IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0043887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of a Measure of Subjective Well-Being: An Abbreviated Version of the Day Reconstruction Method

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Miret
  • Francisco Félix Caballero
  • Arvind Mathur
  • Nirmala Naidoo
  • Paul Kowal
  • José Luis Ayuso-Mateos
  • Somnath Chatterji

Abstract

Background: The study of well-being is becoming a priority in social sciences. The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) was developed to assess affective states. The aim of the present study was to validate an abbreviated version of the DRM designed for administration in population studies, and to assess its test-retest properties. Principal Findings: 1560 adults from Jodhpur (India) were interviewed using an abbreviated version of the DRM, and a week later they were re-interviewed using the original long version of the DRM, after which the abbreviated version of the DRM was compared with the original version. A regression model considering interaction terms was employed to analyse the impact of sociodemographic characteristics on net affect. Test-retest reliability was assessed, and found to be moderate. Positive affect showed more test-retest reliability than negative affect, while net affect had more temporal stability than U-index. The affect of sets A, B, and C, taken together, had a moderate predictive ability compared with the affect obtained using the full version of the DRM: AUC = 0.67 for positive affect; 0.66 for net affect; 0.61 for negative affect; and 0.60 for the U-index. Household income, gender, and setting all had a significant impact on net affect. Conclusions: Net affect and positive affect showed moderate temporal stability, whereas negative affect and the U-index showed fair temporal stability. Evaluating the affective state using the abbreviated version of the DRM provides a profile of the population similar to that of the full version. The results provide considerable support for using the short version of the DRM as an instrument to measure subjective well-being in large population surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Miret & Francisco Félix Caballero & Arvind Mathur & Nirmala Naidoo & Paul Kowal & José Luis Ayuso-Mateos & Somnath Chatterji, 2012. "Validation of a Measure of Subjective Well-Being: An Abbreviated Version of the Day Reconstruction Method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-8, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0043887
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043887
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043887&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0043887?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krueger, Alan B. & Schkade, David A., 2008. "The reliability of subjective well-being measures," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1833-1845, August.
    2. Samantha Dockray & Nina Grant & Arthur Stone & Daniel Kahneman & Jane Wardle & Andrew Steptoe, 2010. "A Comparison of Affect Ratings Obtained with Ecological Momentary Assessment and the Day Reconstruction Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 269-283, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francisco Caballero & Marta Miret & Beatriz Olaya & Jaime Perales & Ruy López-Ridaura & Josep Haro & Somnath Chatterji & José Ayuso-Mateos, 2014. "Evaluation of Affect in Mexico and Spain: Psychometric Properties and Usefulness of an Abbreviated Version of the Day Reconstruction Method," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 915-935, August.
    2. Andrew L. Kun & Raffaella Sadun & Orit Shaer & Thomaz Teodorovicz, 2022. "How does working from home during Covid-19 affect what managers do? Evidence from time-use studies," CEP Discussion Papers dp1844, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Binder, Martin & Buenstorf, Guido, 2018. "Smile or die: Can subjective well-being increase survival in the face of substantive health impairments?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 209-227.
    4. Diane Pelly, 2022. "Worker well-being and quit intentions: is measuring job satisfaction enough?," Working Papers 202204, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    5. Ed Diener & Louis Tay, 2014. "Review of the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 255-267, March.
    6. Jiyao Sun & Nan Zhang & Bram Vanhoutte & Jian Wang & Tarani Chandola, 2021. "Subjective Wellbeing in Rural China: How Social Environments Influence the Diurnal Rhythms of Affect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-28, April.
    7. Blanca Mellor-Marsá & Marta Miret & Francisco J. Abad & Somnath Chatterji & Beatriz Olaya & Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk & Seppo Koskinen & Matilde Leonardi & Josep Maria Haro & José Luis Ayuso-Mateos & Fra, 2016. "Measurement Invariance of the Day Reconstruction Method: Results from the COURAGE in Europe Project," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1769-1787, October.
    8. Christopher Christodoulou & Stefan Schneider & Arthur Stone, 2014. "Validation of a Brief Yesterday Measure of Hedonic Well-Being and Daily Activities: Comparison with the Day Reconstruction Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 907-917, February.
    9. Lianne P. Vries & Bart M. L. Baselmans & Meike Bartels, 2021. "Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment of Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 2361-2408, June.
    10. Louis Tay & David Chan & Ed Diener, 2014. "The Metrics of Societal Happiness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 577-600, June.
    11. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Fabian T C Schmidt & Clemens M Lechner & Daniel Danner, 2020. "New wine in an old bottle? A facet-level perspective on the added value of Grit over BFI–2 Conscientiousness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-25, February.
    13. van Hoorn, André, 2018. "Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-65.
    14. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.
    15. Martin Binder, 2016. "Revisiting Cheerful Jane and Miserable John: the impact of income, good health, social contacts and education declines with increasing subjective well-being," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 544-553, May.
    16. Heywood, John S. & Siebert, W. Stanley & Wei, Xiangdong, 2009. "Job Satisfaction and the Labor Market Institutions in Urban China," IZA Discussion Papers 4254, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Robert P. Inman, 2008. "Federalism's Values and the Value of Federalism," NBER Working Papers 13735, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2017. "Home Sweet Home?: Macroeconomic Conditions in Home Countries and the Well-Being of Migrants," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(2), pages 351-373.
    19. Tsegay Gebrekidan Tekleselassie, 2017. "Subjective Wellbeing and Institutions: The Case of Rural Ethiopia," Working Papers 016, Policy Studies Institute.
    20. Scott Adams & Benjamin Artz, 2015. "Health Insurance, Familial Responsibilities and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 143-153, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0043887. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.