly) to 4 (very well). A sample item includes, “How well do you read in Spanish?” High scores on both subscales reflect high levels of adaptation to either Latine and/or Anglo cultures. The performance of the BAS has been evaluated (e.g., Paris et al., 2018; Valdivia & Flores, 2012) with results suggesting sound psychometric properties. A previous study with Latine men reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .96 for non-Latine and Cronbach’s α = .86 for Latine; Gonzalez-Guarda & De Santis, 2012). With the present sample, the BAS Latine (Cronbach’s α overall = .91; Spanish = .90; English = .95) and Anglo scales had excellent internal consistency (overall = .97; Spanish = .97; English = .99).

Ethnic Identity

The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R; Phinney & Ong, 2007) is a 7-item self-report measure that assesses ethnic identity across diverse ethnic groups. The MEIM-R includes items assessing exploration and commitment to one’s ethnic identity on a 4-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale is preceded by an open-ended question that asks respondents to identify their ethnic group. A sample item includes, “I have often talked to other people in order to learn more about my ethnic group.” High subscale and overall scale scores reflect a high level of exploration and commitment to one’s ethnic identity. Performance of the ethnic identity scale has been evaluated in various languages (e.g., Lal & Majumdar, 2023; Lara & Martinez-Molina, 2016) and with different racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Chakawa et al., 2015; Yoon, 2011), including Latine (Castellanos et al., 2018), with results indicating sound psychometric properties and measurement invariance. A previous study with Latine adults reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .84; Valdivia & Flores, 2012). Within the present sample, the MEIM-R had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α overall = .84; Spanish = .84; English = .89).

Familism

The Familism Scale (FS; Sabogal et al., 1987) is a 14-item self-report measure that assesses a Latine approach to familism. The FS comprises items representing familial obligation, perceived family support, and family as a referent. Individuals rate their level of agreement with the various facets of familism using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very much in disagreement) to 5 (very much in agreement). A sample item includes, “When one has problems, one can count on the help of relatives.” High scores indicate a high level of familism. Performance of the FS has been evaluated with different racial and ethnic groups (Campos et al., 2016; Falcão et al., 2019), with results indicating acceptable psychometric properties. Campos and colleagues (2016) reported good internal consistency among a Latine sample (Cronbach’s α = .86). Within the present sample, FS had internal consistency ranging from adequate to excellent across language forms (Cronbach’s α overall = .88; Spanish = .89; English = .78).

Social Desirability

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale Form C (M-C Form C-13; Reynolds, 1982) is a 13-item self-report measure that assesses an individual’s tendency to present themselves in a socially desirable way. Individuals respond to items that are considered uncommon but socially accepted behaviors, as well as common but socially disapproved behaviors, with a dichotomous scale (true or false). A sample item includes, “No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.” High scores indicate a tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner. The M-C Form C-13 has been evaluated across various populations and languages (e.g., Spanierman & Heppner, 2004; Verardi et al., 2010), with results indicating mixed psychometric properties. Marin and colleagues (1991) encourage the use of a social desirability measure with Latine populations, given evidence indicating that Latine participants are more likely to respond in a socially desirable manner, in part due to their adherence to the cultural value of simpatia (an amiable, polite approach to others). The M-C Form C-13 had adequate internal consistency with the present sample (Cronbach’s α overall = .61; Spanish = .59; English = .72).

Procedures

Approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Missouri (#200880). Data for this study were collected from Latine community organizations and faith-based institutions in the Midwest and West Coast, as well as from Latine listservs. Inclusion criteria included (a) ethnically self-identifying as Latine, (b) at least 18 years of age, and (c) fluent in either Spanish and/or English. The data were collected using two different methods: (1) traditional paper-pencil (83%, n = 199) and (2) an online Qualtrics survey (17%, n = 40).

A total of 329 surveys (paper-pencil = 260; online = 69) were disseminated. Of the 260 distributed paper-pencil surveys, 212 were returned, but only 199 were completed, suggesting a 76.5% response rate. Furthermore, of the 69 online surveys accessed, 40 were completed, yielding a 57.9% response rate. Participants who provided incomplete surveys (paper-pencil: 13; online: 29) were excluded. Given the length of the LWBS, we generated two survey versions (A [n = 130] and B [n = 109]) to minimize survey fatigue/response burden, an approach that is common when maximizing data quality and shortening survey time (Little et al., 2014; Moore et al., 2020). Both Forms A and B included the following: consent form, demographics, LWBS, BAS, and M-C Form C. Form A included the SWLS and FS, while Form B contained the SPWBS and MEIM-R. Surveys were available in Spanish and English, with the majority opting for the Spanish version. The survey took approximately 45 minutes to complete. Participants were entered into a raffle for a chance to win one of 10 $50 gift cards or one of 10 $20 gift cards.

Results

Within the current sample, 0.9% of responses were missing on the Latine Well-being Scale. The most common pattern of missingness was one (15.1%) to two items (7.9%). Measures administered to the entire sample (5.6%) and to survey A (1.9%) and B (1.1%) also had a low degree of missingness. Several Latine Well-Being Scale items were significantly (p < .05) associated with propensity for missingness, with participants who reported lower well-being being more likely to have missing data. These findings suggest that the data were Missing Not at Random (MNAR) and were imputed using the Random Forest algorithm (Tang & Ishwaren, 2017).

A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Factor Adequacy analysis was conducted to determine the factorability of the Latine Well-being Scale (< .50; Kaiser, 1974). The overall Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) was .95, with items ranging between .91–.97, which suggests that all items were suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett’s Test for Sphericity indicated that the items in the measure were intercorrelated, X2 = 28,136.1 (degrees of freedom = 5,886), p < .001 (Bartlett, 1951). Horn’s parallel analysis with the Weighted Least Squares estimator was then used to determine the potential number of factors within the scale (Horn, 1965). Examination of the parallel analysis plot suggests that there were potentially up to nine factors within the scale, with the largest eigenvalues being associated with one to five factors. See Supplemental Figure S1 for results of the parallel analysis. A scree plot suggested that eigenvalues drop off after four factors (Cattel, 1966). See Supplemental Figure S2 for the results of the scree plot.

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) model using Kendall’s Tau correlations and a varimax rotation was then used to identify factors and loadings for scale items (Brown, 2015). Our approach to the EFA sought to produce an interpretable number of factors and reduce the scale’s dimensionality across language forms. We used an orthogonal (varimax) rotation to prioritize a simple, interpretable factor structure, in contrast to an oblique rotation, which often yields more complex structures with cross-loadings and overlapping factor content (Brown, 2015). Kendall’s Tau correlations were used as the data were ordinal. As the parallel analysis and scree plot suggested that there were up to nine factors in the Latine Well-being Scale, we fitted EFA models to explore two to nine factors for the measure. Eigenvalues were above 10 for solutions with four or fewer factors. Adding additional factors reduced the eigenvalues below 10. While an eigenvalue above one is often used to retain factors, the four-factor solution was determined to be the best-fitting solution and was ultimately selected because it captured subdomains of well-being with informative, parsimonious factors relative to more complex models (Watkins, 2018). Qualitative examination of item loadings (< .35) suggests that this factor solution represents four latent constructs: Spiritual well-being, Adaptive well-being, Collective well-being, and Convivial well-being. The strongest factor loadings ranged from .35–.87. See Supplemental Table S1 for four-factor EFA item loadings.

Factor loadings between .30–.40 are often used to identify poor-performing items that can be removed to reduce the dimensionality of the scale and address respondent burden (Brown, 2015). However, because varimax rotation accentuates factor loadings, we selected a more stringent cutoff for loadings (<= .60) to reduce the scale’s dimensionality and retain the best-performing items with strong correlations with the identified factors (Brown, 2015). The final scale had 51 items (Spiritual well-being [22 items], Adaptive well-being [7 items], Collective well-being [11 items], Convivial well-being [11 items]). The strongest loadings for factors in the final scale ranged from .60–.87, and internal consistency was excellent across scales (Cronbach’s α = .90–.99). Findings from the Kruskal-Wallis Rank Sum Test suggest that scale scores did not significantly vary between English and Spanish forms of the Latine Well-being Scale. However, item Q11 (My family’s well-being is my well-being) had significantly higher average responses in the English relative to the Spanish form (p = .045). Item Q63 (I feel at peace with myself) had significantly lower average Spanish responses than English (p = .032). See Table 2 for the final Latine Well-being Scale factor loadings and Table 3 for the scale’s descriptive statistics and internal consistency.

Table 2.

Factor loadings for the final Latine Well Being Scale.

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Q2 .09 .23 .60 .01 Q42 .21 .16 .28 .63
Q3 .09 .18 .66 .02 Q43 .17 .17 .31 .65
Q4 .08 .20 .62 .06 Q44 .26 .15 .05 .66
Q5 .10 .15 .60 .05 Q45 .19 .18 .38 .60
Q7 .15 .14 .71 .03 Q46 .24 .20 −.03 .65
Q9 .14 .19 .70 .12 Q48 .14 .21 .08 .65
Q10 .08 .12 .76 .06 Q49 .10 .25 −.05 .65
Q11 .23 .17 .68 .12 Q50 .17 .20 −.06 .67
Q13 .22 .17 .65 .08 Q51 .12 .16 .11 .62
Q16 .26 .23 .61 .13 Q63 .32 .63 .13 .09
Q17 .15 .10 .61 .28 Q64 .27 .67 .19 .08
Q18 .63 .05 .20 .15 Q66 .24 .65 .20 .06
Q19 .77 .12 .17 .12 Q68 .19 .61 .30 .13
Q20 .72 .19 .16 .16 Q71 .21 .62 .30 .10
Q21 .77 .14 .21 .10 Q80 .25 .60 .25 .03
Q22 .74 .15 .10 .23 Q93 .10 .67 .08 .17
Q23 .79 .10 .24 .12 - - - - -
Q24 .79 .16 .20 .16 - - - - -
Q25 .77 .14 .12 .19 - - - - -
Q26 .84 .13 .18 .17 - - - - -
Q27 .72 .06 .10 .15 - - - - -
Q28 .82 .18 .11 .16 - - - - -
Q29 .84 .20 .07 .14 - - - - -
Q30 .80 .22 .08 .18 - - - - -
Q31 .87 .14 .12 .16 - - - - -
Q32 .77 .18 .17 .13 - - - - -
Q33 .86 .15 .21 .10 - - - - -
Q34 .84 .14 .22 .13 - - - - -
Q35 .86 .16 .18 .14 - - - - -
Q36 .82 .16 .17 .14 - - - - -
Q37 .86 .16 .15 .12 - - - - -
Q38 .82 .18 .13 .18 - - - - -
Q39 .82 .11 .23 .12 - - - - -
Q40 .21 .15 .00 .61 - - - - -
Q41 .11 .06 .10 .66 - - - - -
Open in a new tab

Note: Items were above the loading threshold of .60.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Latine Well-being Scale.

Variable Question Total Spanish English p
(n = 239) (n = 213) (n = 26)
Global (Total = .96; Spanish = .97; English = .96) 4.17 (0.60) 4.18 (0.59) 4.08 (0.67) -
Factor 1 (Total = .99; Spanish = .98; English = .99) 4.10 (0.97) 4.12 (0.94) 3.88 (1.21) -
Q18 My faith in God gives me strength 4.13 (1.13) 4.16 (1.11) 3.81 (1.20) -
Q19 My communication with God is important for my well-being 4.15 (1.06) 4.17 (1.02) 3.92 (1.32) -
Q20 I feel at peace knowing that God is by my side 4.04 (1.13) 4.08 (1.10) 3.69 (1.32) -
Q21 I am able to overcome daily challenges because God is by my side 4.15 (1.06) 4.18 (1.04) 3.92 (1.20) -
Q22 My faith helps me get through stressful times 4.01 (1.08) 4.04 (1.05) 3.81 (1.27) -
Q23 My faith eases my physical symptoms 4.16 (1.04) 4.20 (0.99) 3.88 (1.37) -
Q24 God provides me with well-being 4.10 (1.08) 4.14 (1.04) 3.77 (1.34) -
Q25 My health and well-being are in God’s hands 4.03 (1.13) 4.05 (1.11) 3.88 (1.31) -
Q26 God has a plan for me 4.15 (1.08) 4.19 (1.05) 3.85 (1.29) -
Q27 God listen to my prayers 4.03 (1.19) 4.05 (1.18) 3.81 (1.33) -
Q28 I feel at peace after praying 4.08 (1.13) 4.09 (1.12) 4.00 (1.23) -
Q29 I feel at peace because the holy spirit is always with me 4.03 (1.13) 4.04 (1.10) 3.92 (1.32) -
Q30 God is my protector 3.99 (1.16) 4.01 (1.14) 3.81 (1.39) -
Q31 I feel motivated after praying 4.18 (1.09) 4.20 (1.06) 3.96 (1.28) -
Q32 I have faith that everything will turn out well 4.10 (1.09) 4.11 (1.10) 4.00 (1.06) -
Q33 God walks beside me every day 4.11 (1.11) 4.14 (1.08) 3.85 (1.32) -
Q34 I maintain my faith in God even during difficult times 4.13 (1.15) 4.16 (1.11) 3.85 (1.38) -
Q35 I feel empowered after praying 4.11 (1.09) 4.13 (1.08) 3.96 (1.22) -
Q36 I pray during difficult times 4.19 (1.09) 4.21 (1.07) 4.00 (1.30) -
Q37 God guides my decisions 4.14 (1.11) 4.17 (1.07) 3.88 (1.37) -
Q38 I feel rejuvenated after praying 3.95 (1.13) 3.97 (1.11) 3.85 (1.32) -
Q39 My family is protected by God 4.18 (1.10) 4.20 (1.05) 4.00 (1.44) -
Factor 2 (Total = .90; Spanish = .90; English = .91) 4.23 (0.70) 4.25 (0.69) 4.08 (0.74) -
Q63 I feel at peace with myself 4.27 (0.96) 4.31 (0.94) 3.92 (1.06) .032
Q64 I feel proud of who I am 4.33 (0.84) 4.36 (0.82) 4.04 (0.92) -
Q66 I am honest with myself 4.28 (0.89) 4.30 (0.89) 4.19 (0.90) -
Q68 I am capable of taking care of all my responsibilities 4.19 (0.87) 4.20 (0.87) 4.08 (0.84) -
Q71 I find strength to confront difficult obstacles 4.29 (0.82) 4.30 (0.82) 4.19 (0.80) -
Q80 I think positive 4.29 (0.87) 4.31 (0.86) 4.15 (1.01) -
Q93 I am an active participant in my overall health 4.07 (0.91) 4.08 (0.91) 4.00 (0.94) -
Factor 3 (Total = .91; Spanish = .91; English = .90) 4.56 (0.50) 4.55 (0.51) 4.70 (0.40) -
Q2 My family is the reason I keep moving forward 4.56 (0.72) 4.55 (0.74) 4.65 (0.56) -
Q3 I am at peace knowing that my family is physically well 4.56 (0.76) 4.56 (0.76) 4.62 (0.75) -
Q4 I am at peace knowing that my family is psychologically well 4.62 (0.72) 4.62 (0.72) 4.65 (0.75) -
Q5 I am at peace knowing that my family is physically and psychologically safe 4.72 (0.58) 4.70 (0.60) 4.81 (0.40) -
Q7 I am at peace 4.57 (0.74) 4.57 (0.73) 4.58 (0.86) -
Q9 I feel at peace when I am able to help my family 4.61 (0.63) 4.59 (0.65) 4.77 (0.43) -
Q10 I feel at peace knowing I contribute to my family’s well-being 4.63 (0.63) 4.61 (0.65) 4.85 (0.37) -
Q11 My family’s well-being is my well-being 4.54 (0.69) 4.51 (0.70) 4.77 (0.51) .045
Q13 It is important to me to have harmony in my family 4.56 (0.64) 4.54 (0.66) 4.77 (0.43) -
Q16 I am at peace knowing I can share life with my loved ones 4.43 (0.75) 4.42 (0.75) 4.54 (0.76) -
Q17 My family inspires me 4.37 (0.87) 4.34 (0.89) 4.65 (0.63) -
Factor 4 (Total = .92; Spanish = .92; English = .90) 3.86 (0.72) 3.86 (0.72) 3.84 (0.73) -
Q40 My community’s well-being (e.g., parish, neighborhood, organizations) contributes to my well-being 3.61 (1.08) 3.64 (1.08) 3.38 (1.10) -
Q41 My well-being depends on those around me 3.66 (1.14) 3.62 (1.15) 3.96 (1.04) -
Q42 I am at peace knowing I am able to spend time with family and friends 4.17 (0.90) 4.15 (0.92) 4.27 (0.78) -
Q43 I feel revitalized after spending time with family and friends 4.22 (0.77) 4.21 (0.78) 4.31 (0.74) -
Q44 Maintaining harmony in my community (e.g., parish, neighborhood, organizations) is important for my well-being 3.87 (0.99) 3.89 (0.96) 3.73 (1.22) -
Q45 I am at peace knowing my community (e.g., parish, neighborhood, organizations) is well 4.28 (0.77) 4.25 (0.78) 4.50 (0.65) -
Q46 I am at peace knowing I am able to contribute to my community’s (e.g., parish, neighborhood, organizations) well-being 3.76 (1.04) 3.78 (1.01) 3.62 (1.24) -
Q48 My relationship with other Latinos/Hispanics in my community (e.g., parish, neighborhood, organization) is based on trust 3.88 (0.91) 3.87 (0.93) 3.96 (0.82) -
Q49 My community (e.g., parish, neighborhood, organization) has a positive influence on me 3.68 (1.01) 3.73 (0.96) 3.27 (1.31) -
Q50 My community (e.g., parish, neighborhood, organization) helps ease my worry thoughts 3.55 (1.07) 3.58 (1.05) 3.31 (1.19) -
Q51 I feel validated when I am with other Latinos/Hispanics 3.77 (0.96) 3.75 (0.98) 3.88 (0.82) -
Open in a new tab

Kendall’s Tau bivariate correlations were used to examine associations between Latine Well-being Scale scores (51 items) and indicators of construct validity based on available responses across survey versions. Bivariate correlations were grouped based on whether measures were generally administered to the sample (See Supplemental Figure S3; Latine Well-being scales, acculturation, and social desirability), or administered to a subset of participants in Survey A (See Supplemental Figure S4; Latine Well-being scales, life satisfaction, and familism) or B (See Supplemental Figure S5; between Latine Well-being scales, ethnic identity, and well-being). Latine Well-being Scale subscales were generally moderately intercorrelated (range from τ = .33 – 40; p < .001). Alignment with Latine culture was positively associated with high scores on the Latine Well-being Scale Global and subscales (small to moderate effects; range from τ = .16 - .38; p < .05). Alignment with Anglo culture was negatively associated with Latine Well-being Scale Global and Spiritual well-being scores (small effects; range from τ = −.16 and −.18; p < .05). Increases in social desirability were only associated with a small increase on Adaptive well-being (τ = .16; p < .05). Life satisfaction was positively related to Factor 2 and 4 with small to moderate effects (τ = .19–.25; p < .05). Familism was positively associated with scores on the Latine Well-being Scale with effects ranging from small to moderate (τ = .28 - .38; p < .01). Ethnic Identity was positively associated with Convivial well-being but with a small effect (τ = .21; p < .05). Lastly, the Scale of Psychological Well-being Short had small positive associations with the Global, Spiritual well-being, Adaptive well-being, and Collective well-being of the Latine Well-being Scale.

Discussion

The present study addresses a measurement gap in the literature by developing and exploring a tentative factor structure for the only available measure to assess well-being among Latine individuals, a culturally responsive measure tailored to capture the unique dimensions of well-being within Latine populations. Parallel analysis and scree plot suggested that the LWBS may have up to nine factors. We conducted multiple EFA models to explore two to nine factors for the measure. A four-factor solution was selected as it captured subdomains of well-being with informative parsimonious factors relative to more complex models. We sought to increase the utility of the scale and reducing respondent burden by reducing the dimensionally of the scale by retaining items that had moderate or greater factor loadings (< .60). This procedure cut the length of the measure in half resulting in a final 51 item scale that may be tentatively represented as a global score and as four factor scales: (a) Spiritual well-being, (b) Adaptive well-being, (c) Collective well-being, and (d) Convivial well-being.

The LWBS Global scale had excellent internal consistency, as did factors representing Spiritual, Adaptive, Collective, and Convivial well-being. LWBS subscales were generally moderately intercorrelated, which suggests they are related but provide unique information. The LWBS subscales shed light on nuanced and unique cultural factors that contribute to the well-being of a community immersed in cultural collectivism, spirituality, and soul endurance, which are not captured in traditional measures or theories of well-being. This is consistent with Barate et al. (2022), which highlights the positive relationships among spiritual, social, and functional well-being among Latine women undergoing chemotherapy. Furthermore, three of the four factors (Spiritual, Collective, and Convivial) highlight the shared value placed on interdependence and other orientation, which differs from both hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives, which emphasize self-interest. This is consistent with prior research (e.g., Hernandez, 2016; Rojas Perez et al., 2022), which underscores the importance of contextualizing well-being for Latine from other orientation, where the well-being of the collective is integral to the well-being of the individual. The subscale of Adaptive Well-being is a silent but salient factor of Latine well-being, as it brings to the forefront the essence of soul endurance, which we define as encompassing fortitude, inherited resilience, the ability to withstand adversity, and adaptability, all of which carry an undertone of spirituality that is often embedded in cultural understandings of strength and survival. As the identified structure for the LWBS is tentative, future research should explore whether the LWBS is best represented by a Global or four-factor solution using Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

The evaluation of language equivalence between the English and Spanish LWBS forms revealed no significant overall differences, indicating preliminary support for cross-language use. However, minor variations in individual items suggest nuanced differences in responses across language versions. Specifically, differences were found on items Q11 (My family’s well-being is my well-being) and Q63 (I feel at peace with myself), with higher well-being scores on one item in the English form (Q11) and on the other in the Spanish form (Q63). This finding highlights the complexity of translating measures, as it requires navigating cultural nuances that can significantly affect meaning and understanding, even amongst people from the same ethnic group. While scores between language versions did not significantly differ, future research should confirm our findings in a larger sample that includes sufficient representation of participants in the English and Spanish forms to determine the language-based equivalence of these forms.

Participants’ scores on the LWBS were associated with indicators of construct validity in ways that were expected, except one indicator (Satisfaction with Life). Greater alignment with Latine culture and familism were associated with high scores on the LWBS. More alignment with Anglo culture was negatively associated with the Latine Well-being Scale Global and Spiritual well-being scales. These findings are congruent with prior work indicating that higher acculturation or alignment to Anglo culture among Latine is associated with poor overall health outcomes (Abraido-Lanza et al., 2005; Perez-Escamilla, 2011). Participants’ responses on the Scale of Psychological Well-being Short, an established measure of well-being, showed small positive associations with the LWBS Global scale and the majority of its subscales (Spiritual, Adaptive, and Collective). However, satisfaction with life scores, derived from another widely recognized measure of well-being, were not significantly associated with the LWBS Global Scale but did show a small positive association with two LWBS subscales (Adaptive and Convivial). These findings further support prior scholarship highlighting the need for a Latine well-being measure, particularly given that existing general measures yield inconsistent conclusions about Latine well-being (Barger et al., 2009; Castellanos et al., 2018). Specific LWBS subscales were positively associated with social desirability (Adaptive well-being) and ethnic identity (Convivial well-being). These findings have important clinical implications, as well-being for Latine communities is more dynamic and multifaceted, extending far beyond mere life satisfaction. Furthermore, the findings emphasize the critical need for clinical conceptualization models and frameworks that comprehensively account for the cultural nuances that shape the well-being of Latine communities (National Hispanic and Latino Mental Health Technology Transfer Center, 2022).

Implications

The LWBS is a culturally responsive assessment tool that provides important early information on a tentative factor structure, which is needed to inform subsequent confirmatory factor analysis in larger samples to establish structural validity. In addition to the initial factor structure, the LWBS also underscores the importance of culturally responsive item development, ensuring that domains that contribute to well-being reflect Latine culture and values. These findings lay the foundation for refining the scale’s construct validity, reliability, and measurement invariance, in general and across Latine communities, to support a psychometrically robust and culturally meaningful measure of well-being. By establishing the psychometric properties and structural validity of the LWBS, future research can identify which domains strongly influence psychological outcomes and test theories of well-being that account for collectivistic wellness.

Should future research suggest the tentative factor structure is valid, the LWBS could be used to monitor the well-being of Latine patients. By measuring and intervening on culturally relevant constructs such as spirituality, collectivism, and conviviality (Campos & Sanchez Hernandez, 2023; Hernandez et al., 2016; Rojas Perez et al., 2022), mental health professionals could enhance therapeutic rapport and improve patient engagement (Añez et al., 2008). Furthermore, the LWBS could help inform the tailoring of interventions to nurture, affirm, and enhance well-being in culturally responsive ways. For example, mental health providers working with an individual who scores low on the Collective and Conviviality subscales may tailor the treatment focus on interpersonal effectiveness skills training (Hernandez et al., 2016). Similarly, mental health providers may prescribe and/or incorporate prayer as a mindfulness exercise to enhance a patient’s faith or inspire hope in their healing process.

Limitations and Strengths

The present study has several limitations that are worth noting. First, the cross-sectional design does not allow us to establish temporal precedence between LWBS scores and indicators of convergent validity. Second, the sample size (N = 239) and the initial 109-item pool for the present study did not meet recommendations for conducting EFA (i.e., 10 participants per item; Zeller & Sapnas, 2002). However, our analyses indicated adequate factorability and inter-item correlations, an interpretable factor structure, and clear loadings that were theoretically coherent. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the modest participant-to-item ratio may have increased the risk of sampling error, unstable loadings, and incorrect factor identification (Brown, 2015). Further research is needed using a confirmatory factor analysis in a larger sample to validate this tentative factor structure. Third, our sample consisted mainly of individuals who completed the survey in Spanish; therefore, additional research is needed to further evaluate the language equivalence between the English and Spanish versions of the LWBS. Fourth, most of the sample self-identified as Mexican and spiritual, limiting the generalizability of our findings to other Latine groups with different religious and spiritual belief systems. Fifth, future research should develop a brief form to improve its utility for routine outcome monitoring by reducing participant burden. Lastly, the magnitude of factor loadings in the present study should be interpreted in light of the rotation method, which accentuates factor loadings to facilitate the interpretation of the factor structure. Despite these limitations, the study’s strengths lie in its bilingual (Spanish and English) methodology, multipronged approach to item development, and the scale being the first to capture unique cultural dimensions of well-being for Latine communities.

Conclusions

The LWBS provides a tentative factor structure for a culturally responsive tool for assessing well-being among Latine communities. While research is needed to confirm the structure of the LWBS, this measure has the potential to be a valuable tool that enhances mental health service providers’ ability to evaluate and address the well-being of Latine adults by facilitating targeted and culturally congruent interventions. Moreover, a fully validated LWBS has important implications for clinical practice as it may shed light on cultural assets, influencing the well-being of Latine. The LWBS may also serve as a valuable resource for expanding empirical investigations into culturally specific dimensions of well-being. Finally, continued refinement and validation of the LWBS will further enhance the scale’s validity and utility.

Supplementary Material

SupMat

Public Significance Statement.

The development of a Latine Well-being Scale represents a critical advancement in promoting mental health equity. This new scale not only captures unique dimensions of well-being meaningful within Latine communities but also provides empirical data to guide the validation of this group-specific measure.

Funding

This research reported in this manuscript was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number (5K23MH130718, PI: Oscar Fernando Rojas Perez) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (5K12DA000167-33: Monique T. Cano). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning this article’s research, authorship, and/or publication.

Credit Authorship Contribution Statement

Oscar Fernando Rojas Perez: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal data analysis, Supervision, Writing – original draft, review & editing. Alejandro L. Vázquez: Investigator, Formal data analysis, Writing – review & editing. Monique Tenay Cano: Investigator, Writing – review & editing. Lisa Flores: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal data analysis, Writing – review & editing

Reference

  1. Abraído-Lanza AF, Chao MT, & Flórez KR. (2005). Do healthy behaviors decline with greater acculturation?: Implications for the Latino mortality paradox. Social science & medicine, 61(6), 1243–1255. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aishvarya S, Maniam T, Karuthan C, Sidi H, Jaafar NRN, & Oei TPS. (2014). Psychometric properties and validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in psychiatric and medical outpatients in Malaysia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55, S101–S106. 10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychological Association. (2018, April). APA dictionary of psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/well-being [Google Scholar]
  4. Añez LM, Silva MA, Paris M Jr., & Bedregal LE. (2008). Engaging Latinos through the integration of cultural values and motivational interviewing principles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(2), 153–159. 10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bagherzadeh M, Loewe N, Mouawad RG, Batista-Foguet JM, Araya-Castillo L, & Thieme C. (2018). Spanish version of the satisfaction with life scale: Validation and Factorial invariance analysis in Chile. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21(e2), 1–17. 10.1017/sjp.2018.2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barata A, Hoogland AI, Small BJ, Acevedo KI, Antoni MH, Gonzalez BD, … & Jim HS. (2022). Spiritual well-being, distress and quality of life in Hispanic women diagnosed with cancer undergoing treatment with chemotherapy. Psycho-Oncology, 31(11), 1933–1940. 10.1002/pon.6038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barger SD, Donoho CJ, & Wayment HA. (2009). The relative contributions of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health, and social relationships to life satisfaction in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 18, 179–189. 10.1007/s11136-008-9426-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartlett MS. (1951). The effect of standardization on a Chi-square approximation in factor analysis. Biometrika, 38, 337–344. 10.2307/2332580 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brislin RW. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. 10.1177/135910457000100301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown TA. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  11. Burns RA, & Machin MA. (2009). Investigating the structural validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales across two samples. Social Indicators Research, 93(2), 359–375. 10.1007/s11205-008-9329-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Campos B, & Sanchez Hernandez H. (2023). Well-being: Strengthening and broadening a key psychological construct. Affective Science, 4(1), 21–23. 10.1007/s42761-022-00154-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Campos B, Perez OFR, & Guardino C. (2016). Familism: A cultural value with implications for romantic relationship quality in US Latinos. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(1), 81–100. 10.1177/0265407514562564 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Campos B, Ullman JB, Aguilera A, & Dunkel Schetter C. (2014). Familism and psychological health: the intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 191–201. 10.1037/a0034094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Castellanos J, Gloria AM, Rojas Perez OF, & Fonseca L. (2018). Assessing the etic and emic well-being of Latino male undergraduates: Navegando los obstáculos de la universidad con mi cultura. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(2), 184–194. 10.1037/men0000090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cattell RB. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chakawa A, Butler RC, & Shapiro SK. (2015). Examining the psychometric validity of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R) in a community sample of African American and European American adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(4), 643–648. 10.1037/cdp0000025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Constantine MG, & Sue DW. (2006). Factors contributing to optimal human functioning in people of color in the United States. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(2), 228–244. 10.1177/0011000005281318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cooke PJ, Melchert TP, & Connor K. (2016). Measuring well-being: A review of instruments. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(5), 730–757. 10.1177/0011000016633507 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Coverdill JE, López CA, & Petrie MA. (2011). Race, ethnicity and the quality of life in America, 1972–2008. Social Forces, 89(3), 783–805. 10.1353/sof.2011.0002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dahiya R, & Rangnekar S. (2020). Validation of satisfaction with life scale in the Indian manufacturing sector. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration. 3(4), 251–268. 10.1108/APJBA-03-2019-0045 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. DeVellis RF. (2013). Scale development (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  23. Diener E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Diener ED, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, & Griffin S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Espinosa PR, Patel ML, King AC, Campero I, Freeman II M, Garcia DM, … & Heaney CA. (2021). An in-depth comparison of well-being among Latinx and non-Latinx White adults: A cautionary tale. Preventive Medicine Reports, 24, 101513. 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Falcão DVDS, Paulson D, Legon MH, & Irurita-Ballesteros C. (2019). Familism scale: Confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of caregivers of older adults. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 29, e2936. 10.1590/1982-4327e2936 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fernandes HM, Vasconcelos-Raposo J, & Teixeira CM. (2010). Preliminary analysis of the psychometric properties of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being in Portuguese adolescents. the Spanish Journal of psychology, 13(2), 1032–1043. 10.1017/s1138741600002675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gao J, & McLellan R. (2018). Using Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being in adolescents in mainland China. BMC Psychology, 6, 1–8. 10.1186/s40359-018-0231-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gloria AM, Castellanos J, Scull NC, & Villegas FJ. (2009). Psychological coping and well-being of male Latino undergraduates: Sobreviviendo la universidad. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(3), 317–339. 10.1177/0739986309336845 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gonzalez-Guarda RM, De Santis JP, & Vasquez EP. (2013). Sexual orientation and demographic, cultural, and psychological factors associated with the perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence among Hispanic men. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34(2), 103–109. 10.3109/01612840.2012.728280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hernandez R, Carnethon M, Penedo FJ, Martinez L, Boehm J, & Schueller SM. (2016). Exploring well-being among US Hispanics/Latinos in a church-based institution: a qualitative study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 511–521. 10.1080/17439760.2015.1117132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Horn JL. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. 10.1007/BF02289447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jarden A, & Roache A. (2023). What is wellbeing?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 5006. 10.3390/ijerph20065006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaiser HF. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. 10.1007/BF02291575 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim BS, Atkinson DR, & Yang PH. (1999). The Asian values scale: Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 342–352. 10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kobau R, Sniezek J, Zack MM, Lucas RE, & Burns A. (2010). Well-being assessment: An evaluation of well-being scales for public health and population estimates of well-being among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(3), 272–297. 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01035.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Koenig HG. (2008). Concerns about measuring “spirituality” in research. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196(5), 349–355. 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31816ff796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lal KK, & Majumdar S. (2023). Language as ethnicity: Evaluating the psychometric properties of the meim-r in a multi-ethnic population in India. Psychological Studies. Advance online publication. 10.1007/s12646-022-00702-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lambie GW, Blount AJ, & Mullen PR. (2017). Establishing content-oriented evidence for psychological assessments. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 210–216. 10.1080/07481756.2017.1336930 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lara L, & Martínez-Molina A. (2016). Validación de la Escala de Identidad Étnica Multigrupo-Revisada en adolescentes inmigrantes y autóctonos residentes en España. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 14(1), 591–601. 10.11600/1692715x.14140110515 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Little TD, Jorgensen TD, Lang KM, & Moore EWG. (2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 151–162. 10.1093/jpepsy/jst048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lomas T, & Ivtzan I. (2016). Second wave positive psychology: Exploring the positive–negative dialectics of wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 17(4), 1753–1768. 10.1007/s10902-015-9668-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lucas-Carrasco R, Sastre-Garriga J, Galan I, Den Oudsten BL, & Power MJ. (2014). Preliminary validation study of the Spanish version of the satisfaction with life scale in persons with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(12), 1001–1005. 10.3109/09638288.2013.825650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Marquine MJ, Maldonado Y, Zlatar Z, Moore RC, Martin AS, Palmer BW, & Jeste DV. (2015). Differences in life satisfaction among older community-dwelling Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Aging & Mental Health, 19(11), 978–988. 10.1080/13607863.2014.971706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Moore EWG, Lang KM, & Grandfield EM. (2020). Maximizing data quality and shortening survey time: Three-form planned missing data survey design. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51, 101701. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Moreira-Almeida A, & Koenig HG. (2006). Retaining the meaning of the words religiousness and spirituality: A commentary on the WHOQOL SRPB group’s “A cross-cultural study of spirituality, religion, and personal beliefs as components of quality of life.” Social Science & Medicine, 63(4), 843–845. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nava PB, del Villar OAE, & Peña GMG. (2018). Psychometric analysis of the Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scales in students of four Mexican Universities. Psychology, 9(13), 2685–2708. 10.4236/psych.2018.913154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. National Hispanic and Latino Mental Health Technology Transfer Center. (2022, January). ¿Quiénes somos y de dónde venimos? A historical context to inform mental health services with Latinx populations. Universidad Central del Caribe, Bayamon, PR. https://hispaniclatinobehavioralhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/8863-1.pdf [Google Scholar]
  49. Nooripour R, Hosseinian S, Ghanbari N, Haghighat S, Matacotta JJ, & Gasparri ML. (2021). Validation of the Persian version of the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) in Iranian women with breast Cancer. Current Psychology, 1–8. 10.1007/s12144-021-01662-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Marín G, & Marín B. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  51. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2025, March 17). Healthy People 2020. https://odphp.health.gov/our-work/national-health-initiatives/healthy-people/healthy-people-2020
  52. Paloutzian RF, & Ellison CW. (1982). Spiritual well-being scale. A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 11(4). 382–385. 10.1037/t00534-000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Paris M, Silva M, Añez-Nava L, Jaramillo Y, Kiluk BD, Gordon MA, … & Carroll KM. (2018). Culturally adapted, web-based cognitive behavioral therapy for Spanish-speaking individuals with substance use disorders: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Public Health, 108(11), 1535–1542. 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Pavot W, & Diener E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 154–172. 10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Pérez-Escamilla R. (2011). Acculturation, nutrition, and health disparities in Latinos. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(5), 1163S–1167S. 10.3945/ajcn.110.003467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Quintana SM, Troyano N, & Taylor G. (2001). Cultural validity and inherent challenges in quantitative methods for multicultural research. In Ponterotto JG, Casas JM, Suzuki LA, & Alexander CM. (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Counseling, second edition (pp. 604–630). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  57. Reynolds WM. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. 10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Rojas Perez OF, Heppner PP, & Flores LY. (2022). Tu bienestar es mi bienestar: A psychosociocultural understanding of Latinx immigrant well-being through a qualitative lens. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 10(2), 140–155. 10.1037/lat0000175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Ruggeri K, Garcia-Garzon E, Maguire Á, Matz S, & Huppert FA. (2020). Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: a multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18, 1–16. 10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Ryff CD. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ryff CD. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(4), 99–104. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772395 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Ryff CD, & Keyes CLM. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ryff CD. (2013). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28. 10.1159/000353263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Sancho P, Galiana L, Gutierrez M, Francisco EH, & Tomás JM. (2014). Validating the Portuguese version of the satisfaction with life scale in an elderly sample. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 457–466. 10.1007/s11205-012-9994-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Seligman MEP, & Csikszentmihalyi M. (2000). Special issue on happiness, excellence, and optimal human functioning. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–183. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Spanierman LB, & Heppner MJ. (2004). Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites Scale (PCRW): Construction and Initial Validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 249–262. 10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Tang F, & Ishwaran H. (2017). Random forest missing data algorithms. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 10(6), 363–377. 10.1002/sam.11348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Tov W. (2018). The role of culture in subjective well-being. In Eid M & Larsen RJ. (Eds.), The Science of Subjective Well-being (pp. 447–460). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  69. Valdivia C, & Flores LY. (2012). Factors affecting the job satisfaction of Latino/a immigrants in the Midwest. Journal of Career Development, 39(1), 31–49. 10.1177/0894845310386478 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Verardi S, Dahourou D, Ah-Kion J, Bhowon U, Tseung CN, Amoussou-Yeye D, Adjahouisso M, Bouatta C, Cissé DD, Mbodji M, Barry O, Minga DM, Ondongo F, Tsokini D, Rigozzi C, de Stadelhofen FM, & Rossier J. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale in eight African countries and Switzerland. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1), 19–34. 10.1177/0022022109348918 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Watkins MW. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. 10.1177/0095798418771807 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. World Health Organization (2002). WHOQOL-SRPB field-test instrument: WHOQOL spirituality, religiousness and personal beliefs (SRPB) field-test instrument: the WHOQOL-100 questions plus 32 SRPB questions, 2012 revision. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/77777 [Google Scholar]
  73. Yoon E. (2011). Measuring ethnic identity in the Ethnic Identity Scale and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 144–155. 10.1037/a0023361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Zeller R, & Sapnas K. (2002). Minimizing Sample Size When Using Exploratory Factor Analysis for Measurement. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10(2), 135–154. 10.1891/jnum.10.2.135.52552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhang W, Balloo K, Hosein A, & Medland E. (2024). A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being. Bmc Psychology, 12(1), 1–29. 10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

SupMat
NIHMS2210783-supplement-SupMat.docx (17.7MB, docx)

RESOURCES