Full-text resources of PSJD and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2023 | XXVIII | 4 | 450-466

Article title

Polish adaptation of Social Well-Being Scale (SWB)

Content

Title variants

PL
Polska adaptacja Kwestionariusza Dobrostanu Społecznego (SWB)

Languages of publication

Abstracts

PL
Głównym celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaprezentowanie właściwości psychometrycznych polskiej adaptacji Kwestionariusza Dobrostanu Społecznego (Social Well-Being Scale, SWB; Keyes, 1998). Prezentowane narzędzie jest skalą samoopisową, służącą do pomiaru pięciu wymiarów społecznego dobrostanu: społecznej integracji, społecznej akceptacji, społecznej aktualizacji, społecznej spójności oraz wkładu społecznego. Keyes w swej koncepcji dobrostanu społecznego podkreślał, że życie człowieka obejmuje zadania i wyzwania społeczne, z którymi radzenie sobie może stanowić dla człowieka ważne źródło subiektywnie odczuwanego dobrostanu.
W badaniu wzięły udział 504 osoby (24,2% mężczyzn, 75,6% kobiet) w wieku od 17 do 55 lat (średni wiek: 24,4 lata). Rzetelność poszczególnych skal kwestionariusza, oszacowana za pomocą współczynnika α Cronbacha, zawiera się w przedziale pomiędzy ,70 a ,86. W celu weryfikacji pięcioczynnikowej struktury wymiarów społecznego dobrostanu zastosowana została konfirmacyjna analiza czynnikowa, która wykazała dobre dopasowanie modelu do danych (oparte na wskaźnikach CFI i RMSEA). Dla oszacowania trafności narzędzia zbadano związki dobrostanu społecznego, mierzonego za pomocą SWB, z satysfakcją z życia mierzoną Skalą Satysfakcji z Życia (SWLS; Diener i in., 1985) oraz dobrostanem psychologicznym, mierzonym Kwestionariuszem Dobrostanu Psychologicznego (PWB; Ryff, 1989). Uzyskane rezultaty wskazują na zadowalające właściwości psychometryczne adaptowanego narzędzia, dzięki czemu może ono być stosowane w badaniach naukowych.
EN
The main purpose of this article is to present the psychometric properties of the Polish adaptation of the Social Well-Being Scale (SWB; Keyes, 1998). The presented tool is a self-report scale used to measure five dimensions of social well-being: social integration, social acceptance, social actualization, social coherence and social contribution. In his concept of social well-being, Keyes emphasized that human life includes social tasks and challenges, coping with which can be an important source of subjectively felt well-being.
The study involved 504 people (24.2% men, 75.6% women) aged 17 to 55 years (average age: 24.4 years). The reliability of the individual scales of the questionnaire, estimated using Cronbach’s α coefficient, ranges between .70 and .86. To verify the five-factor structure of social well-being dimensions, confirmatory factor analysis was used, which showed a good fit of the model to the data (based on the CFI and RMSEA indicators). To assess the validity of the tool, the relationships between social well-being, measured by SWB, life satisfaction measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), and psychological well-being, measured by the Psychological Well-Being Questionnaire (PWB; Ryff, 1989), were examined. The obtained results indicate satisfactory psychometric properties of the adapted tool, thanks to which it can be used in scientific research.

Year

Volume

Issue

4

Pages

450-466

Physical description

Dates

published
2023

Contributors

  • Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
author
  • Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie

References

  • Antonovsky, A. (1994). The sense of coherence: A historical and future perspective. In H.I. McCubbin, E.A. Thompson, A.I. Thompson, & J.E. Fromer (Eds.), Sense of coherence and resiliency: stress, coping, and health (pp. 3–40). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 82(2), 191–215.
  • Blanco, A., & Diaz D. (2005). El bienestar social: suconcepto y medicion [Social well-being: Theoretical structure and measurement]. Psicothema, 17(4), 582–589.
  • Bornstein, R.F., Davidson, W.S., Keyes, C.L., & Moore, K.A. (2003). Well-being: Positive development across the life course. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Cicognani, E. (2014). Social Well-Being. In A.C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 6193–6197). New York: Springer.
  • Cicognani, E., Pirini, C., Keyes, C., Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2008). Social participation, sense of community and social well-being: A study on American, Italian and Iranian university students. Social Indicators Research, 89, 97–112.
  • Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11.
  • Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
  • Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
  • Javadi-Pashaki, N., & Darvishpour, A. (2018). What are the predictor variables of social well-being among the medical science students? Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 7(20), 1–5.
  • Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’s comprehensive scale of well-being. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 9, 35–51.
  • Juczyński, Z. (2009). Narzędzia Pomiaru w Promocji i Psychologii Zdrowia. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
  • Karaś, D., & Cieciuch, J. (2017). Polska adaptacja Kwestionariusza Dobrostanu Psychologicznego (Psychological Well-Being Scales) Caroll Ryff. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 20(4), 815–835.
  • Keyes, C.L.M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.
  • Keyes, C.L.M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222.
  • Keyes, C.L.M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539–548.
  • Keyes, C.L.M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2), 95–108.
  • Keyes, C.L.M., & Waterman, M.B. (2003). Dimensions of well-being and mental health in adulthood. In M.H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C.L.M. Keyes, & K.A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being. Positive development across the life course (pp. 477–497). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Keyes, C.L.M., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J.P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., & van Rooy, S. (2008). Evaluation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Setswana-speaking South Africans. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15(3), 181–192.
  • Lages, A., Magalhaes, E., Angunes, C., & Ferreira, C. (2018). Social Well-Being Scales: Validity and Reliability Evidence in the Portuguese Context. Revista Psicologia 32(2), 15–26.
  • Larson, J.S. (1993). The measurement of social well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28, 285–296.
  • Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.
  • Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand.
  • McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1987). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.
  • Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. Sixth edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Better life compendium of OECD wellbeing indicators. Paris: OECD.
  • Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2010). Does place attachment affect social well-being? Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 60, 233–238.
  • Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
  • Ryff, C.D., & Keyes, C.L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.
  • Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24, 783–791.
  • Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C.R. Snyder, & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 3–9). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Trzebińska, E. (2008). Psychologia pozytywna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
  • Waterman, A.S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691.
  • Waterman, A.S., Schwartz, S.J., Zamboanga, B.L., Ravert, R.D., Williams, M.K., Agocha, …, Donnellan, M.B. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61.
  • World Health Organization. (1948). World Health Organization constitution. Basic documents. Geneva: WHO.
  • World Health Organization. (2004). Promoting Mental Health: Concepts, Emerging Evidence, Practice (Summary Report). Geneva: WHO.

Document Type

Publication order reference

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki
55786771

YADDA identifier

bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_34767_PFP_2023_04_03
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.