Validity evidence for assessing social-emotional psychological strengths in Colombian adolescents using the SEHS-S

Diana Riaño-Hernández; Iwin Leenen; Angelli Ramírez-Conde; Paula A. Atehortua-Rivera; José A. Piqueras

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314488

Abstract

Background

Covitality is a multidimensional hierarchical construct of core psychological strengths that synergistically promote resilience and well-being and that has been shown to be effective in preventing mental health problems in individuals of different age groups. The Covitality Model consists of 12 first-order latent factors, 4 second-order factors, and one general higher-order Covitality factor.

Purpose

In this study, we aim at obtaining validity evidence for the assessment of Covitality in Colombian adolescents by means of the Social Emotional Health Survey-Secondary (SEHS-S).

Method

A sample of 1461 adolescents responded the SEHS-S and four other instruments that measure well-being and distress. The internal structure of the SEHS-S was examined through confirmatory factor analyses as well as its relations with other variables.

Results

The hierarchical factor structure of the SEHS-S was supported (with goodness-of-fit statistics: χ² = 1727.6, df = 578, p < .001; RMSEA = .037; SRMSR = .044; AGFI = .962; CFI = .940; and NNFI = .935) and configural and metric invariance across gender and age was confirmed; however, the assumption of scalar invariance across males and females and across age groups was violated for some items. Furthermore, we found moderate to high correlations (r = .56 –.68) of Covitality with related constructs.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, the SEHS-S can be considered a valid tool to assess psychological strengths, well-being, and resilience (i.e., Covitality) in Colombian adolescents, though further research is needed to explore the differences in item functioning across gender and age.

Citation: Riaño-Hernández D, Leenen I, Ramírez-Conde A, Atehortua-Rivera PA, Piqueras JA (2025) Validity evidence for assessing social-emotional psychological strengths in Colombian adolescents using the SEHS-S. PLoS ONE 20(2): e0314488. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314488

Editor: Majed Sulaiman Alamri, University of Hafr Al-Batin, SAUDI ARABIA

Received: June 21, 2024; Accepted: November 11, 2024; Published: February 10, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Riaño-Hernández 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: The data from which all results presented in this study are derived are publicly available in different file formats from a project registered at the Open Science Framework with doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/ND7HU.

Funding: This research received funding from the Universidad Católica de Pereira (Project 2019/018) and the Colombian Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (DRH; Project 2019/850). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The 2015 National Mental Health Survey in Colombia highlighted that around 12% of the adolescents showed signs of emotional or mental health symptoms [1] and 2.8% presented high-risk alcohol abuse [2]. Moreover, suicide rates among children and adolescents increased substantially, with minors representing 10.5% of the overall national figure [3]. Yet, Colombia’s public health system lacks the resources to provide adequate psychological support, preventative initiatives have limited reach, and private psychological services are unaffordable for most of the population [4].

Developing strategies that identify and address emotional and behavioral issues early, with a focus on proactive prevention, is crucial [5, 6]. Many authors have studied mental health in children and adolescents and, as such, provided evidence supporting the Bidimensional Model of Mental Health [7–10]. This model, rather than viewing psychological well-being as the absence of mental dysfunction, considers well-being and psychopathology as separate (but connected) dimensions that work together to establish and maintain mental health [11–14]. This insight led to a fundamental shift, not only in the understanding but also in the treatment of mental health problems [15–18]. Interventions should contribute to socio-emotional well-being by fortifying the individual’s strengths and protective factors directly, besides minimizing psychosocial risk factors and symptoms of psychological damage [19–21]. As an example, a study by Martinotti and colleagues offers a comprehensive analysis of alcohol consumption patterns among young people and shows that gaining a deeper understanding of these behavioral patterns and psychological strengths of adolescents is beneficial for developing effective interventions, such as those aimed at preventing binge drinking [22].

In this context emerged the meta-construct of covitality — the theoretical counterpart of comorbidity —, which is defined as “the synergistic effect of positive mental health resulting from the interplay among multiple positive-psychological building blocks (…) [or] more technically as the latent, second-order positive mental health construct accounting for the presence of several co-occurring, first-order positive mental health indicators” [23]. That is, the covitality model does not just rely on individual psychological abilities but rather on developing and combining a large number of strengths and actives, with special emphasis on their interplay and conjunction. These psychological skills are then further consolidated into cognitive schemes that organize and give meaning to life experiences and that gain importance as they foster positive development and turn into protective factors that help to overcome emotional distress [21, 23, 24]. Covitality must be understood as the joint effect and interaction of these cognitive schemes, which lead directly to subjective well-being [25, 26].

Prevention strategies rooted in socio-emotional strengths emphasize the importance of fostering positive mental health through early, school-based interventions [27–29]. Educational institutions provide a natural environment for promoting psychological well-being and programs that cultivate socio-emotional skills are crucial for both prevention and promotion of mental health. Examples include Positive Psychology Interventions, which aim to build skills such as self-regulation, coping, and interpersonal communication [30]. These can be implemented as part of broader school culture programs or targeted individual support, fostering resilience and emotional well-being among students. Additionally, transitional support programs, such as pre- and post-transfer interventions during school transitions, help students adjust to new educational environments by reinforcing a positive mindset and emotional preparedness. Programs like the “Student Strengths Safari” [31] or Growth Psychoeducation Interventions (GPI) [32] focus on developing covitality by enhancing executive functioning and social-emotional skills. These efforts underline the importance of early intervention and a supportive school community in fostering socio-emotional strengths.

Furlong and colleagues developed a self-report measure called the Social Emotional Health Survey (SEHS-S) to assess covitality in adolescents. This measure is based on a 1 → 4 → 12 → 36 model of 36 items organized in 12 subscales that load onto four domains, culminating into one higher-order covitality latent construct (see the Instruments section below for further details). The SEHS-S has gained worldwide interest and validity evidence has been obtained for its use in various cultures and contexts. The original studies by Furlong and colleagues [33–36] with Californian middle and high school students validated the SEHS-S internal structure using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), which subsequently was confirmed by studies in Japan, Korea, China, Lithuania, Turkey, Iran, and Spain [5, 6, 18, 37–41]. Further studies added evidence for measurement invariance across gender, age, and ethnic groups [42, 43] and others showed positive associations of the higher-order covitality construct with subjective well-being, resilience, prosocial behavior, quality of life, and school adjustment, and mental health and negative associations with psychopathology [5, 6, 18, 37, 44, 45]. It is worth mentioning that in 2020, Furlong et al. proposed an updated version of the SEHS-S, with a standardized four-point response scale for all 36 items and minimal changes to enhance readability.

In this paper, we provide validity evidence for using the SEHS-S with Colombian adolescents by studying its internal structure (factorial structure, measurement invariance and reliability) and relations with external variables. Currently in Colombia mental health is still approached from the traditional model, with a focus on negative indicators such as anxiety, and instruments based on individual’s strengths and protective factors are rarely used or even unavailable. In that sense, the SEHS-S can be used to shed a light on the assets and socio-emotional abilities of Colombian adolescents and how they contribute to maintaining their mental health; the needs of these students for an adequate socio-emotional development may be identified more precisely and more efficient intervention strategies may be proposed to increase their well-being and prevent or reduce psychosocial and behavioral problems. As such, this study contributes to the body of validity evidence for the use of the SEHS-S in different countries and cultures.

Materials and methods

Participants

A total of 1,473 students belonging to four public and rural secondary schools from the Colombian department of Risaralda volunteered to participate in this study. These schools were selected by convenience, for their proximity, accessibility, and for being the largest schools in the department. To be eligible for participation, students had to demonstrate basic reading and writing skills and be free from any diagnosed mental or cognitive disabilities. These inclusion and exclusion criteria were verified by both the students’ teachers and the psychologists at the participating schools.

Of the 1,473 students who participated, 12 were excluded due to largely incomplete responses on the instruments (i.e., over 50% of missing responses overall). Note that, following recommendations and common practice regarding sample size in factor analysis [46, 47], the remaining 1,461 participants are sufficient for the planned data analysis.

The students were about evenly distributed between sixth and eleventh grade, all were between 10 and 19 years old (mean: 14.3 years; with 95% between 11 and 17 years), and 44% were women. The participants largely resided in small municipalities with low socioeconomic status and their primary livelihoods revolving around activities such as farming, fishing, and agriculture.

Instruments

Social emotional health survey–Secondary.

The SEHS-S is a self-report questionnaire for adolescents of between 12 and 18 years old. The 36 items are organized in 12 subscales (with each subscale consisting of three items and measuring one positive psychological component), which in turn are grouped in four domains of positive mental health: belief-in-self (with the subscales self-efficacy, self-awareness, and persistence), belief-in-others (school support, family coherence, peer support), emotional competence (emotional regulation, empathy, behavioral self-control), and engaged living (gratitude, zest, optimism). These four domains contribute to the overall construct of covitality. Items are responded using a four-point Likert-type format (1 = “not at all true of me”, 2 = “a little true of me”, 3 = “more or less true of me”, and 4 = “very much true of me”). We used Piqueras’s [18] translation into Spanish of the SEHS-S, with the adjustments by Furlong [33].

Kidscreen–10 Index.

The Kidscreen–10 Index [48] assesses the subjective quality of life — related to health and well-being during the week preceding the application — of children and adolescents between 8 and 17 years. It consists of 10 items, with items 1 and 2 evaluating the child/adolescent’s level of physical activity, condition and energy, items 3 and 4 their current mood and unpleasant emotions, items 5 and 6 their freedom of choice about entertainment and social activities, items 7 and 8 their relationship with parents (or caregivers) and peers, and items 9 and 10 their perception of the own cognitive abilities and academic achievement. Responses are given using a five-point Likert-type format (1 = “never”, 2 = “almost never”, 3 = “sometimes”, 4 = “almost always”, 5 = “always”). According to a recent review, this instrument has been used up to six times previously in the Colombian population with adequate psychometric properties [49].

The MHI-5 mental health inventory.

The MHI-5 [50] consists of five (two positive and three negative) items asking the respondent about how they felt during the last month. The instrument has been translated to multiple languages and can rely on validity studies in many countries, including Brazil [51], Mexico [52], Spain [53], and Peru [54]. Responses are given using a four-level Likert-type format (with 0 = “never”, 1 = “sometimes”, 2 = “many times”, 3 = “always”).

The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Adolescent Short Form (TEIQue–ASF).

The Spanish version of the TEIQue-ASF [55], which was retrieved from http://www.psychometriclab.com, is a simplified version of the abbreviated form of the TEIQue global trait emotional intelligence measure for adults and comprises 30 short statements (two for each of the 15 facets of emotional intelligence) with a seven-point Likert-response format (1 = “never” to 7 = “always”). Ferrando et al. [56] obtained adequate psychometric properties for the instrument in Spanish adolescents.

Pediatric Symptom Checklist-Youth self-report (PSC-17-Y).

The short form of the PSC-17-Y [57] assesses psychosocial problems, overall and in three main psychopathological domains: internalizing (anxiety and depression), externalizing (disruptive behavior) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It consists of 17 items, scored on a three-point Likert scale (0 = “never”, 1 = “sometimes”, 2 = “always”). Piqueras et al. [58] provided validity evidence for the instrument in Spanish adolescents.

Procedure

Cultural relevance, clarity, comprehensibility, and potential ambiguities in the SEHS-S questionnaire by Piqueras [18] were evaluated by three expert judges and through cognitive interviews with five adolescents from the target population; based on their suggestions, slight adjustments to 22 of the 36 items were made. After obtaining informed consent (see the “Ethical approval and informed consent” section below), the instruments and a sociodemographic questionnaire were administered in groups. The data collection took place on selected dates between March 1 and October 17, 2019. Different collaborators visited all four schools on each of the selected dates and administered the instruments to all students from a given grade who were present at school that day and had provided their consent.

Data analysis

We calculated descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, Cronbach’s alpha, and McDonald’s omega) for the scale scores (i.e., sums across all items) of the five instruments. Additionally, for the SEHS-S, we present descriptive statistics (including percentiles) separately for gender (male versus female) and age group (grades 7–8 versus grades 9–10 versus grades 11–12). Given the relatively large number of individuals with at least one missing value, we employed multiple imputation (with 25 imputed data sets) for the missing values based on the fully conditional specification (FCS) method and multivariate regression on the full set of response variables, assuming data are missing at random (MAR) [59]. We used the PROC MI and PROC MIANALYZE procedures of SAS V9.4 [60].

Subsequently, we examined the internal structure of the SEHS-S adopting an approach similar to the one used by previous validation studies (see the Introduction). We ran CFA on the 36 response variables to fit the three-level higher-order factorial structure of the SEHS-S. To evaluate goodness of fit, we report the chi-square statistic (with associated degrees of freedom), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), Bentler’s comparative fit index (CFI), and the Bentler-Bonett nonnormed fit index (NNFI). With the chi-square test being highly sensitive to sample size, we consider values below 0.05 for RMSEA and SRMSR and values above 0.95 for AGFI, CFI, and NNFI excellent fit, while values between 0.05 and 0.08 for RMSEA and SRMSR and between 0.90 and 0.95 for CFI and NNFI are still acceptable [61].

The invariance assumptions for the obtained factor model were tested across gender and age groups (as defined above), considering three levels of invariance: configural invariance (which is confirmed if the above model fits well in each subpopulation), metric invariance (which holds if, additional to configural invariance, the factor loadings are equal across subpopulations), and scalar invariance (which means that, additional to metric invariance, variable intercepts are equal across subpopulations). Following Cheung and Rensvold [62], metric and scalar invariance were tested by comparing a restricted model (equal loadings and/or intercepts) with the more general model (unrestricted loadings and/or intercepts) through the CFI of both models, with a difference (ΔCFI) of .01 or less indicating that the null hypothesis of invariance can be maintained. All factor models were fitted by the SAS V9.4 PROC CALIS procedure [60] specifying full-information maximum likelihood estimation and Levenberg-Marquardt optimization. Note that this software is known for its robustness and ability to handle large datasets with missing values.

Ethical approval and informed consent

This study was reviewed and formally approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad Católica de Pereira, Colombia, on November 19, 2018. The research procedures were conducted in strict accordance with the guidelines and principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participant schools sent detailed information about the project to parents, asking permission for their adolescent children to participate in the study. Both parents and adolescents provided written informed consent before completing the questionnaires. Furthermore, all data were analyzed anonymously and the study was designed to ensure the safety and well-being of all subjects involved.

Inclusivity in global research

Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, and reliability statistics through Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega (with their respective standard errors) for the sum scores on each of the five instruments applied to the 1,461 participants. Given the higher-order factor structure for the SEHS-S, we also calculated McDonald’s hierarchical omega [63]: ⍵_H = .923 (with a standard error of .025). Furthermore, the table reports the intercorrelations (with 95%-confidence intervals) among scales and the percentage of nonresponse in each scale. Whereas the overall nonresponse rate is low (considering all scales, 1.0% of the item responses were missing), the percentage of individuals who did not respond to at least one item is relatively high, especially in the longer instruments (viz., 22.7% for the TEIQue-ASF, the highest among the instruments used). As explained in the Data Analysis section, missing responses were imputed under the missing-at-random assumption. Given this assumption and the relatively low nonresponse rate at the item level, their impact on the results and conclusions is expected to be minimal. For the SEHS‑S, Table 2 presents percentile scores, separated by gender and age groups.

Download:

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, percentage of nonresponse, intercorrelations, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for the five scales applied to the sample of 1461 adolescents.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314488.t001

Download:

Table 2. Percentile scores for the SEHS-S, overall and by gender and age groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314488.t002

Factorial structure and invariance

Standardized loadings for Furlong et al.’s [33] three-order factor model, estimated by a CFA on the sample SEHS-S data, are shown in Fig 1. The model had a good to excellent fit to the data, with χ² = 1727.6 (df = 578, p < .001), RMSEA = .037, SRMSR = .044, AGFI = .962, CFI = .940, and NNFI = .935.

Download:

Fig 1. Standardized factor loadings from a confirmatory factor analysis on the SEHS-S (Furlong et al.’s [33] three-order factor model).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314488.g001

Next, we tested the model for invariance. First, we checked invariance across gender. Configural invariance was confirmed by separately fitting the model to males and females and obtaining adequate fit indices in both subsamples (males: χ² = 1217.8, RMSEA = .037, SRMSR = .047, AGFI = .953, CFI = .933, NNFI = .927; females: χ² = 1134.3, RMSEA = .038, SRMSR = .046, AGFI = .949, CFI = .942, NNFI = .937). As to metric invariance, a model with the factor loadings being restricted to be equal for males and females did not fit substantially worse than a more general model that allowed for different factor loadings in both groups (ΔCFI = .001; see Table 3 for details); consequently, we maintained the null hypothesis of metric invariance. Finally, with respect to scalar invariance, we did find a better fit for the model that allowed for different intercepts across genders as compared to a model that restricts these intercepts to be equal (ΔCFI = .018). To identify the items with significantly different intercepts for males and females, we tested the intercept parameters one-by-one in a stepwise procedure to obtain a stable division of the items in two groups: one with intercepts that were significantly different for males and females and the other where this is not the case. Table 4 shows the results of this procedure. Refitting the model with these partially constrained intercepts yielded an almost equal fit as compared to the model with unconstrained intercepts (ΔCFI = .001, between Model G2 and Model G4 in Table 3).

Download:

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit indices for models used to test invariance across gender and age groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314488.t003

Download:

Table 4. Estimated intercepts for the 36 items in the higher-order factor model for the SEHS-S, by gender and age groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314488.t004

The SEHS‑S items are scored on a scale from 1 to 4 points; therefore, the intercepts indicate the expected score for an individual with average latent factor scores. In Table 3, we read for instance that on item 17 (“I have a friend of my age who talks with me about my problems”), a female is expected to have a score that is almost 0.5 points higher than a male who has identical scores on the Covitality constructs and subconstructs; in other words, a high score on that item is not as indicative of high covitality in females as it is in males. Likewise, in item 5 (“I understand my moods and feelings”) a male is expected to have a score of almost 0.3 points higher than a female with the same level of self-efficacy, belief-in-self, and covitality; that is, a high score on this item is more indicative of high covitality in females that in males. Interestingly, when considering all items in the scale and summing all items into the overall test score, it turns out that the expected difference between males and females with the same scores on the latent factors largely cancels out and is almost negligible as females are expected to score only 0.74 points (on a scale that ranges from 36 to 144) higher as compared to males of the same covitality level. This means that, for a fair comparison of males and females (e.g., in Table 2) test scores for females should be lowered (or scores for males increased) with 0.74 points.

We further checked invariance across age groups. Again, configural invariance (with adequate fit in the three age groups; grades 6–7: χ² = 1054.6, RMSEA = .036, SRMSR = .046, AGFI = .945, CFI = .938, NNFI = .932; grades 8–9: χ² = 1078.1, RMSEA = .049, SRMSR = .059, AGFI = .912, CFI = .899, NNFI = .890; grades 10–11: χ² = 1,070.2, RMSEA = .042, SRMSR = .061, AGFI = .943, CFI = .929, NNFI = .923) as well as metric invariance hold (with ΔCFI = .002 between a model where factor loadings are restricted to be equal across age groups versus a model where this is not the case, see Table 3), whereas the assumption of scalar invariance is violated: A model with unconstrained intercepts fits substantially better than a model with the intercepts being constrained to be equal across age groups (ΔCFI = .014). Identifying the subset of items for which a constrained intercept leads to a significantly worse fit (using a similar stepwise procedure as the one described above), yields the results shown in the last columns of Table 4. The model with partially restricted intercepts does not fit substantially worse than the model with free intercepts (ΔCFI = .002, between Model A2 and Model A4 in Table 3). The interpretation follows the same lines as in the case of gender non-invariance for the intercepts. Item 8 (“I try to respond all questions that are asked us during the lessons”) shows the largest difference between the groups: Adolescents of grades 6–7 are expected to score about .30 points higher than adolescents of grades 10–11 who have the same scores on the latent Covitality construct and subconstructs. Conversely, for item 17, older adolescents are expected to score about .26 points higher as compared to younger adolescents of the same covitality level: Having a friend with whom you can talk about your problems is less indicative of high covitality in older adolescents. Summing all the intercepts shows that the overall test score is only slightly biased, with adolescents in grades 10–11 having an advantage of 1.61 points over adolescents from grades 6–7 and an advantage of 1.05 points over adolescents of grades 8–9.

Gender and age differences

As explained in the previous section, differences in Covitality between males and females or among adolescents of different age can be examined through the overall test score, after taking into account the above mentioned differences due to lack of scalar invariance. A more direct comparison (using the CFA results) is based on the estimated latent scores on the Covitality super-factor. With respect to sex, we found that, on average, men have a slightly higher latent score than women (of 0.044, on a scale with a standard deviation of 0.39 for women and 0.33 for men; p = .047). As to age groups, the average latent Covitality score for adolescents in grades 6–7 is 0.130 units higher than for those in grades 8–9 and 0.149 higher as compared to adolescents of grades 10–11 (p < .01 for both differences; the standard deviations for the three groups are 0.38, 0.37, and 0.33, respectively).

Discussion

Covitality refers to the positive aspects of mental health, such as well-being, positive emotions, and social support [20, 22–24]. In this study, we provide a validation of the SEHS-S, the most wide-spread measure of covitality, in a population of Colombian adolescents aged 10 to 19 years. The results provide validity evidence based on the SEHS-S internal structure (including factor structure, measurement invariance, and reliability) as well as on its relations with external variables.

Regarding the descriptive statistics, we found that the mean in our sample was slightly above the mean reported in Furlong et al.’s [34] recent study. However, further research is required to interpret this difference because, in the first place, cross-cultural measurement invariance should be established (e.g., equivalence with respect to the instrument used in both populations) and then, possibly, this difference may be validly attributed to differences in the living conditions between Californian and Colombian adolescents. Furthermore, Furlong et al. [33] consider SEHS-S scores between percentiles 16 and 84 as indicative of normal covitality, whereas scores below the 15th percentile and above the 85th percentile are regarded as “weak” and “strong” covitality, respectively. Translated to the population in this study, these percentiles correspond to overall sum scores of 100 and 132, respectively, which may be relevant cut-offs when the SEHS-S is used for educational or clinical purposes in Colombia.

The CFAs in this study support the a priori hierarchical factor structure of the super-construct Covitality, where Covitality is as a third-order factor, composed of 4 second-order factors and 12 first-order factors measured by 36 items. As such, our results are in line with the original Covitality model, which has been corroborated in a wide variety of other cultures and contexts [18, 33, 34, 41, 43]. This suggests that configural invariance of the Covitality model across cultures is plausible.

Furthermore, this study examined measurement invariance across different subpopulations, specifically across boys and girls and across age groups (based on the participants’ school grade). We found that, whereas the hierarchical factor structure fits well in both male and female subpopulations as well as in three different age groups, and both configural and metric invariance was confirmed, differences in the intercepts for different items pointed to a lack of scalar invariance. This lack of scalar invariance means that two individuals from different genders and/or from different age groups, although they have equal scores on the latent covitality factors, have different expected scores for at least some of the items. Examples include item 17 (“I have a friend my age who talks to me about my problems”, which is more common in girls and in older adolescents), item 5 (“I understand my moods and feelings”, more common in boys) and item 8 (“I try to answer all the questions asked in class”, more common in younger students). It is important to take this lack of invariance into account as it implies that the same response is more indicative of covitality in some subpopulations than in others (e.g., item 17 points to a higher level of covitality if endorsed by a younger boy as compared to an older girl). In this respect, our results are notably different from most previous work with the SEHS-S, where scalar invariance as a function of gender and age received support [18, 33, 34, 43]. Overall, our findings suggest that while the SEHS-S can be validly used to measure social and emotional health in Colombian adolescents, there are (small) differences in response patterns between boys and girls and adolescents of different age that are worthwhile to be further investigated. In general, it is important to test for measurement invariance in different subpopulations when using self-report measures of social and emotional health and to be aware of potential biases in the interpretation of results.

With respect to the reliability of the SEHS-S, the values for Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega we obtained in this study were high (above .90), which means that the SEHS-S is a reliable measure in this population of Colombian adolescents. Also within subgroups defined by sex and age the values for Cronbach’s alpha were high (between .89 and .93). These results are fully in line with previous studies, which report reliability indices in the range of .89 – .96 [5, 6, 18, 23, 33–36, 38].

Further validity evidence is provided by the moderate to strong associations of the SEHS-S with other variables that measure theoretically related constructs. In particular, our results show that covitality has positive and strong correlations with health-related quality of life and trait emotional intelligence, moderate positive correlations with well-being, and moderate negative correlations with psychopathological symptoms. These correlations are consistent with results from previous studies which report associations with similar measures of mental health and well-being [5, 6, 18, 33, 37, 41, 44, 45, 65].

Finally, our study explored differences on the overall Covitality construct both between males and females and among individuals of different age. Regarding gender, we found slightly higher social and emotional skills in boys, a result that is consistent with previous studies; in effect, whenever gender differences come across, it turns out that males are more likely to have high scores on global Covitality [5, 18, 23, 38]. Regarding age, our results reveal a trend of lower Covitality scores in older individuals. Although we have not found any other studies that have compared the level of global Covitality as a function of age or grade, this result is in line with the general decrease —reported for both boys and girls, although more pronounced in girls — of subjective well-being in adolescents with increasing age, starting at 11–12 years [66]. Some authors attribute this decline in well-being to the onset of adolescence, which is characterized by significant physical, cognitive, emotional, and social changes, as well as by an increase in risky situations that lead to greater emotional, psychological, and social vulnerability [67]. These gender and age differences are relevant for the development and implementation of interventions aimed at improving social and emotional health, both in general and in this population of Colombian adolescents. However, further research, especially with a longitudinal design, is necessary to examine how covitality evolves over time, potentially differing between boys and girls.

Limitations

Our study faces the following limitations: In the first place, we used a convenience sample of adolescents from four specific schools in a particular area in Colombia, characterized by its rather low social economic status. Moreover, data collection took place in 2019, before the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, any generalizations of the obtained results, whether in space (to other regions inside or outside Colombia) or time (e.g., post-COVID), are highly speculative.

Furthermore, the self-report nature of the instruments poses a potential risk of bias, as adolescents may struggle to accurately assess their own emotional states or may be reluctant to share their feelings. Studies that correlate adolescents’ responses on the SEHS-S with qualitative data from in-depth interviews may shed a light on the extent to which participants’ self-report measures on this instrument overestimate their actual social-emotional strengths. Conversely, Corneille and Gawronski, in a recent paper, highlight several advantages of self-report measures and argue for their superiority over implicit measures [68].

Finally, our analytic approach is fully quantitative and focuses exclusively on validity evidence based on internal structure and relations with other variables. Future research may include other sources of validity evidence, such as those based on response processes and consequences, and employ qualitative techniques, such as cognitive interviews or focus groups [69].

Conclusions

Overall, the findings of this study support the use of the SEHS-S as a tool for promoting positive mental health and assessing social and emotional skills in adolescents. The hierarchical structure of the Covitality super-construct provides a comprehensive framework for understanding these skills. Although future research should examine gender and age differences, the results from the CFAs, high reliability indices, and correlations with similar constructs provide ample evidence for the SEHS-S as a valid tool for assessing social and emotional skills in Colombian adolescents. This can help develop targeted interventions to promote Covitality in this population.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314488.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable support received from the educational institutions Héctor Ángel Arcila, Instituto Santuario INSA, Nuestra Señora de la Presentación, and Institución Educativa Francisco José de Caldas, as well as from the Secretaria de Educación of the department of Risaralda, in facilitating the data collection process.

References

1. Gómez Restrepo C, de Santacruz C, Rodríguez MN, Rodríguez V, Tamayo Martínez N, Matallana D, et al. Encuesta Nacional de Salud Mental Colombia 2015: Protocolo del estudio. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2016; 45(S1): 2–8. pmid:27993252
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. de la Espriella Guerrero RA, Rodriguez , Rincón CJ, Cabrera Morales D, Pérez Rodríguez SJ, Gómez Restrepo C. Consumo de alcohol en la población colombiana: Encuesta Nacional de Salud Mental 2015. Rev Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2016; 45(S1):76–88.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Instituto Colombiano de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses. FORENSIS 2018: Datos para la vida. 2018. Available from: https://www.medicinalegal.gov.co/documents/20143/386932/Forensis+2018.pdf
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Rojas Bernal LÁ, Castaño Pérez GA, Restrepo Bernal DP. Salud mental en Colombia. Un análisis crítico. Rev CES Med. 2018; 32: 129–140.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Ito A, Smith D, You S, Shimoda Y, Furlong MJ. Validation and utility of the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for Japanese students. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2015; 19: 243–252.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Telef BB, Furlong MJ. Adaptation and validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey–Secondary into Turkish culture. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2017; 5: 255–265.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Antaramian S, Huebner ES, Hills KJ, Valois RF. A dual‐factor model of mental health: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of youth functioning. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2010; 80: 462–472. pmid:20950287
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Moore SA, Dowdy E, Nylund-Gibson K, Furlong MJ. A latent transition analysis of the longitudinal stability of dual-factor mental health in adolescence. J Sch Psychol. 2019; 73: 56–73. pmid:30961881
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Renshaw TL, Bolognino SJ. Psychometrics of the psychological wellbeing and distress screener: A brief measure of youth’s bidimensional mental health. Assess Eff Interv. 2017; 42: 160–167.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Suldo SM, Thalji A, Ferron J. Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early adolescents’ subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health status yielded from a dual factor model. J Posit Psychol. 2011; 6: 17–30.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Greenspoon PJ, Saklofske DH. Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Soc Indic Res. 2001; 54: 81–108.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Keyes CLM. Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005; 73: 539–548. pmid:15982151
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Keyes CLM. Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complimentary strategy for improving national mental health. Am Psychol. 2007; 62: 95–108. pmid:17324035
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Suldo SM, Shaffer EJ. Looking beyond psychopathology: The dual-factor model of mental health in youth. School Psych Rev. 2008; 37: 52–68.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Kelly RM, Hills KJ, Huebner ES, McQuillin SD. The longitudinal stability and dynamics of group membership in the dual-factor model of mental health: Psychosocial predictors of mental health. Can J Sch Psychol. 2012; 27: 337–355.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Nickerson AB. The use and importance of strength-based assessment. Sch Psychol Forum Res Pract. 2007; 2: 15–25.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Scales PC. Reducing risks and building developmental assets: Essential actions for promoting adolescent health. J Sch Health. 1999; 69: 113–119. pmid:10332647
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Piqueras JA, Rodriguez-Jimenez T, Marzo JC, Rivera-Riquelme M, Martinez-Gonzalez AE, Falco R, et al. Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary (SEHS-S): A universal screening measure of social-emotional strengths for Spanish-speaking adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16: 4982. pmid:31817874
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Moore SA, Widales-Benitez O, Carnazzo KW, Kim EK, Moffa K, Dowdy E. Conducting universal complete mental health screening via student self-report. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2015; 19: 253–267.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Furlong M, Dowdy E, Carnazzo K, Bovery B. Covitality: Fostering the building blocks of complete mental health. NASP Communiqué. 2014; 42(8): 28–29.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Renshaw TL, Furlong MJ, Dowdy E, Rebelez J, Smith DC, O’Malley MD, et al. Covitality: A synergistic conception of adolescents’ mental health. In: Furlong MJ, Gilman R, Huebner ES, editors. Handbook of positive psychology in schools. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2014. pp. 12–32.
22. Martinotti G, Lupi M, Carlucci L, Santacroce R, Cinosi E, Acciavatti T, et al. Alcohol drinking patterns in young people: A survey-based study. J Health Psychol. 2017; 22: 1889–1896. pmid:27624615
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Furlong MJ, You S, Renshaw TL, Smith DC, O’Malley MD. Preliminary development and validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey for secondary school students. Soc Indic Res. 2014; 117: 1011–1032.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Tomlinson RM, Keyfitz L, Rawana JS, Lumley MN. Unique contributions of positive schemas for understanding child and adolescent life satisfaction and happiness. J Happiness Stud. 2017; 18: 1255–1274.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Jones CN, You S, Furlong MJ. A preliminary examination of covitality as integrated well-being in college students. Soc Indic Res. 2013; 111(2): 511–526.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Lenzi M, Dougherty D, Furlong MJ, Sharkey J, Dowdy E. The configuration protective model: Factors associated with adolescent behavioral and emotional problems. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2015; 38: 49–59.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Beatson R, Quach J, Canterford L, Farrow P, Bagnall C, Hockey P, et al. Improving primary to secondary school transitions: A systematic review of school-based interventions to prepare and support student social-emotional and educational outcomes. Educ Res Rev. 2023;40:100553.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Donaldson C, Moore G, Hawkins J. A systematic review of school transition interventions to improve mental health and wellbeing outcomes in children and young people. School Ment Health. 2023; 15: 19–35.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Morote R, Las Hayas C, Izco-Basurko I, Anyan F, Fullaondo A, Donisi V, et al. Co-creation and regional adaptation of a resilience-based universal whole-school program in five European regions. Eur Educ Res J. 2022; 21: 138–164.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Huebner ES, Furlong MJ, Allen KA, Vella-Brodrick D, Suldo SM, Gilman R. A selected introduction to the science and practice of positive psychology in schools. In: Allen KA, Furlong MJ, Vella-Brodrick D, Suldo SM, editors, Handbook of positive psychology in schools: Supporting process and practice (3rd ed). New York: Routledge; 2022. pp. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003013778-2
31. Naples LH, Tuckwiller ED. Taking students on a strengths safari: A multidimensional pilot study of school-based wellbeing for young neurodiverse children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 6947. pmid:34209569
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Fang M, Zhang L, Pan D, Xie J. Evaluating a psychoeducation program to foster Chinese primary school students’ covitality. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 8703. pmid:34444452
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Furlong MJ, Dowdy E, Nylund-Gibson K, Wagle R, Carter D, Hinton T. Enhancement and standardization of a universal social-emotional health measure for students’ psychological strengths. J Well-Being Assess. 2020; 4: 245–267.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Furlong MJ, Paz JL, Carter D, Dowdy E, Nylund-Gibson K. Extending validation of a social emotional health measure for middle school students. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2023; 27: 92–103. pmid:35345478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. You S, Furlong MJ, Dowdy E, Renshaw TL, Smith DC, O’Malley MD. Further validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey for high school students. Appl Res Qual Life. 2014; 9: 997–1015.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. You S, Furlong MJ, Felix E, O’Malley M. Validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey for five sociocultural groups: Multigroup invariance and latent mean analyses. Psychol Sch. 2015; 52: 349–362.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Iida J, Ito A, Aoyama I, Sugimoto K, Endo H, Furlong MJ. Development of Japanese version of Social Emotional Health Survey. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2019; 90: 32–41.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Lee S, You S, Furlong MJ. Validation of the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for Korean students. Child Indic Res. 2016; 9: 73–92.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Pan YG, Zhang DJ, Chen WF, Liu GZ. Preliminary validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey in Chinese secondary school students. Chinese J Clin Psychol. 2016; 24: 680–683.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Petrulyte A, Guogieneb V, Rimiene V. Adolescent social emotional health, empathy, and self-esteem: Preliminary validation of the Lithuanian version of the SEHS-S questionnaire. Psychol Russ. 2019; 12(4): 196–209.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Taheri A, Pourshahriari M, Abdollahi A, Hosseinian S, Allen KA. Psychometric assessment of the Persian translation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey–Secondary (SEHS S) with female adolescents. Int J Ment Health. 2021; 50: 16–32.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Carnazzo K, Dowdy E, Furlong MJ, Quirk MP. An evaluation of the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for use with students with learning disabilities. Psychol Sch. 2019; 56: 433–446.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Hinton T, Dowdy E, Furlong MJ, Nylund-Gibson K, Carter D, Wagle R. Examining the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for use with Latinx youth. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2021; 39: 242–246.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Falcó R, Marzo JC, Piqueras JA. Covitality as a protective factor against internalized and externalized problems in Spanish adolescents. Psicol Conductual. 2020; 28: 393–413.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Pennell C, Boman P, Mergler A. Covitality constructs as predictors of psychological well-being and depression for secondary school students. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2015; 19: 276–285.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW. Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013; 73: 913–934. pmid:25705052
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. White M. Sample size in quantitative instrument validation studies: A systematic review of articles published in Scopus, 2021. Heliyon. 2022; 8: e12223. pmid:36568672
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Rajmil L, Herdman M, Auquier P, Bruil J et al. Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: A short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19: 1487–1500. pmid:20668950
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Befus EG, Helseth S, Mølland E, Westergren T, Fegran L, Haraldstad K. Use of KIDSCREEN health-related quality of life instruments in the general population of children and adolescents: A scoping review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21: 6. pmid:36670428
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE, Barsky AJ, Weinstein M. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991; 29, 169–176. pmid:1994148
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Damásio BF, Borsa JC, Koller SH. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Five-Item Mental Health Index (MHI-5). Psicol Reflex Crit. 2014; 27: 323–330.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Lara MA, Navarro C, Mondragón L, Rubí NA, Lara MC. Validez y confiabilidad del MHI-5 para evaluar la depresión de mujeres en primer nivel de atención. Salud Ment (Mex). 2002; 25(6): 13–20. Available from: https://bit.ly/2BkEIKi
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Rivera-Riquelme M, Piqueras JA, Cuijpers P. The Revised Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) as an ultra-brief screening measure of bidimensional mental health in children and adolescents. Psychiatry Res. 2019; 274: 247–253. pmid:30818147
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Merino-Soto C, Cuba-Canales Y, Rojas-Aquiño L. Inventario de Salud Mental– 5 (MHI-5) en adolescentes peruanos: Estudio preliminar de validación. Rev Salud Publica (Bogota). 2019; 21: 439–444. pmid:36753267
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Petrides KV, Sangareau Y, Furnham A, Frederickson N. Trait emotional intelligence and children’s peer relations at school. Soc Dev. 2007; 15: 537–547.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Ferrando M, Prieto MD, Almeida LS, Ferrándiz C, Bermejo R, López-Pina JA, et al. Trait emotional intelligence and academic performance: Controlling for the effects of IQ, personality, and self-concept. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2011; 29: 150–159.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Gardner W, Murphy M, Childs G, Kelleher K, Pagano M, Jellinek M, et al. The PSC-17: A brief pediatric symptom checklist with psychosocial problem subscales. A report from PROS and ASPN. Ambulatory Child Health. 1999; 5: 225–236.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Piqueras JA, Vidal-Arenas V, Falcó R, Moreno-Amador B, Marzo JC, Holcomb JM, et al. Short Form of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist-Youth Self-Report (PSC-17-Y): Spanish validation study. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(12): e31127. pmid:34855614
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika. 1976; 63: 581–592.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT® 14.1 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2015.
61. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford; 2015.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002; 9: 233–255.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω_H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005; 70: 123–133.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Kelley K, Pornprasertmanit S. Confidence intervals for population reliability coefficients: Evaluation of methods, recommendations, and software for composite measures. Psychol Methods. 2016; 21: 69–92. pmid:26962759
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. Telef BB, Furlong MJ. Social and emotional psychological factors associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of Turkish and California adolescents. Cross Cult Res. 2017; 51: 491–520.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
66. Aymerich M, Cladellas R, Castelló A, Casas F, Cunill M. The evolution of life satisfaction throughout childhood and adolescence: Differences in young people’s evaluations according to age and gender. Child Indic Res. 2021; 14: 2347–2369.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
67. Solmi M, Radua J, Olivola M, Croce E, Soardo L, de Pablo GS, et al. Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: Large-scale meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies. Mol Psychiatry. 2022; 27: 281–295. pmid:34079068
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
68. Corneille O, Gawronski B. Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nat Rev Psychol. 2024.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
69. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

[ref1] 1. Gómez Restrepo C, de Santacruz C, Rodríguez MN, Rodríguez V, Tamayo Martínez N, Matallana D, et al. Encuesta Nacional de Salud Mental Colombia 2015: Protocolo del estudio. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2016; 45(S1): 2–8. pmid:27993252
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. de la Espriella Guerrero RA, Rodriguez , Rincón CJ, Cabrera Morales D, Pérez Rodríguez SJ, Gómez Restrepo C. Consumo de alcohol en la población colombiana: Encuesta Nacional de Salud Mental 2015. Rev Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2016; 45(S1):76–88.
View Article
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Instituto Colombiano de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses. FORENSIS 2018: Datos para la vida. 2018. Available from: https://www.medicinalegal.gov.co/documents/20143/386932/Forensis+2018.pdf
View Article
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Rojas Bernal LÁ, Castaño Pérez GA, Restrepo Bernal DP. Salud mental en Colombia. Un análisis crítico. Rev CES Med. 2018; 32: 129–140.
View Article
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Ito A, Smith D, You S, Shimoda Y, Furlong MJ. Validation and utility of the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for Japanese students. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2015; 19: 243–252.
View Article
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Telef BB, Furlong MJ. Adaptation and validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey–Secondary into Turkish culture. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2017; 5: 255–265.
View Article
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Antaramian S, Huebner ES, Hills KJ, Valois RF. A dual‐factor model of mental health: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of youth functioning. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2010; 80: 462–472. pmid:20950287
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Moore SA, Dowdy E, Nylund-Gibson K, Furlong MJ. A latent transition analysis of the longitudinal stability of dual-factor mental health in adolescence. J Sch Psychol. 2019; 73: 56–73. pmid:30961881
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] PubMed/NCBI

[27] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Renshaw TL, Bolognino SJ. Psychometrics of the psychological wellbeing and distress screener: A brief measure of youth’s bidimensional mental health. Assess Eff Interv. 2017; 42: 160–167.
View Article
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Suldo SM, Thalji A, Ferron J. Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early adolescents’ subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health status yielded from a dual factor model. J Posit Psychol. 2011; 6: 17–30.
View Article
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Greenspoon PJ, Saklofske DH. Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Soc Indic Res. 2001; 54: 81–108.
View Article
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Keyes CLM. Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005; 73: 539–548. pmid:15982151
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Keyes CLM. Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complimentary strategy for improving national mental health. Am Psychol. 2007; 62: 95–108. pmid:17324035
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Suldo SM, Shaffer EJ. Looking beyond psychopathology: The dual-factor model of mental health in youth. School Psych Rev. 2008; 37: 52–68.
View Article
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Kelly RM, Hills KJ, Huebner ES, McQuillin SD. The longitudinal stability and dynamics of group membership in the dual-factor model of mental health: Psychosocial predictors of mental health. Can J Sch Psychol. 2012; 27: 337–355.
View Article
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Nickerson AB. The use and importance of strength-based assessment. Sch Psychol Forum Res Pract. 2007; 2: 15–25.
View Article
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Scales PC. Reducing risks and building developmental assets: Essential actions for promoting adolescent health. J Sch Health. 1999; 69: 113–119. pmid:10332647
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Piqueras JA, Rodriguez-Jimenez T, Marzo JC, Rivera-Riquelme M, Martinez-Gonzalez AE, Falco R, et al. Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary (SEHS-S): A universal screening measure of social-emotional strengths for Spanish-speaking adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16: 4982. pmid:31817874
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Moore SA, Widales-Benitez O, Carnazzo KW, Kim EK, Moffa K, Dowdy E. Conducting universal complete mental health screening via student self-report. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2015; 19: 253–267.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Furlong M, Dowdy E, Carnazzo K, Bovery B. Covitality: Fostering the building blocks of complete mental health. NASP Communiqué. 2014; 42(8): 28–29.
View Article
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Renshaw TL, Furlong MJ, Dowdy E, Rebelez J, Smith DC, O’Malley MD, et al. Covitality: A synergistic conception of adolescents’ mental health. In: Furlong MJ, Gilman R, Huebner ES, editors. Handbook of positive psychology in schools. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2014. pp. 12–32.

[ref22] 22. Martinotti G, Lupi M, Carlucci L, Santacroce R, Cinosi E, Acciavatti T, et al. Alcohol drinking patterns in young people: A survey-based study. J Health Psychol. 2017; 22: 1889–1896. pmid:27624615
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Furlong MJ, You S, Renshaw TL, Smith DC, O’Malley MD. Preliminary development and validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey for secondary school students. Soc Indic Res. 2014; 117: 1011–1032.
View Article
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Tomlinson RM, Keyfitz L, Rawana JS, Lumley MN. Unique contributions of positive schemas for understanding child and adolescent life satisfaction and happiness. J Happiness Stud. 2017; 18: 1255–1274.
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Jones CN, You S, Furlong MJ. A preliminary examination of covitality as integrated well-being in college students. Soc Indic Res. 2013; 111(2): 511–526.
View Article
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Lenzi M, Dougherty D, Furlong MJ, Sharkey J, Dowdy E. The configuration protective model: Factors associated with adolescent behavioral and emotional problems. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2015; 38: 49–59.
View Article
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Beatson R, Quach J, Canterford L, Farrow P, Bagnall C, Hockey P, et al. Improving primary to secondary school transitions: A systematic review of school-based interventions to prepare and support student social-emotional and educational outcomes. Educ Res Rev. 2023;40:100553.
View Article
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Donaldson C, Moore G, Hawkins J. A systematic review of school transition interventions to improve mental health and wellbeing outcomes in children and young people. School Ment Health. 2023; 15: 19–35.
View Article
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Morote R, Las Hayas C, Izco-Basurko I, Anyan F, Fullaondo A, Donisi V, et al. Co-creation and regional adaptation of a resilience-based universal whole-school program in five European regions. Eur Educ Res J. 2022; 21: 138–164.
View Article
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Huebner ES, Furlong MJ, Allen KA, Vella-Brodrick D, Suldo SM, Gilman R. A selected introduction to the science and practice of positive psychology in schools. In: Allen KA, Furlong MJ, Vella-Brodrick D, Suldo SM, editors, Handbook of positive psychology in schools: Supporting process and practice (3rd ed). New York: Routledge; 2022. pp. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003013778-2

[ref31] 31. Naples LH, Tuckwiller ED. Taking students on a strengths safari: A multidimensional pilot study of school-based wellbeing for young neurodiverse children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 6947. pmid:34209569
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Fang M, Zhang L, Pan D, Xie J. Evaluating a psychoeducation program to foster Chinese primary school students’ covitality. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 8703. pmid:34444452
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Furlong MJ, Dowdy E, Nylund-Gibson K, Wagle R, Carter D, Hinton T. Enhancement and standardization of a universal social-emotional health measure for students’ psychological strengths. J Well-Being Assess. 2020; 4: 245–267.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Furlong MJ, Paz JL, Carter D, Dowdy E, Nylund-Gibson K. Extending validation of a social emotional health measure for middle school students. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2023; 27: 92–103. pmid:35345478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. You S, Furlong MJ, Dowdy E, Renshaw TL, Smith DC, O’Malley MD. Further validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey for high school students. Appl Res Qual Life. 2014; 9: 997–1015.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. You S, Furlong MJ, Felix E, O’Malley M. Validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey for five sociocultural groups: Multigroup invariance and latent mean analyses. Psychol Sch. 2015; 52: 349–362.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Iida J, Ito A, Aoyama I, Sugimoto K, Endo H, Furlong MJ. Development of Japanese version of Social Emotional Health Survey. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2019; 90: 32–41.
View Article
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Lee S, You S, Furlong MJ. Validation of the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for Korean students. Child Indic Res. 2016; 9: 73–92.
View Article
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Pan YG, Zhang DJ, Chen WF, Liu GZ. Preliminary validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey in Chinese secondary school students. Chinese J Clin Psychol. 2016; 24: 680–683.
View Article
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Petrulyte A, Guogieneb V, Rimiene V. Adolescent social emotional health, empathy, and self-esteem: Preliminary validation of the Lithuanian version of the SEHS-S questionnaire. Psychol Russ. 2019; 12(4): 196–209.
View Article
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Taheri A, Pourshahriari M, Abdollahi A, Hosseinian S, Allen KA. Psychometric assessment of the Persian translation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey–Secondary (SEHS S) with female adolescents. Int J Ment Health. 2021; 50: 16–32.
View Article
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Carnazzo K, Dowdy E, Furlong MJ, Quirk MP. An evaluation of the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for use with students with learning disabilities. Psychol Sch. 2019; 56: 433–446.
View Article
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Hinton T, Dowdy E, Furlong MJ, Nylund-Gibson K, Carter D, Wagle R. Examining the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary for use with Latinx youth. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2021; 39: 242–246.
View Article
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Falcó R, Marzo JC, Piqueras JA. Covitality as a protective factor against internalized and externalized problems in Spanish adolescents. Psicol Conductual. 2020; 28: 393–413.
View Article
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Pennell C, Boman P, Mergler A. Covitality constructs as predictors of psychological well-being and depression for secondary school students. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2015; 19: 276–285.
View Article
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW. Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013; 73: 913–934. pmid:25705052
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] PubMed/NCBI

[146] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. White M. Sample size in quantitative instrument validation studies: A systematic review of articles published in Scopus, 2021. Heliyon. 2022; 8: e12223. pmid:36568672
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Rajmil L, Herdman M, Auquier P, Bruil J et al. Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: A short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19: 1487–1500. pmid:20668950
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] PubMed/NCBI

[154] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Befus EG, Helseth S, Mølland E, Westergren T, Fegran L, Haraldstad K. Use of KIDSCREEN health-related quality of life instruments in the general population of children and adolescents: A scoping review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21: 6. pmid:36670428
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] PubMed/NCBI

[158] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE, Barsky AJ, Weinstein M. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991; 29, 169–176. pmid:1994148
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] PubMed/NCBI

[162] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Damásio BF, Borsa JC, Koller SH. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Five-Item Mental Health Index (MHI-5). Psicol Reflex Crit. 2014; 27: 323–330.
View Article
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Lara MA, Navarro C, Mondragón L, Rubí NA, Lara MC. Validez y confiabilidad del MHI-5 para evaluar la depresión de mujeres en primer nivel de atención. Salud Ment (Mex). 2002; 25(6): 13–20. Available from: https://bit.ly/2BkEIKi
View Article
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Rivera-Riquelme M, Piqueras JA, Cuijpers P. The Revised Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) as an ultra-brief screening measure of bidimensional mental health in children and adolescents. Psychiatry Res. 2019; 274: 247–253. pmid:30818147
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] PubMed/NCBI

[172] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Merino-Soto C, Cuba-Canales Y, Rojas-Aquiño L. Inventario de Salud Mental– 5 (MHI-5) en adolescentes peruanos: Estudio preliminar de validación. Rev Salud Publica (Bogota). 2019; 21: 439–444. pmid:36753267
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Petrides KV, Sangareau Y, Furnham A, Frederickson N. Trait emotional intelligence and children’s peer relations at school. Soc Dev. 2007; 15: 537–547.
View Article
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Ferrando M, Prieto MD, Almeida LS, Ferrándiz C, Bermejo R, López-Pina JA, et al. Trait emotional intelligence and academic performance: Controlling for the effects of IQ, personality, and self-concept. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2011; 29: 150–159.
View Article
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Gardner W, Murphy M, Childs G, Kelleher K, Pagano M, Jellinek M, et al. The PSC-17: A brief pediatric symptom checklist with psychosocial problem subscales. A report from PROS and ASPN. Ambulatory Child Health. 1999; 5: 225–236.
View Article
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Piqueras JA, Vidal-Arenas V, Falcó R, Moreno-Amador B, Marzo JC, Holcomb JM, et al. Short Form of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist-Youth Self-Report (PSC-17-Y): Spanish validation study. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(12): e31127. pmid:34855614
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] PubMed/NCBI

[189] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika. 1976; 63: 581–592.
View Article
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT® 14.1 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2015.

[ref61] 61. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford; 2015.
View Article
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002; 9: 233–255.
View Article
Google Scholar

[198] View Article

[199] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω_H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005; 70: 123–133.
View Article
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Kelley K, Pornprasertmanit S. Confidence intervals for population reliability coefficients: Evaluation of methods, recommendations, and software for composite measures. Psychol Methods. 2016; 21: 69–92. pmid:26962759
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[204] View Article

[205] PubMed/NCBI

[206] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Telef BB, Furlong MJ. Social and emotional psychological factors associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of Turkish and California adolescents. Cross Cult Res. 2017; 51: 491–520.
View Article
Google Scholar

[208] View Article

[209] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Aymerich M, Cladellas R, Castelló A, Casas F, Cunill M. The evolution of life satisfaction throughout childhood and adolescence: Differences in young people’s evaluations according to age and gender. Child Indic Res. 2021; 14: 2347–2369.
View Article
Google Scholar

[211] View Article

[212] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Solmi M, Radua J, Olivola M, Croce E, Soardo L, de Pablo GS, et al. Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: Large-scale meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies. Mol Psychiatry. 2022; 27: 281–295. pmid:34079068
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[214] View Article

[215] PubMed/NCBI

[216] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Corneille O, Gawronski B. Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nat Rev Psychol. 2024.
View Article
Google Scholar

[218] View Article

[219] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

Figures

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participants

Instruments

Social emotional health survey–Secondary.

Kidscreen–10 Index.

The MHI-5 mental health inventory.

The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Adolescent Short Form (TEIQue–ASF).

Pediatric Symptom Checklist-Youth self-report (PSC-17-Y).

Procedure

Data analysis

Ethical approval and informed consent

Inclusivity in global research

Results

Descriptive statistics

Factorial structure and invariance

Gender and age differences

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global research.

Acknowledgments

References