The Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF) is a widely used scale aimed at assessing three components of well-being: emotional, social, and psychological. The factor structure of the MHC-SF has been under debate over the past 10 years. The main goal of the present study was to examine the dimensionality of the MHC-SF. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), bifactor CFA, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and bifactor ESEM were used to evaluate competing models of the MHC-SF structure. The total sample consisted of 7,521 participants from four countries: The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Serbia. The results indicated that the three CFA factors were very highly related, and that a bifactor ESEM model provided the best fit to the data in all samples. Our findings provided support for the bifactor structure of well-being with a strong general factor explaining most of the variance in the items.
BentlerP. M. (2006). EQS 6 Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
3.
BentlerP. M. (2009). Alpha, dimension-free, and model-based internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika, 74, 137-143.
4.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. London, England: Guilford Press.
5.
BrowneM. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111-150.
6.
CoffeyJ. K.Wray-LakeL.MashekD.BranandB. (2016). A multi-study examination of well-being theory in college and community samples. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 187-211.
7.
CumminsR. A. (2013). Measuring happiness and subjective well-being. In DavidS. A.BoniwellI.AyersA. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 185-200). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
8.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.
9.
de BruinG. P.du PlessisG. A. (2015). Bifactor analysis of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF). Psychological Reports, 116, 438-446.
10.
de CarvalhoJ. S.PereiraN. S.PintoA. M.MarôcoJ. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form: A study of Portuguese speaking children/youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 2141-2154.
DillonW. R.KumarA.MulaniN. (1987). Offending estimates in covariance structure analysis: Comments on the causes of and solutions to Heywood cases. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 126-135.
13.
DisabatoD. J.GoodmanF. R.KashdanT. B.ShortJ. L.JardenA. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28, 471-482.
14.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
15.
GallagherM. W.LopezS. J.PreacherK. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of wellbeing. Journal of Personality, 77, 1025-1050.
16.
GerbingD. W.AndersonJ. C. (1987). Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternate respecifications. Psychometrika, 52, 99-111.
17.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576.
18.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New York, NY: Pearson.
19.
HidesL.QuinnC.StoyanovS.CockshawW.MitchellT.KavanaghD. J. (2016). Is the mental wellbeing of young Australians best represented by a single, multidimensional or bifactor model?Psychiatry Research, 241, 1-7.
20.
HolzingerK. J.SwinefordF. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41-54.
21.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
22.
HuppertF. A.SoT. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110, 837-861.
23.
JoshanlooM.JoseP. E.KielpikowskiM. (2017). The value of exploratory structural equation modeling in identifying factor overlap in the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF): A study with a New Zealand Sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1061-1074. doi:10.1007/s10902-016-9767-4
24.
JoshanlooM.JovanovićV. (2017). The factor structure of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF) in Serbia: An evaluation using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Mental Health, 26, 510-515.
25.
JoshanlooM.LamersS. M. (2016). Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: Contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 8-12.
26.
JovanovićV. (2015). Structural validity of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form: The bifactor model of emotional, social and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 154-159.
27.
KaraśD.CieciuchJ. (2016, May) Wymiarowość dobrostanu w modelu Keyesa—Czy warto wyróżniać czynniki specyficzne poza czynnikiem ogólnym? [Multidimensionality of well-being—Should we distinguish specific factors beside the general factor?] II Konferencja Psychologii Pozytywnej [2nd Conference of Positive Psychology], Poznań, Poland.
28.
KaraśD.CieciuchJ.KeyesC. L. (2014). The Polish adaptation of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 104-109.
29.
KashdanT. B.Biswas-DienerR.KingL. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 219-233.
30.
KeyesC. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121-140.
31.
KeyesC. L. M.WissingM.PotgieterJ.TemaneM.KrugerA.van RooyS. (2008). Evaluation of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF) in Setswana-speaking South Africans. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15, 181-192.
32.
KlineP. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34.
LamersS. M. A.WesterhofG. J.BohlmeijerE. T.ten KloosterP. M.KeyesC. L. M. (2011). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 99-110.
35.
LongoY.CoyneI.JosephS.GustavssonP. (2016). Support for a general factor of well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 68-72.
36.
MatosA. P.AndreR. S.CherpeS.RodriguesD.FigueiraC.PintoA. M. (2010). Preliminary psychometric study of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form—For youth, in a sample of Portuguese adolescents. Psychologica, 53, 131-156.
37.
MorinA. J.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116-139.
38.
MusekJ. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the big one in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213-1233.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
41.
ReiseS. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696.
42.
ReiseS. P.CookK. F.MooreT. M. (2015). Evaluating the impact of multidimensionality on unidimensional item response theory model parameters. In ReiseS. P.RevickiD. A. (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 13-40). New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
RevelleW. (2015). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 1.5.8). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
44.
RevelleW.WiltJ. (2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 493-504.
45.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137-150.
46.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.
RushtonJ. P.BonsT. A.HurY.-M. (2008). The genetics and evolution of the general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1173-1185.
49.
RyffC. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
50.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514.
51.
SeligmanM. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A new understanding of happiness and well-being—And how to achieve them. London, England: Nicholas Brealey.
Ten BergeJ. M.SočanG. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613-625.
54.
ZinbargR. E.RevelleW.YovelI.LiW. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωh: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123-133.
