IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v17y2016i5d10.1007_s10902-015-9669-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement Invariance of the Day Reconstruction Method: Results from the COURAGE in Europe Project

Author

Listed:
  • Blanca Mellor-Marsá

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental. CIBERSAM
    Hospital Universitario de la Princesa)

  • Marta Miret

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental. CIBERSAM
    Hospital Universitario de la Princesa)

  • Francisco J. Abad

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)

  • Somnath Chatterji

    (World Health Organization)

  • Beatriz Olaya

    (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental. CIBERSAM
    Universitat de Barcelona)

  • Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk

    (Jagiellonian University Medical College)

  • Seppo Koskinen

    (National Institute for Health and Welfare)

  • Matilde Leonardi

    (Neurological Institute Carlo Besta)

  • Josep Maria Haro

    (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental. CIBERSAM
    Universitat de Barcelona)

  • José Luis Ayuso-Mateos

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental. CIBERSAM
    Hospital Universitario de la Princesa)

  • Francisco Félix Caballero

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental. CIBERSAM
    Hospital Universitario de la Princesa)

Abstract

Given the growing interest in the study of subjective well-being as a measure of social progress, instruments that produce valid and reliable scores and that can be used within and across countries are needed. The aim of the present study was to analyze the measurement equivalence of the Day Reconstruction Method in its brief version, using nationally representative samples from Finland, Poland, and Spain obtained within the COURAGE in Europe project. The goodness-of-fit of a two-correlated-factors model and the reliability of the scores obtained were assessed. Cross-country invariance was tested employing a multiple group confirmatory factor analysis, through sequential constraint imposition. In each country, measurement invariance was tested across time frames (morning, afternoon and evening) and days of the week (weekday and weekend). The results found support for the hypothesis of a two-correlated-factors (positive and negative affect) structure; the reliability of the positive, the negative and the net affect scores showed appropriate values. A high equivalence across the three national samples was found: all items except one showed strong measurement invariance indicating that respondents from Finland, Poland, and Spain attribute the same meaning to the latent construct under study, and the levels of the underlying items are equal in all three countries. Similar results were found for the measurement equivalence across time frames and days of the week. Our findings support the assumption of comparability across the different samples considered; in general, higher positive affect and lower negative affect were found in Finland, in the evening and at the weekend.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:17:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-015-9669-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-015-9669-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-015-9669-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-015-9669-x?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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Devins, G.M. & Beiser, M. & Dion, R. & Pelletier, L.G. & Edwards, R.G., 1997. "Cross-cultural measurements of psychological well-being: The psychometric equivalence of Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Laotian translations of the Affect Balance Scale," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(5), pages 794-799.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    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.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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," POID Working Papers 029, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Beja, Edsel Jr., 2016. "Subjective Well-Being Approach to Valuing Unemployment: Direct and Indirect Cost," MPRA Paper 101080, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    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. 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.
    17. Cordero, Jose M. & Salinas-Jiménez, Javier & Salinas-Jiménez, Mª Mar, 2014. "Assessing the level of happiness across countries: A robust frontier approach," MPRA Paper 57784, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Burhan, Nik Ahmad Sufian & Mohamad, Mohd Rosli & Kurniawan, Yohan & Sidek, Abdul Halim, 2014. "National Intelligence, Basic Human Needs, and Their Effect on Economic Growth," MPRA Paper 77267, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:17:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-015-9669-x. 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.