https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0999-1424
Figures
Abstract
We developed a self-report measure of psychological well-being for teens and adults, the Healthy Minds Index, based on a novel theory that four trainable pillars underlie well-being: awareness, connection, insight, and purpose. Ninety-seven items were developed and revised by experts and guided by qualitative testing with teens (n = 32; average age = 16.0 years). After assessing the internal validity and factor structure in teens (n = 1607; average age = 16.7 years) and adults (n = 420; average age = 45.6 years), we reduced the survey to 17 items. We then validated the factor structure, internal and convergent and divergent validity, and retest reliability of the 17-item Healthy Minds Index in two new teen samples (study 1: n = 1492, average age = 15.7 years; study 2: n = 295, average age = 16.1 years), and one adult sample (n = 285; average age = 45.3 years). The Healthy Minds Index demonstrated adequate validity and provided a comprehensive measure of a novel theory of psychological well-being that includes two domains not found in other conceptualizations of this construct—awareness and insight. This measure will be invaluable for primary research on well-being and as a translational tool to assess the impact and efficacy of widely used behavioral training programs on these core dimensions of wellbeing.
Citation: Kral TRA, Kesebir P, Redford L, Dahl CJ, Wilson-Mendenhall CD, Hirshberg MJ, et al. (2024) Healthy Minds Index: A brief measure of the core dimensions of well-being. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0299352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299352
Editor: Angelina Wilson Fadiji, De Montfort University, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: October 5, 2023; Accepted: February 9, 2024; Published: May 10, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Kral et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data and code are available on the Open Science Framework at this url: https://osf.io/aw7bz/ (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AW7BZ).
Funding: This publication was made possible by funding to RJD from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (https://chanzuckerberg.com/) and Grant Number U24AT011289 from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). The contents of this manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCCIH (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/) or the National Institutes of Health (https://www.nih.gov/). No donors, either anonymous or identified, have participated in the design, conduct, or reporting of research results in this manuscript, or the decision to publish.
Competing interests: Dr. Tammi R.A. Kral is employed with the non-profit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations, Inc., where Dr. Richard J. Davidson is the founder, president, and serves on the board of directors, and where Drs. Cortland Dahl and Raquel Tatar hold leadership positions. No donors, either anonymous or identified, have participated in the design, conduct, or reporting of research results in this manuscript. All other authors declare they have no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
On both the individual and societal level, human flourishing is a highly desirable goal. Flourish is defined as “to grow or develop successfully” in the Cambridge English Dictionary, and as synonymous with “thrive” and “prosper” in the Meriam Webster Dictionary. The latter dictionary defines well-being similarly, as “the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous”. Various lines of research attest to the possibility of deliberately cultivating psychological well-being. However, a unifying framework that clarifies the dimensions of well-being that can be cultivated through training had not been introduced until recently. Integrating evidence from well-being research, cognitive, affective and contemplative neuroscience, and clinical psychology, Dahl, Wilson-Mendenhall and Davidson [1] put forth such a framework. This framework comprises four core dimensions, which have been robustly linked to well-being: awareness, connection, insight, and purpose.
We sought to validate a novel measure of flourishing based on Dahl et al.’s [1] framework for well-being, in teens (i.e., ages 14–18) and adults (i.e., >18 years old), that aligns with areas of skills development that are central to flourishing and often the focus of wellness training: awareness, connection, insight, and purpose. The present work builds from prior conceptions of well-being, including Ryff and Keyes’ Psychological Well-Being index, which includes the domains of purpose in life and positive relations with others [2]. The self-report measure of well-being developed in the present study characterizes the additional domains of awareness and insight, which do not appear in prior conceptions or measures of well-being, and which are necessary to adequately capture the full range of processes that contribute to well-being in a single measure.
This new well-being framework arrives in the context of a crisis in well-being among teens [3] and adults [4]. Particularly in teens, very little focus has emerged specifically on the measurement of well-being. A consistent measure of well-being across development may allow deeper insight into the emergence of the core dimensions of well-being and the way these dimensions of well-being are associated with positive outcomes across the lifetime, starting in early adolescence. Therefore, the main goal of the present work was to develop a psychometrically valid, reliable, and easily implementable self-report measure to capture how teens and adults vary on these four core dimensions of well-being. We will refer to these dimensions collectively as the Healthy Minds Framework.
The four dimensions of the Healthy Minds framework
Awareness
In the Healthy Minds framework, awareness refers to heightened attentiveness to the external cues in the environment, as well as to internal cues such as bodily sensations, thoughts, and feelings. People at the high end of this dimension are typically aware of what they are doing, who they are with, and their own internal states. People on the low end, on the other hand, are easily distracted and frequently find themselves acting on “autopilot”.
An important component of awareness is meta-awareness. Meta-awareness refers to an awareness of the processes of conscious experience as they occur in real time. For instance, when we recognize an emotion inside us (e.g., anger) before it leads to a reaction, or when we suddenly realize that we had been lost in thought, these are examples of meta-awareness [5, 6]. The qualities of attentiveness and awareness have been closely linked to healthy psychological functioning [7, 8].
Connection
Connection refers to a benevolent orientation toward other people that promotes healthy relationships and positive social interactions. It encompasses positive social perceptions (e.g., gratitude, trust, appreciation) as well as a desire and a sense of responsibility for the well-being of others—even those who are outside of one’s immediate social circles. People on the high end of this dimension generally have warm social interactions, think well of and wish well for others, and are willing to balance others’ best interests with their own in their decision-making. People on the low end, on the other hand, are more cynical toward others, have more selfish motivations and less positive social interactions. Various aspects of the connection dimension have been robustly linked to greater well-being [9, 10].
Insight
Insight, in the Healthy Minds framework, refers to an ongoing awareness of how one’s internal psychological processes (e.g., emotions, thoughts, beliefs, memories) influence one’s subjective experience of both the internal and external world. People on the high end of this dimension can recognize the impact of their own thoughts and emotions on how they feel and how they act. Those on the low end, on the other hand, lack the intuitive access into their psychological processes and cannot use that information to their advantage. Greater levels of insight have been associated with greater levels of well-being [11], whereas low levels of insight are considered to be a hallmark of psychological disorders [12].
Purpose
Purpose refers to a sense of clarity regarding what is important in one’s life and how one wants to live. People on the high end of the purpose dimension have clear values and personally meaningful aims that guide their day-to-day living. People on the low end of this dimension, on the other hand, perceive little significance in their pursuits and are uncertain about what makes their life worth living. They lack goals and aspirations that structure their life and provide it with an overarching narrative. Research has linked a sense of purpose and meaning in life consistently to well-being [13, 14].
Overview of studies
Table 1 provides an overview of the methodological approach to validating the Healthy Minds Index (HMx). The HMx scale items were generated and revised based on a combination of expert input, user experience (UX) interviews and a series of 4 studies with teens. Then the validity and reliability of the HMx was assessed across 4 additional studies, in both teen and adult samples. Across these studies, we examined factor structure, internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity, and test-retest reliability of the HMx. To succinctly present the results, we have organized the results by psychometric analysis, and thus present and discuss the studies relevant to a specific psychometric validation goal together (e.g., item generation, convergent and divergent validity).
Methods
Participants
In all studies, participants were either adults (>18 years old) or teens 13–18 years old. Participants for the qualitative, scale development interviews were recruited from the Madison, WI community using flyers, Craigslist ads, and school district mailing lists; through Facebook posts; and through the mailing list of the Center for Healthy Minds (via e-mail). Participants for the validation studies were recruited through an online survey platform (Qualtrics or Prolific), or through the Character Lab Research Network (CLRN), to complete an online survey on tools to measure well-being. Participants for the retest studies were recruited from those who completed the first survey in the corresponding validation study, and for the online samples, the retest studies were capped at 100 participants, based on a combination of logistical constraints and a power analysis. Demographic information for participants in each study is shown in Table 2. All adult participants provided written consent and minors provided written assent in a digital consent form, and this study was approved by the Advarra Institutional Review Board (IRB), protocol number Pro00033991. The IRB waived the requirement for parental consent of minors, as the study was deemed no more than minimal risk to participants. Participants in the UX testing were compensated with gift cards, and participants in online samples were compensated according to the practices of the corresponding recruitment organization (Qualtrics or Prolific participant panels). Recruitment and data collection began in September 2019 for the UX research and ended with adult study 2 in April 2022.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria were the ability to speak and read English and residing in the United States of America. Participants in the adult studies had to be 18 years of age or older, and participants in the teen studies had to be between the ages of 13 and 18 years old. For studies conducted through the Character Lab Research Network, sample sizes were determined based on convenience sampling used by the network. In all other studies, studies were powered to detect small to medium effect sizes, with 80% power to detect an effect at p <0.05.
All data were checked for straight-line responses, which were not present in any of the datasets. Data collected from online panels were further inspected and excluded for response times averaging under 315 ms per word, to remove “speeder” participants who may have sped through the surveys without reading the questions. This threshold has been used previously as a proxy for the minimum duration required to read and cognitively process a survey question [15], and resulted in exclusion of data from 10 participants from teen study 2. Data from adult study 2 (online) were further excluded for failure of the attention check (n = 4 excluded).
Item generation & scale development
Content experts generated and iteratively reviewed items for each of the Healthy Minds Framework dimensions. The original scale had 97 items, and the initial expert review reduced it to 80 total items. The following guidelines were used for decisions on removing versus retaining items during each round of expert review: 1) maintaining a mix of “easy”, “mid”, and “hard” questions per domain (i.e., most participants expected to score high on “easy” items and low on “hard” items); 2) avoiding reverse-coded items; 3) meet Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) standards (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ppra/parents.html); and 4) avoiding socially desirable or evaluative language.
We then conducted a series of qualitative, user experience (UX) interviews with 32 teens to assess and revise the scales for each domain. Participants in the UX studies completed a virtual video interview in which they read each item aloud, for each of the scales of the HMx and said aloud what came to mind. Interviewers then followed up with questions to understand whether the questions in the scales were clear, and that participants understood the items as intended. For example, interviewers asked, “What are you thinking as you look at this?” and “Can you take me through the steps of how you came to that answer?” The qualitative insights from the UX interviews were used to adapt the language of individual items, and to guide expert review in subsequent revisions.
In Teen Study “D”, we then conducted a set of factor analyses to assess the scale construction for each of the four dimensions of well-being, and to further revise the scale to remove poorly performing items, while retaining the minimal number of items sufficient for validity. This study consisted of 4 sub-studies (i–iv), in separate samples, to assess scales for each of the 4 domains: Awareness (i), Connection (ii), Insight (iii), and Purpose (iv). All studies had the same design and demographic criteria. Following factor analysis, we further reduced the 80-item HMx to 70 items, in consultation with expert reviewers.
The 70-item HMx was then used in Adult Study 1 for initial validation, and final reduction to the short, 17-item form used in all subsequent studies. Revision of the scale to the final version included the following steps:
- Removal of items that did not load on one of the Healthy Minds Framework constructs
- Retention of items with cross-loadings below 0.30 (on orthogonal factors)
- Removal of items that cross-load on more than 2 factors (above 0.30)
- Removal of items that were the sole item to load on a factor (e.g., single-item factors)
The HMx was reduced to 58 items following the above steps, and then further reduced to the final 17-item HMx by rank ordering items based on their average correlation with well-being surveys, and then iteratively calculating alpha for each scale for the top-ranked k number of items, starting at k = 2 and incrementing by 1 until alpha reached a rounded value of 0.70 or higher. Results are reported for Adult Study 1 (and subsequent studies) with the 17 items retained in the final version.
Validation strategy
We assessed internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity, and test-retest reliability in teens and adults in a series of 3 follow-up studies, using R statistics [16]. We used the alpha function of the psych package [17] to assess internal consistency overall, and by domain. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis used the fa function of the psych package [18–21]. Convergent validity was established for each of the four Healthy Minds framework dimensions separately, and for the entire HMx, by computing correlations for each domain with measures of similar, or overlapping, constructs in Teen Study 1 and Adult Study 1 (Table 3) using the apa.cor.table function (version 2.0.8).
Transparency and openness
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study. All data and code are available on the Open Science Framework at this url: https://osf.io/aw7bz/ (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AW7BZ). This study was not preregistered.
Results and discussion
Scale development
We used an iterative process for assessing and revising the initial scale and individual items, which included inspecting the distribution of scores (e.g., for normalcy), inter-item correlations, and internal consistency. Below we describe how each scale was revised from the original to the final version, and the internal consistency of the final version for the scale development study samples. Cronbach’s alpha indicated very high internal consistency for each scale (Table 4), where each item (for all scales) was rated on a 1 to 5 Likert scale.
Awareness
A large proportion of teens (15–20%, and 31% for one item) scored a 5 (“all the time”) for 6 of the 20 scale items. These items may have been subject to confirmation bias and therefore too easy to endorse. To address these issues, we changed response anchors and edited these items to make them harder. The mean awareness score was 3.40 with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.64, and mean and median inter-item correlation was 0.36, reflecting a somewhat narrow trait as intended for the dimensional approach [39].
Connection
Participants scored near the midpoint on this 6-item subscale, with a mean of 3.7, SD of 0.60, and a minimum of 1.5. There were 5 of the 24 scale items for which no one selected option 1, or where response 5 endorsement exceeded response 4 endorsement. We determined that retaining these items would add little reliability or predictive power. Thus, we removed the corresponding items. To further support their removal, we evaluated all items based on nomological correlations. In summary, three items correlated less strongly with convergent and criterion measures than the remaining items. Two other items performed equivalently on only one measure (Engagement, Perseverance, Optimism, Connectedness, and Happiness [EPOCH]: connectedness) [30]. We interpreted these results as indicating that removing all 5 of these items would not threaten the scale’s predictive utility. All other analyses were conducted excluding these items.
Insight
On the 22-item sub-scale, participants on average scored around the midpoint, with a mean of 3.2 and SD of 0.65. There were no items for which no one selected option 1 (out of 5), or where response 5 endorsement exceeded response 4 endorsement. We determined that no items needed to be removed.
Purpose
On the 14-item sub-scale, participants on average scored around the midpoint, with a mean of 3.5 and SD of 0.76. There were no items for which no one selected option 1, or where response 5 endorsement exceeded response 4 endorsement. We determined that no items needed to be removed.
Internal consistency
The revised 17-item HMIx (S1 Appendix), based on the scale development studies (described above), was used in all subsequent analyses. The HMIx showed evidence for good internal consistency, as well as moderate to good internal consistency for each of the subscales (Table 5). Visual inspection of scale histograms indicated a normal distribution of scores across the samples.
Factor structure
Overall, the 4-factor structure of the HMIx was supported by the data, with the strongest evidence across exploratory and confirmatory analyses in teens and adults supporting a fit between 3 and 5 factors. All items loaded onto their corresponding dimension of the ACIP framework in the exploratory 4-factor analysis (Tables 6 and 7). The only exceptions were in the case of Awareness items 1 and 2; in the adult sample, item 1 failed to load adequately on any dimension and item 2 loaded weakly with Connection. In the teen sample, these items cross-loaded with the Insight factor (loadings = 0.35 and 0.40, on Insight, respectively; and loadings = 0.38 and 0.32 on Awareness, respectively).
Importantly, the constructs of Awareness and Insight are highly related in the ACIP Framework, and their overlap in the current validation may reflect reduced external validity of these measures as distinct, separable constructs in the general population. Since the ACIP Framework was developed as a model of the components of well-being in terms of training-based plasticity, particularly in the context of meditation and contemplative training, a critical next step is to examine their validity among meditators, and in the context of meditation training (i.e., among meditation-naïve individuals before and after meditation training). These factors are thus expected to be non-orthogonal, and we encourage researchers modelling Awareness and Insight, concurrently, to allow these factors to correlate.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the very simple structure (vss) and Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) supported a 2- or 3-factor solution with a maximum of 0.70 (and 0.74 in adults), and a minimum criterion of 0.09 (0.10 in adults for 2 factors), respectively. Confirmatory parallel factor analysis provided evidence for 5 factors with 3 components (with 2 components in adults). Exploratory factor analysis of a 3-factor structure in teens indicated that Insight items 2 and 3 combined with the Awareness factor, and Insight item 1 combined with the Connection factor. The exploratory analysis of the 3-factor model resulted in a Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.88, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index of 0.06, and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) of -24.13, indicating an acceptable fit. Exploratory analysis of the 4-factor structure indicated a good fit (Table 6), a qualitative improvement on the 3-factor model in exploratory analysis (TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05, BIC = -174.63). See Table 8 for a summary of model fit indices for the exploratory factor analysis.
In adults, exploratory analysis of a 3-factor structure resulted in distinct factors for Connection, Insight, and Purpose, where the Awareness items 1 and 3 loaded with Purpose, item 2 loaded with Connection, and item 4 loaded with Insight (TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, BIC = -269.93). Exploratory analysis of the 4-factor solution in adults yielded similar results (Table 7), except Awareness items 3 and 4 loaded together on a single, distinct factor from the other domains (TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, BIC = -252.02). Since both the 3- and 4-factor fits were acceptable in adults (rather than “good”), we also examined the 5-factor solution in an exploratory factor analysis, which produced a good fit (TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, BIC = -241.79), whereby each factor corresponded to a distinct domain, and Awareness was split into 2 factors (items 1 and 2 loaded together, as did items 3 and 4). We additionally report the 5-factor model in teens in Table 8 for completeness.
Convergent and divergent validity
The overall HMIx scale, as well as each of the subscales, demonstrated good convergent and divergent validity, in that each of the measures were related to measures of overall well-being (Table 9), and to similar constructs in the expected direction(s) (Table 10). The scale(s) also demonstrated good divergent validity, with relationships generally below a threshold of r = 0.60. The one exception with regards to divergent validity was the Purpose scale, which was consistently correlated relatively strongly with measures of similar constructs (r = 0.52 to r = 0.66).
Test-retest reliability
The HMIx scale and subscales showed moderate to good test-retest reliability, except for Insight (Table 11). The test-retest reliability for the insight sub-scale, which ranged from an intra-class correlation (ICC) = 0.43 to 0.52, was consistently lower than the other domains (ICC range = 0.59 to 0.85, average ICC = 0.72, at a 2-week lag).
Constraints on generality
The HMIx was tested only with American participants, and primarily in online samples for the retest reliability studies. It will be important to provide evidence for the scale’s reliability and validity in diverse populations and cultures, among meditators, and from pre- to post-training in meditation.
Conclusions
The Healthy Minds Framework was proposed by Dahl, Wilson-Mendenhall and Davidson [1] to clarify the dimensions of well-being that can be cultivated through deliberate training. In the present work, we developed a brief self-report scale that captures where people stand with regard to these dimensions. The initial evidence for the psychometric adequacy of the scale is encouraging and suggests that the Healthy Minds Index can be successfully employed to measure dimensions of well-being in both adult and teen samples. The validity of the scale as an assessment of characteristics that can change over time is important and will require additional research. In particular, evaluating responsiveness to interventions targeting the domains of well-being putatively assessed by the HMx and the predictive validity of strengthening those domains on future well-being and on the distal outcomes that are mediated by improvements in well-being is an important avenue of future research.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Annelise Schuler, Christine Moberg, Erika Poole, Levi Huang, and Melissa Austin for their contributions to the conceptualization and initial development of the Healthy Minds Index, user experience testing, and data collection for the initial quantitative studies. We would like to thank Chad McGehee, John Dunne, Sharon Lo, and Simon Goldberg for the contributions as expert reviewers of the preliminary set of survey items.
References
- 1. Dahl CJ, Wilson-Mendenhall CD, Davidson RJ. The plasticity of well-being: A training-based framework for the cultivation of human flourishing. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2020 Dec 7 [cited 2020 Dec 9]; Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/04/2014859117 pmid:33288719
- 2. Ryff CD, Keyes CL. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Oct;69(4):719–27. pmid:7473027
- 3. Duffy ME, Twenge JM, Joiner TE. Trends in Mood and Anxiety Symptoms and Suicide-Related Outcomes Among U.S. Undergraduates, 2007–2018: Evidence From Two National Surveys. J Adolesc Health Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. 2019 Nov;65(5):590–8. pmid:31279724
- 4. Vahratian A. Symptoms of Anxiety or Depressive Disorder and Use of Mental Health Care Among Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic—United States, August 2020–February 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Apr 4];70. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e2.htm
- 5. Bernstein A, Hadash Y, Lichtash Y, Tanay G, Shepherd K, Fresco DM. Decentering and Related Constructs: A Critical Review and Metacognitive Processes Model. Perspect Psychol Sci J Assoc Psychol Sci. 2015 Sep;10(5):599–617. pmid:26385999
- 6. Schooler JW, Smallwood J, Christoff K, Handy TC, Reichle ED, Sayette MA. Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jul 1;15(7):319–26. pmid:21684189
- 7. Kesebir P, Gasiorowska A, Goldman R, Hirshberg MJ, Davidson RJ. Emotional Style Questionnaire: A multidimensional measure of healthy emotionality. Psychol Assess. 2019;31(10):1234–46. pmid:31259572
- 8. Killingsworth MA, Gilbert DT. A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind. Science. 2010 Nov 12;330(6006):932–932. pmid:21071660
- 9. Diener E., Seligman M.E. Very happy people. Psychol Sci. 2002;13(1):81–4. pmid:11894851
- 10. Santini Z.I., Koyanagi A., Tyrovolas S., Mason C., Haro J.M. The association between social relationships and depression: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2015;175:53–65. pmid:25594512
- 11. Harrington R., Loffredo D.A. Insight, rumination, and self-reflection as predictors of well-being. J Psychol. 2010;145(1):39–57.
- 12. Ingram R.E. Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a conceptual model. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):156–76. pmid:2181521
- 13. Reker G.T., Peacock E.J., Wong P.T. Meaning and purpose in life and well-being: A life-span perspective. J Gerontol. 1987;42(1):44–9. pmid:3794195
- 14. Ryff C.D. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10–28. pmid:24281296
- 15. Conrad FG, Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Zhang C. Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback. Surv Res Methods. 2017 Apr 10;11(1):45–61. pmid:31745400
- 16.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Internet]. Viennga, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
- 17.
Revelle William. R: A package for personality, psychometric, and psychological research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University;
- 18. Revelle W, Condon DM. Reliability from alpha to omega: a tutorial [Internet]. PsyArXiv; 2018 [cited 2023 Oct 4]. Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/2y3w9/
- 19. Grice JW. Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychol Methods. 2001;6(4):430–50. pmid:11778682
- 20. Grieder S, Steiner MD. Algorithmic jingle jungle: A comparison of implementations of principal axis factoring and promax rotation in R and SPSS. Behav Res Methods. 2022 Feb 1;54(1):54–74. pmid:34100201
- 21. Kaiser HF, Caffrey J. Alpha factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965 Mar 1;30(1):1–14. pmid:14293189
- 22. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–76. pmid:25831962
- 23. Gadermann AM, Schonert-Reichl KA, Zumbo BD. Investigating Validity Evidence of the Satisfaction with Life Scale Adapted for Children. Soc Indic Res. 2010 Apr 1;96(2):229–47.
- 24. Tomyn AJ, Fuller Tyszkiewicz MD, Cummins RA. The Personal Wellbeing Index: Psychometric Equivalence for Adults and School Children. Soc Indic Res. 2013 Feb 1;110(3):913–24.
- 25. Su R, Tay L, Diener E. The development and validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2014 Nov;6(3):251–79. pmid:24919454
- 26. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SLT, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002 Aug;32(6):959–76. pmid:12214795
- 27. Johnson C, Burke C, Brinkman S, Wade T. Development and validation of a multifactor mindfulness scale in youth: The Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences–Adolescents (CHIME-A). Psychol Assess. 2017;29:264–81. pmid:27254018
- 28. Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:822–48. pmid:12703651
- 29. Yamagishi T, Yamagishi M. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv Emot. 1994 Jun 1;18(2):129–66.
- 30. Kern ML, Benson L, Steinberg EA, Steinberg L. The EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Well-Being. Psychol Assess. 2016 May;28(5):586–97. pmid:26302102
- 31. Butler J, Kern ML. The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. Int J Wellbeing [Internet]. 2016 Oct 13 [cited 2023 Mar 1];6(3). Available from: https://www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/526
- 32. Shiota MN, Keltner D, John OP. Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. J Posit Psychol. 2006;1:61–71.
- 33. Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2004;26:41–54.
- 34. Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):348–62. pmid:12916575
- 35. Gullone E, Taffe J. The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (ERQ-CA): a psychometric evaluation. Psychol Assess. 2012 Jun;24(2):409–17. pmid:22023559
- 36. Francis LJ. Implicit religion, explicit religion and purpose in life: an empirical enquiry among 13- to 15-year-old adolescents. Ment Health Relig Cult. 2013 Nov 1;16(9):909–21.
- 37. Steger MF, Frazier P, Oishi S, Kaler M. The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. J Couns Psychol. 2006;53:80–93.
- 38. Costin V, Vignoles VL. Meaning is about mattering: Evaluating coherence, purpose, and existential mattering as precursors of meaning in life judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;118:864–84. pmid:30614732
- 39. Boyle GJ. Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Personal Individ Differ. 1991 Jan 1;12(3):291–4.