IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v75y2020i5p1010-1017..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement Equivalence of the Subjective Well-Being Scale Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Older Adults

Author

Listed:
  • Giyeon KimPhD
  • Sylvia Y WangMA
  • Martin SellbomPhD
  • Shevaun NeupertPhD

Abstract

ObjectivesThe present study examined differences by race/ethnicity in the measurement equivalence of the Subjective Well-Being Scale (SWBS) among older adults in the United States.MethodDrawn from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), adults aged 65 years and older from three racial/ethnic groups (n = 1,200) were selected for the analyses from a total of 8,245: 400 non-Hispanic Whites, 400 African Americans, and 400 Hispanics/Latinos. We tested measurement equivalence of the SWBS that is categorized into three domains: positive and negative affect (four items), self-realization (four items), and self-efficacy and resilience (three items). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test measurement invariance.ResultsAfter adjusting for age, gender, and education, the underlying construct of the SWBS was noninvariant across three racial/ethnic elderly groups.DiscussionFindings suggest that the comparison of latent means (especially for positive and negative affect and self-realization) across racial/ethnic groups is highly questionable. The SWBS should be used with extreme caution when it is applied to diverse racial/ethnic elderly groups for comparison purposes. Implications are discussed in cultural and methodological contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Giyeon KimPhD & Sylvia Y WangMA & Martin SellbomPhD & Shevaun NeupertPhD, 2020. "Measurement Equivalence of the Subjective Well-Being Scale Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Older Adults," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 75(5), pages 1010-1017.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:5:p:1010-1017.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gby110
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:5:p:1010-1017.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.