↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the Flourishing Scale in a sample of people with suboptimal levels of mental well-being

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Validation of the Flourishing Scale in a sample of people with suboptimal levels of mental well-being
Published in
BMC Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0116-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marijke Schotanus-Dijkstra, Peter M. ten Klooster, Constance H. C. Drossaert, Marcel E. Pieterse, Linda Bolier, Jan A. Walburg, Ernst T. Bohlmeijer

Abstract

There is growing interest in measuring the eudaimonic perspective of mental well-being (social and psychological well-being) alongside existing measures of the hedonic perspective of mental well-being (subjective well-being). The Flourishing Scale (FS) assesses core aspects of social-psychological functioning and is now widely used in research in practice. However, the reliability and validity of eudaimonic measures such as the FS has not yet been tested in people with low or moderate levels of well-being. This group is at risk for developing mental disorders and, therefore, an important target group for public mental health. We extensively evaluated the psychometric properties of the 8-item FS in a sample of adults with low or moderate levels of well-being in The Netherlands (N = 275) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), item response theory analysis and a multitrait matrix. The unidimensional structure of the scale was confirmed with CFA and an adequate fit to the Rasch model. However, our sample showed positive skewness of the scale, but lacked measurement precision at the higher end of the social-psychological continuum. In general, the multitrait matrix demonstrated the convergent validity of the scale, with strong to weak correlations between the FS and (1) overall well-being, (2) social and psychological well-being (3) positive eudaimonic states, (4) hedonic states, (5) psychopathology and (6) personality traits. Nevertheless, relatively low correlations were found, specifically in comparison with the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). The FS seems a reliable and valid instrument for measuring social-psychological functioning in adults with suboptimal well-being, but its use in intervention studies and clinical practice might be debatable. Therefore, the FS seems most suitable to include in epidemiological studies alongside existing hedonic measures to more fully capture mental well-being. Future research should examine the temporal stability of the FS and the consequences of the positive skewness and limited external validity of the scale found in the current study.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 21%
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 27 20%

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 19 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,360,804
of 16,283,062 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#382
of 400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,500
of 268,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,283,062 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 268,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them