Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The reliability and validity of the Chinese Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale in the general population of Hong Kong

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the reliability and validity of the 7-item Chinese Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) in Hong Kong Chinese.

Methods

Under “A Jockey Club Initiative for a Harmonious Society” project, a random telephone survey was conducted in 2017 on 1331 Hong Kong Chinese residents aged ≥ 18. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the factorial validity. The Spearman correlations of the SWEMWBS with other scales including the 12-item short form health survey (SF-12), family well-being, self-rated health, the global happiness item (GHI), subjective happiness scale (SHS), and patient health questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), were used to evaluate the convergent and divergent validity. Known-group validity was also assessed. We calculated congeneric reliability based on standardized factor loadings and error variances. Two-week test–retest reliability was assessed in 100 randomly selected respondents using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Among the weighted sample, 55.9% were female and 72.9% were 25 to 64 years old. The CFA indicated good validity of the SWEMWBS. The SWEMWBS had moderate correlations with SHS, SF-12 mental component, PHQ-4 and GHI, but a weak correlation with SF-12 physical component. Older respondents, those with higher education level, married, working, with higher household income reported higher level of well-being. The congeneric reliability of the SWEMWBS was 0.85. Moderate to good test–retest reliability was observed (ICC 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.80).

Conclusion

The Chinese SWEMWBS showed good validity and reliability for measuring well-being in the general population of Hong Kong.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. (2004). Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice: Summary report.

  2. Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 279–298). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Conceição, P., & Bandura, R. (2008). Measuring subjective wellbeing: A summary review of the literature. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Development Studies, Working Paper.

  5. Camfield, L., & Skevington, S. M. (2008). On subjective well-being and quality of life. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(6), 764–775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2013). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. In The exploration of happiness (pp. 97–116). Berlin, Springer.

  9. Lindert, J., Bain, P. A., Kubzansky, L. D., & Stein, C. (2015). Well-being measurement and the WHO health policy Health 2010: Systematic review of measurement scales. The European Journal of Public Health, 25(4), 731–740.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Linton, M.-J., Dieppe, P., & Medina-Lara, A. (2016). Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. British Medical Journal Open, 6(7), e010641.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., et al. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Taggart, F., Friede, T., Weich, S., Clarke, A., Johnson, M., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2013). Cross cultural evaluation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)—A mixed methods study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11(1), 27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish health education population survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(1), 15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ng Fat, L., Scholes, S., Boniface, S., Mindell, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2017). Evaluating and establishing national norms for mental wellbeing using the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): findings from the Health Survey for England. Quality of Life Research, 26(5), 1129–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1454-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogers, K. D., Dodds, C., Campbell, M., & Young, A. (2018). The validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) with deaf British sign language users in the UK. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0976-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Haver, A., Akerjordet, K., Caputi, P., Furunes, T., & Magee, C. (2015). Measuring mental well-being: a validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in Norwegian and Swedish. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 43(7), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815588862.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ringdal, R., Bradley Eilertsen, M. E., Bjornsen, H. N., Espnes, G. A., & Moksnes, U. K. (2018). Validation of two versions of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale among Norwegian adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 46(7), 718–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817735391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vaingankar, J. A., Abdin, E., Chong, S. A., Sambasivam, R., Seow, E., Jeyagurunathan, A., et al. (2017). Psychometric properties of the short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) in service users with schizophrenia, depression and anxiety spectrum disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0728-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ng, S. S., Lo, A. W., Leung, T. K., Chan, F. S., Wong, A. T., Lam, R. W., et al. (2014). Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale for patients with mental illness in Hong Kong. East Asian Archives of Psychiatry, 24(1), 3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wang, M. P., Viswanath, K., Lam, T. H., Wang, X., & Chan, S. S. (2013). Social determinants of health information seeking among Chinese adults in Hong Kong. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e73049.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417–1432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lam, C. L., Eileen, Y., & Gandek, B. (2005). Is the standard SF-12 health survey valid and equivalent for a Chinese population? Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 539–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan, S. S., Viswanath, K., Au, D. W., Ma, C., Lam, W., Fielding, R., et al. (2011). Hong Kong Chinese community leaders’ perspectives on family health, happiness and harmony: a qualitative study. Health Education Research, 26(4), 664–674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang, M. P., Wang, X., Viswanath, K., Wan, A., Lam, T. H., & Chan, S. S. (2014). Digital inequalities of family life information seeking and family well-being among Chinese adults in Hong Kong: a population survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(10), e227.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Shen, C., Schooling, C. M., Chan, W. M., Zhou, J. X., Johnston, J. M., Lee, S. Y., et al. (2014). Self-rated health and mortality in a prospective Chinese elderly cohort study in Hong Kong. Preventive Medicine, 67, 112–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mossey, J. M., & Shapiro, E. (1982). Self-rated health: a predictor of mortality among the elderly. American Journal of Public Health, 72(8), 800–808.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Oxford: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Oswald, A. J., & Wu, S. (2010). Objective confirmation of subjective measures of human well-being: Evidence from the USA. Science, 327(5965), 576–579.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang, M. P., Wang, X., Lam, T. H., Viswanath, K., & Chan, S. S. (2014). Ex-smokers are happier than current smokers among Chinese adults in Hong Kong. Addiction, 109(7), 1165–1171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nan, H., Ni, M. Y., Lee, P. H., Tam, W. W., Lam, T. H., Leung, G. M., et al. (2014). Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Subjective Happiness Scale: evidence from the Hong Kong FAMILY Cohort. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21(4), 646–652.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50(6), 613–621.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality Criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Izrael, D., Hoaglin, D. C., & Battaglia, M. P. A SAS macro for balancing a weighted sample. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual SAS users group international conference, 2000 (pp. 9–12).

  37. Izrael, D., Hoaglin, D. C., & Battaglia, M. P. To rake or not to rake is not the question anymore with the enhanced raking macro. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, 2004.

  38. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more Version 05–12 (BETA). Journal of statistical software, 48(2), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2.

  41. Mukaka, M. M. (2012). A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69–71.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Overholser, B. R., & Sowinski, K. M. (2008). Biostatistics primer: part 2. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 23(1), 76–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015). cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121945.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Colwell, S. R. (2016). The composite reliability calculator. Technical Report.

  46. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 2003.

  49. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Schyns, P. (2002). Wealth of Nations, individual income and life satisfaction in 42 countries: A multilevel approach. Social Indicators Research, 60(1–3), 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021244511064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Census and Statistics Department. (2018). Women and men in Hong Kong key statistics: 2018 edition. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The project was funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. We would like to thank the survey participants and Public Opinion Programme (HKU) for conducting the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Yuying Sun, Chen Shen, Sai Yin Ho & Tai Hing Lam

  2. School of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, William M.W. Mong Block, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China

    Tzu Tsun Luk, Man Ping Wang & Sophia Siu Chee Chan

  3. School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Chen Shen

  4. Center for Community-Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Kasisomayajula Viswanath

  5. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

    Kasisomayajula Viswanath

Authors
  1. Yuying Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tzu Tsun Luk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Man Ping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chen Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sai Yin Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kasisomayajula Viswanath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sophia Siu Chee Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tai Hing Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Man Ping Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from each individual participant included in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, Y., Luk, T.T., Wang, M.P. et al. The reliability and validity of the Chinese Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale in the general population of Hong Kong. Qual Life Res 28, 2813–2820 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02218-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02218-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation