Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- longitudinal invariance (2)
- Consistency of interest (1)
- Ed Diener (1)
- Grit (1)
- Invariance testing (1)
- Perseverance of effort (1)
- Psychometric properties (1)
- Strengths Use Scale (1)
- Task performance (1)
- academic self-efficacy (1)
Institute
In memory of Edward Diener: reflections on his career, contributions and the science of happiness
(2021)
Prof. Edward (Ed) Diener (1946-2021), a pioneer in positive psychology, passed away on the 27th of April 2021 at his home in Salt Lake City, Utah (Salt Lake City Tribune, 2021). As one of the most influential psychologists of the discipline, Ed Diener pushed the boundaries of our understanding of positive psychological functioning, subjective well-being, and happiness (Layous, 2020). As one of the Top 200 most cited researchers across all disciplines and fields, he will be most remembered for founding the scientific study of subjective well-being (SWB) and happiness (Bakshi, 2019). Diener developed the concept of subjective well-being by exploring the factors that influence people's life satisfaction (Diener et al., 2017a). He studied the individual causes of subjective well-being, such as close social relationships, income, meaning and purpose, personality, and societal causes, such as economic development, low corruption and crime, and a healthy environment (Diener et al., 2018). His research has discovered both universal and culture-specific causes and consequences of SWB and influenced governmental policy (Oishi et al., 1999). In respect of his memory, the purpose of this paper is threefold: (a) to reflect upon his career journey, (b) to celebrate his significant contributions to the discipline, and (c) to provide personal reflections of those who worked closely with him over the past 50 years.
The strengths use scale: psychometric properties, longitudinal invariance and criterion validity
(2021)
Strengths use is an essential personal resource to consider when designing higher-educational programs and interventions. Strengths use is associated with positive outcomes for both the student (e.g., study engagement) and the university (e.g., academic throughput/performance). The Strengths Use Scale (SUS) has become a popular psychometric instrument to measure strengths use in educational settings, yet its use has been subjected to limited psychometric scrutiny outside of the U.S. Further, its longitudinal stability has not yet been established. Given the wide use of this instrument, the goals of this study were to investigate (a) longitudinal factorial validity and the internal consistency of the scale, (b) its equivalence over time, and (c) criterion validity through its relationship with study engagement over time. Data were gathered at two-time points, 3 months apart, from a sample of students in the Netherlands (n = 360). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analyses showed support for a two-factor model for overall strengths use, comprised of Affinity for Strengths and Strengths Use Behaviors. The SUS demonstrated high levels of internal consistency at both the lower- and upper bound limits at both time points. Further, strict longitudinal measurement invariance was established, which confirmed the instrument's temporal stability. Finally, criterion validity was established through relating strengths use to study engagement at different time stamps. These findings support the use of the SUS in practice to measure strengths use and to track the effectiveness of strengths use interventions within the higher education sector.
Despite its popularity in practice, the Grit-O Scale has shown inconsistent factorial structures and differing levels of internal consistency in samples outside the USA. The validity of the Grit-O Scale in different contexts is, therefore, questionable. As such, the purpose of this paper was to determine whether the Grit-O Scale could be used as a valid and reliable measure to compare grit across different nations. Specifically, the aim was to investigate the factorial validity, reliability, and concurrent validity of the Grit-O Scale and to investigate measurement invariance across three national cohorts (Europe, the USA, and Hong Kong). Data were gathered from 1888 respondents stemming from one USA- (n = 471), two Hong Kong- (n = 361) and four European (n = 1056) universities. A series of traditional CFA and less restrictive ESEM models were estimated and systematically compared to determine the best factorial form of the Grit-O Scale. The results showed that a bifactor ESEM model, with one general factor of overall grit and two specific factors (consistency of interest and perseverance of effort), fitted the data best, showed strong measurement invariance across the three samples, and showed itself to be a reliable measure. Furthermore, concurrent validity was established by showing that the three grit factors were directly and positively related to task performance. Meaningful latent comparisons between the three cultural cohorts could therefore be made. The results imply that cross-national comparisons of grit may only be problematic when traditional CFA approaches are favoured. In contrast, ESEM modelling approaches may compensate for cross-national differences in understanding grit and control for differences in the interpretation of the scale’s items. Therefore, the bifactor ESEM approach may be more appropriate for cross-cultural and cross-national comparison studies, as it allows for these differences to be meaningfully captured, modelled, and controlled for.
Academic self-efficacy (ASE) refers to a student’s global belief in his/her ability to master the various academic challenges at university and is an essential antecedent of wellbeing and performance. The five-item General Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (GASE) showed promise as a short and concise measure for overall ASE. However, of its validity and reliability outside of Scandinavia is limited. Therefore, this paper aimed to investigate the psychometric properties, longitudinal invariance, and criterion validity of the GASE within a sample of university students (Time 1: n = 1056 & Time 2: n = 592) in the USA and Western Europe. The results showed that a unidimensional factorial model of overall ASE fitted the data well was reliable and invariant across time. Further, criterion validity was established by finding a positive relationship with task performance at different time stamps. Therefore, the GASE can be used as a valid and reliable measure for general ASE.