#The Satisfaction With Life Scale Full Scale Score#
#The Satisfaction With Life Scale How To Implement The#

1 Strongly Disagree 2 DisagreeScoring/Interpretation: Participants are instructed to rate each of the five statements of the SWLS on a 7-point scale (1Strongly disagree, 7Strongly agree).The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a widely used measure of subjective well-being. Please be open and honest in your responding. Using the 1-7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number in the line preceding that item. DIRECTIONS: Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. The Satisfaction with Life Scale By Ed Diener, Ph.D.

ResultsThis article introduces The Temporal Satisfaction With Life Scale (TSWLS), and reports data establishing its reliability and validity as a measure of life satisfaction. The validity of the proration approach was evaluated by examining mean differences, cross group classification by SWLS category, score correlations, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and visual inspection of Bland-Altman plots in a large sample of SCI, TBI, and Burn Injury survivors who were participants in the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Model SystemsвЂ™ National Databases. Adding the mean of the four items to their total) was identified as a potential linking solution that could be easily implemented in clinical or research settings. The SWLS has been used in.Proration (i.e.

SWLS scores ranged from 5 to 35, and the average score difference between directly derived and prorated scores was 0.39 points. A total of 17,897 (SCI nвЂ‰=вЂ‰8566, TBI nвЂ‰=вЂ‰7941, and Burn nвЂ‰=вЂ‰1390) participants were included in this study. Data relevant to reliability and validity of the TSWLS were gathered from three samples, including one.

The Satisfaction With Life Scale How To Implement The

Clear guidance is provided for traumatic injury researchers or clinicians on how to implement the proration scoring approach.Satisfaction with life is a global construct of subjective well-being that has been widely studied across populations and fields, from economics to health and environment. This study provides a valid scoring approach for researchers or clinicians who donвЂ™t want to lose continuity with previously collected data but prefer to switch to the modified four-item version of the SWLS. The SWLS is a straightforward, short questionnaire made up of only 5. ConclusionsThe scale was developed to assess an individualвЂ™s cognitive judgment of their satisfaction with their life as a whole. The correlation between the prorated and directly derived scores was very high ( rвЂ‰=В 0.97) and the ICC value indicated excellent reliability (ICCвЂ‰=вЂ‰0.97).

Recommended dropping the fifth item from scale when used in traumatic injury populations.While dropping the fifth item may be appealing to improve scale functioning and address concerns about its appropriateness in traumatic injury populations, this solution has drawbacks. Based on this, and the fact that some individuals who have suffered a traumatic injury find the fifth item offensive , Amtmann et al. In a large sample of traumatic injury (spinal cord (SCI), traumatic brain (TBI), and burn) populations found that the fifth item functions poorly and reduces the reliability of the scale. In addition, a recent psychometric evaluation of the SWLS by Amtmann et al. They hypothesized that this is because the fifth item is an indirect indicator of satisfaction with life while the first four items are direct indicators (see Table 1 for all items). Though a significant number of studies have provided validity evidence for the SWLS, a review of the scale by Pavot and Diener acknowledged that the fifth item of the scale, вЂњIf I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing,вЂќ has consistently lower factor loadings.

In other words, if only the four-item scale is administered, the fifth item is treated as missing data and imputed using the mean of the observed four item scores. By вЂњprorationвЂќ we mean creating a prorated scale score by adding the average of the four itemsвЂ™ responses to their summary score or total. In this study, we primarily considered вЂњprorationвЂќ as a linking solution. A linking table allows researchers to convert and compare scores on the new modified four-item scale with those on the original five-item scale.A variety of linking methods exist including prediction, scale alignment, and equating. One method to address this concern is to develop a crosswalk or linking table.

This approach also results in all prorated or imputed scores falling within the actual range of the scale, and does not rely on the assumption of a normal distribution of test scores.Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if proration could be used to link scores between the modified and original SWLS in traumatic injury populations so that clinicians and researchers can more easily administer a four-item version of the SWLS to improve psychometric properties and acceptability of the scale in traumatic injury populations.The same dataset was used for this study as was used to conduct the psychometric evaluation of the SWLS by Amtmann et al. The simplicity of proration also means that it can be easily implemented by clinicians and researchers who wish to utilize the four-item SWLS while maintaining the ability to convert scores to the five-item scale metric. , all three of these conditions are met by the SWLS. Based on the results published by Amtmann et al. Graham suggested that this method is reasonable when the following conditions are met: (1) a high proportion of the items in a scale can be used to generate the missing score, (2) item-total correlations are similar, and (3) internal consistency of the scale is high.

Data utilized in this study were collected at one-year post-injury between 1989 (TBI), 1993 (Burn), or 1995 (SCI) and 2014 (SCI, TBI) or 2015 (Burn). SWLS data were collected using a variety of methods across the model systems including in-person interview, phone interview, or mailed questionaries. Only participants with complete data on the SWLS were included in the study. In brief, this study included individuals enrolled in the SCI , TBI , and Burn Model Systems.

Higher scores indicate greater life satisfaction. Total scores are generated by summing the five item scores, with total scores ranging from 5 to 35. MeasuresThe SWLS assesses global quality of life and satisfaction using five items (see Table 1). All participants provided informed consent according to institutional review board approved procedures at each Model System center.

The Satisfaction With Life Scale Full Scale Score

The 5 item full scale score) and the prorated score. Subsequent analyses refer to the directly derived SWLS score (i.e. As discussed above, we chose the proration approach due to its simplicity and because the original scale uses a simple summed score. AnalysesAs a first step we generated prorated SWLS scale scores by averaging the first four items and adding that average score to the sum of the four items.

The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement for the overall sample were also calculated (mean differenceвЂ‰В±вЂ‰1.96вЂ‰Г—вЂ‰Standard Deviation (SD) of the difference). Bland-Altman plots were constructed to visually present the difference between the actual and the prorated scores within each injury group. We examined means of score differences and absolute values of score differences, visual inspection of Bland-Altman plots, cross-group classification by cutoff scores, score correlations, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Within injury groups, mean differences were slightly smaller in SCI than in TBI or Burn (see Table 2). The prorated score is slightly larger on average). Because the mean for item 5 was lower than the other four items, the average score difference calculated by subtracting the prorated score from the directly derived score was slightly negative at в€’вЂ‰0.39 (i.e. Validity analysesIn the overall sample the average SWLS item level means were 3.76 (SD:2.07), 3.80 (SD:2.04), 4.32 (SD:2.07), 4.53 (SD:2.00), and 3.72 (2.18) for items 1 to 5, respectively. Additional characteristics of the study sample can be found in Amtmann et al.