↓ Skip to main content

Measuring mental well-being in Norway: validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring mental well-being in Norway: validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1343-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Otto R. F. Smith, Daniele E. Alves, Marit Knapstad, Ellen Haug, Leif E. Aarø

Abstract

Mental well-being is an important, yet understudied, area of research, partly due to lack of appropriate population-based measures. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) was developed to meet the needs for such a measure. This article assesses the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the WEMWBS, and its short-version (SWEMWBS) among a sample of primary health care patients who participated in the evaluation of Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), a novel Norwegian mental health care program aimed to increase access to treatment for anxiety and depression. Forward and back-translations were conducted, and 1168 patients filled out an electronic survey including the WEMWBS, and other mental health scales. The original dataset was randomly divided into a training sample (≈70%) and a validation sample (≈30%). Parallel analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were carried out to assess construct validity and precision. The final models were cross-validated in the validation sample by specifying a model with fixed parameters based on the estimates from the trainings set. Criterion validity and measurement invariance of the (S)WEMWBS were examined as well. Support was found for the single factor hypothesis in both scales, but similar to previous studies, only after a number of residuals were allowed to correlate (WEMWBS: CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.06, SWEMWBS: CFI = .99; RMSEA = 0.06). Further analyses showed that the correlated residuals did not alter the meaning of the underlying construct and did not substantially affect the associations with other variables. Precision was high for both versions of the WEMWBS (>.80), and scalar measurement invariance was obtained for gender and age group. The final measurement models displayed adequate fit statistics in the validation sample as well. Correlations with other mental health scales were largely in line with expectations. No statistically significant differences were found in mean latent (S)WEMWBS scores for age and gender. Both WEMWBS scales appear to be valid and precise instruments to measure mental well-being in primary health care patients. The results encourage the use of mental well-being as an outcome in future epidemiological, clinical, and evaluation studies, and may as such be valuable for both research and public health practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 20%
Student > Master 16 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,166,456
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#4,369
of 5,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,029
of 325,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#77
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.