IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v15y2014i4p915-935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Affect in Mexico and Spain: Psychometric Properties and Usefulness of an Abbreviated Version of the Day Reconstruction Method

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Caballero
  • Marta Miret
  • Beatriz Olaya
  • Jaime Perales
  • Ruy López-Ridaura
  • Josep Haro
  • Somnath Chatterji
  • José Ayuso-Mateos

Abstract

The aims of the present study were to assess the psychometric properties of the Spanish-language version of the abbreviated Day Reconstruction Method (DRM), and to investigate differences in affective experience in Mexico and Spain. A total of 2,629 adults from Mexico and 4,583 from Spain were interviewed. Information was obtained using an abbreviated version of the DRM, which had been translated into Spanish. Reliability, validity, and the structure of affect were assessed and compared between countries. The diurnal variation of affect, the changes in affect along the life span, time use, and the relationship between affect and socio-demographic characteristics were also analysed. Adequate psychometric properties for the Spanish-language version of the abbreviated DRM were found in both the Mexican and the Spanish samples, and affect tended to improve along the life span in both countries. However, net affect did not have the same distribution function (Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic = 0.25, p > 0.001) in both countries, being higher in Spain. Moreover, both samples showed opposite patterns in the diurnal variation of affect. The results showed that the Spanish-language version of the DRM is a feasible and valid method to measure affect, its diurnal rhythms, and time use in large-scale surveys. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:15:y:2014:i:4:p:915-935
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9456-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10902-013-9456-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-013-9456-5?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. José Luis Ayuso-Mateos & Marta Miret & Francisco Félix Caballero & Beatriz Olaya & Josep Maria Haro & Paul Kowal & Somnath Chatterji, 2013. "Multi-Country Evaluation of Affective Experience: Validation of an Abbreviated Version of the Day Reconstruction Method in Seven Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-8, April.
    2. Michael Daly & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon & Peter Doran & Malcolm MacLachlan, 2009. "Naturalistic monitoring of the affect-heart rate relationship: A Day Reconstruction Study," Working Papers 200901, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. 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.
    4. Smith, Dylan M. & Brown, Stephanie L. & Ubel, Peter A., 2008. "Are subjective well-being measures any better than decision utility measures?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 85-91, January.
    5. Angus Deaton, 2008. "Income, Health, and Well-Being around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 53-72, Spring.
    6. Joop J. Hox & Cora J. M. Maas & Matthieu J. S. Brinkhuis, 2010. "The effect of estimation method and sample size in multilevel structural equation modeling," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 64(2), pages 157-170, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Arthur A. Stone & Joseph E. Schwartz & Joan E. Broderick & Angus Deaton, 2010. "A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States," Working Papers 1230, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Health and Wellbeing..
    9. Wilkinson, Richard G. & Pickett, Kate E., 2007. "The problems of relative deprivation: Why some societies do better than others," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(9), pages 1965-1978, November.
    10. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2008. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," Working Papers 1061, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    12. Leonard Feldt, 1969. "A test of the hypothesis that cronbach's alpha or kuder-richardson coefficent twenty is the same for two tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 34(3), pages 363-373, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Gregor Gonza & Anže Burger, 2017. "Subjective Well-Being During the 2008 Economic Crisis: Identification of Mediating and Moderating Factors," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1763-1797, December.
    3. Gabriela Flores & Michael Ingenhaag & Jürgen Maurer, 2013. "Healthy, wealthy, wise, and happy? An exploratory analysis of the interplay between aging and subjective well-being in low and middle income countries," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 13.13, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    4. Darío Moreno-Agostino & Alejandro de la Torre-Luque & Javier de la Fuente & Elvira Lara & Natalia Martín-María & Maria Victoria Moneta & Ivet Bayés & Beatriz Olaya & Josep Maria Haro & Marta Miret & J, 2021. "Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing Trajectories in Older Adults: A Growth Mixture Modeling Approach," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 709-726, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Flores, Gabriela & Ingenhaag, Michael & Maurer, Jürgen, 2015. "An anatomy of old-age disability: Time use, affect and experienced utility," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 150-160.
    8. Deaton, Angus, 2018. "What do self-reports of wellbeing say about life-cycle theory and policy?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 18-25.
    9. Beja, Edsel Jr., 2016. "Subjective Well-Being Approach to Valuing Unemployment: Direct and Indirect Cost," MPRA Paper 101080, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Bahadır Dursun & Resul Cesur, 2016. "Transforming lives: the impact of compulsory schooling on hope and happiness," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 911-956, July.
    11. Yasar, Rusen, 2018. "Subjective well-being and income: A compromise between Easterlin paradox and its critiques," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-23.
    12. Michael Daly & Liam Delaney & Orla Doyle & Nick Fitzpatrick & Christine O'Farrelly, 2014. "Can Early Intervention Policies Improve Well-being? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial," Working Papers 201415, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    13. Edsel Beja Jr., 2013. "Subjective Well-Being Approach to the Valuation of International Development: Evidence for the Millennium Development Goals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 141-159, March.
    14. Cordero, José Manuel & Salinas-Jiménez, Javier & Salinas-Jiménez, M Mar, 2017. "Exploring factors affecting the level of happiness across countries: A conditional robust nonparametric frontier analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 663-672.
    15. Yasar, Rusen, 2017. "Subjective well-being and income: A compromise between Easterlin paradox and its critiques," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-113, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. 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.
    17. Marc Fleurbaey, 2009. "Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social Welfare," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1029-1075, December.
    18. Stutzer, Alois & Frey, Bruno S., 2012. "Recent Developments in the Economics of Happiness: A Selective Overview," IZA Discussion Papers 7078, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Thomas Carver & Arthur Grimes, 2019. "Income or Consumption: Which Better Predicts Subjective Well‐Being?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(S1), pages 256-280, November.
    20. Arie Kapteyn & Jinkook Lee & Caroline Tassot & Hana Vonkova & Gema Zamarro, 2015. "Dimensions of Subjective Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 625-660, September.

    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:spr:jhappi:v:15:y:2014:i:4:p:915-935. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.