Download >> Download Ryff psychological well being pdf Read Online >> Read Online Ryff psychological well being pdf Certain characteristics of the.

1. Quantity

Outcomes and Experiences Measures The Wabash National Study measured both student outcomes and student experiences using the following instruments: Click the instrument link to view more information. Outcome Measures Experience Surveys If you are working with data analysis at a Wabash National Study institution, you might also be interested in the (PDF). For a detailed description of all the outcome instruments, see (PDF).

1. Download PDF. Social Indicators. The factorial validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being is studied using the alternative shortened wellbeing measure.
2. Well-being is a central concept in positive psychology. Positive psychology is concerned with eudaimonia, 'the good life', reflection about what holds the greatest.

Outcome Measures ) Critical Thinking Test The CAAP Critical Thinking Test is a 32-item, 40-minute instrument that measures students' skills in clarifying, analyzing, evaluating, and extending arguments. The Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency is a national, standardized assessment program based on professional research and development by ACT. To see a sample of CAAP Critical Thinking Test questions, click (PDF). Need for Cognition Scale (NCS) Developed by John T. Cacioppo and Richard E.

Petty, the Need for Cognition Scale measures how much people enjoy engaging in effortful cognitive activities. Individuals who rank high in 'need for cognition' enjoy thinking and do it more often than individuals who rank low in this area and who only engage in careful thought when they have to. The scale has 18 items arranged in a Likert-scale fashion. Click for a more detailed overview of the NCS.

To download a copy of the scale, click. Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale – Short Form (M-GUDS-S) The M-GUDS-S is a 15-item multiple-choice questionnaire that measures student attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors regarding diversity.

Developed by Marie L. Miville, this instrument uses a 6-point Likert-type scale to assess student awareness and acceptance of both similarities and differences among people. A longer, 45-item version of this scale is also available. For questions about the scale, please email. Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS-R2) Developed by Tracy M.

Tyree and designed as a tool for use in assessing college students’ participation in a process of socially responsible leadership, this 68-item instrument (version II) measures the eight C’s of the Social Change Model (SCM) for leadership development: consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, collaboration, common purpose, controversy with civility, and citizenship. These seven fall around one central value, change. For more information about the SRLS-R2 visit the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.

The Defining Issues Test (DIT-2) The Defining Issues Test (DIT-2) is an updated version of the DIT, a well-validated and widely used measure of moral reasoning. It consists of five social problems to which participants respond.

For more information about the DIT-2, visit the Center for the Study of Ethical Development. For a copy of the DIT-2, click (PDF). Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being Designed to measure six dimensions of psychological well-being: self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, personal growth, purpose in life, and autonomy. Click for a general review of the Ryff. To download a copy of the Ryff scales, click. Contribution to the Arts and Humanities Measures the importance students place on making a contribution to the arts and humanities.

Click to download a copy of scale. Contribution to the Sciences Measures the importance students place on making a contribution to medicine or science. Click to download. Political and Social Involvement Measures the importance students place on volunteering, promoting racial understanding, and influencing political structures. Click to download. Professional Success Measures the importance students place on entering a prestigious, high-status, well-paying occupation. Click to download.

Openness to Diversity and Challenge Measures students’ interest in exploring diversity in culture, ethnicity, perspectives, values, and ideas. Click to download a copy of scale.

Academic Motivation Measures students’ interest in working hard, getting good grades, and engaging challenging intellectual material. Click to download. Positive Attitude toward Literacy Measures students’ enjoyment of reading and writing.

Click to download. These last seven scales were empirically derived from the Wabash National Study Student Experiences Survey by Ernest T. Pascarella and colleagues at the University of Iowa Center for Research on Undergraduate Education. For more information, see (PDF). Experience Surveys National Survey of Student Engagement Administered by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research in cooperation with the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, the NSSE gathers information about students' participation in programs and activities offered by the institution. It is 'designed to assess the extent to which students are engaged in empirically derived good educational practices and what they gain from their college experience.'

For more information, see (PDF). Click to see a sample copy of the NSSE (PDF). Student Experiences Survey Designed for the Wabash National Study by Ernest T. Pascarella and colleagues at the University of Iowa's Center for Research on Undergraduate Education, this survey gathers information about students' academic and cocurricular experiences and activities. It contains questions about classroom experiences, interactions with faculty and peers, and students' values.

Twenty-one of the items come from the CIRP (Cooperative Institutional Research Program) Survey. Click to see a copy (PDF) of the Student Experiences Survey.

. 12k Downloads. Abstract This article aims to provide researchers interested in using Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Wellbeing with additional information to make an informed decision on the scales and items to use. It builds on the discussion in the literature on the six factor structure of this measure.

An alternative shortened version of this wellbeing measure (Van Dierendonck 2004). Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 629–643) was analyzed in a combined Spanish language sample from Spain and Columbia. Using confirmatory factor analysis, one-, two-, three- and six-factor models were compared. The results showed that indeed four out the six dimensions overlapped considerably. Nevertheless, the model that fit the data best was the six factor model with one underlying second order well-being factor, hereby confirming Ryff’s model in a non-Anglo–Saxon culture. People have always been interested in the answer to the question: What is a good life? Frequently, the good life is directly connected to well-being and a happy life.

Already in the age of the old Greeks, Aristotle wrote that the quest for happiness is the most important striving of men. Now-a-days, we see that the attention for the good life increases within the social sciences. Research into the good life has been encouraged by the seminal work of Ryff (, ). She developed an integrated theoretical framework of well-being on the basis of an extensive literature review. The most important perspectives were: life span theories (e.g., Erikson ), clinical theories on personal growth (e.g., Maslow; Rogers; Allport ) and the criteria of positive mental health formulated by Jahoda ( ).

In addition, she incorporated insights from her own research on development during the course of life (Ryff; Ryff and Keyes ) and on an elaborate overview of philosophical attempts to define the good life (Becker ). She argued that all these perspectives contain similar and complementing criteria of positive psychological functioning. An important similarity is that the criteria are all formulated in terms of well-being instead of illness.

Quantity

In fact, this perspective has generated a new model of health based on the conception of health as “not only the absence of illness but the presence of something positive” (WHO; Ryff and Singer ). In her model, Ryff distinguished six core dimensions and also developed an instrument that is now widely used by researchers interested in well-being. The theoretically derived dimensions of positive psychological health included Self-acceptance, Positive relations with others, Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Purpose in life, and Personal growth (Ryff a). Recently this model has come under discussion. Using data from three major surveys, Springer and Hauser ( ) raised serious doubts on the validity of the six-factor model. Their results showed that four of the six dimensions (i.e., personal growth, purpose in life, self-acceptance, and environmental mastery) empirically may be one dimension only. Our article builds on the recent discussion in the literature (Springer and Hauser; Ryff and Singer; Springer et al.

) on the measurement of wellbeing with Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Wellbeing. This discussion raised the need for further testing of the six-dimensional nature of the model. A recent study by Abbott et al. ( ), added to this discussion by testing an additional second order dimension underlying the four above mentioned dimensions (inspired by the model suggested by Springer and Hauser ). It should be noted, however, that Abbott et al. ( ) kept the six original well-being dimensions in tact. They argued that given the problems with the psychometric quality of this measure, more research is certainly needed to help researchers interested in using Ryff’s six-factor model and instrument with additional information to make an informed decision on what to use in future research.

A limitation of all the above mentioned studies and accompanying analysis is that versions of Ryff’s measurement instrument were used that have been criticized for their lack of factorial validity or internal consistency. It is very well possible that part of the overlap between the four dimensions is due to problems with the factorial validity of the original measure. In a previous construct validity study of this measure, an alternative short version was suggested that combines reasonable factorial validity with good internal consistency (see Van Dierendonck ). More specifically, in the short version that came out of the latter study several of the items, whose content overlapped dimensions, were eliminated. Other studies also emphasized the necessity to remove items with too much content overlap between dimensions (e.g., Abbott et al.; Cheng and Chan ). Another limitation refers to the ordinal nature of Ryff’s Measure.

As argued by Springer and Hauser ( ), nowadays all studies that worked with the measure, analyzed it using continuous-factor statistical procedures that produce biased estimates and inaccurate results if the variables are ordinal or non-normal. Therefore, to accurately analyze the measure, researchers need to take that into consideration. In the present article, the factorial validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being is studied using the alternative shortened wellbeing measure suggested by Van Dierendonck ( ), using a translation into the Spanish language. Using confirmatory factor analysis, one-, two-, three- and six-factor models will be compared.

With the two-factor model, the possible effect of clustering of negative and positive formulated items is tested. The three-factor model is the one suggested by Springer and Hauser ( ). Furthermore, the three-factor model is extended with a model that has one underlying well-being dimension. Next, we test three different six factor models: the original six-factor structure as described by Ryff; another model whereby the second order factor only underlies personal growth, purpose in life, self-acceptance, and environmental mastery, as suggested by Abbot et al. ( ), leaving autonomy and positive relations with others as independent factors; and finally, the six factor model with one underlying second order factor.

1.1 Participants and Procedure 1.1.1 Sample The sample consisted of 919 individuals, 592 participants from Spain and 327 from Columbia, who filled out this survey in the preliminary phase of a promotion training course in different companies. Their age was between 16 and 74 years, with 525 male (52%) and 417 female participants (48%). Their mean age was 30 years (SD = 14). The investigation was presented as a research on personality, believes, and attitudes related to work health. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and no incentives were offered to participants.

1.2 Measures 1.2.1 Scales of Psychological Well-being This instrument was developed by Ryff ( a). The original version consists of six dimensions of 20 items each.

In this study the shortened version proposed by van Dierendonck ( ) was used. The six scales were 39 items in total. The subscale length varied between six items (Self-acceptance, Positive relations with others, Environmental mastery, Purpose in life), seven items (Personal growth) and eight items (Autonomy). A six-point answering scale was used for all scales, ranging from 1 ( totally disagree) to 6 ( totally agree).

Table shows that the best fitting model was the six-factor model with a single second order factor. This confirms Ryff’s underlying model for this Spanish language sample using this specific shortened version. It is noteworthy that the results suggest one wellbeing dimension underlying all six dimensions, not underlying only four out the six dimensions, as was previously suggested by Abbot et al.

A check of the results showed that the factor loading of one item of the personal growth scale (“I don’t want to try new ways of doing things, my life is fine the way it is”) was not significant. After removing that item from the model, the resulting fit became even better with relative fit indices off.84 for CFI.94 for TLI and.06 for the RSMR. These scores are very good given the previously noted problems with the factorial validity of this measure. Threshold values were reached for the RSMR, and almost reached for the TLI. Table shows the estimated correlations for model 7, six latent factors with one underlying second factor.

The correlations are high, but not exceptionally high––with a few exceptions––given that with latent factors error variance is controlled for, which makes this an estimate of the true correlations between the concepts and given that the six factors are all indicators of eudaimonic well-being which presupposes mediocre to high correlations. The exception is Purpose in life, that showed very high intercorrelations with self-acceptance and with environmental mastery.

Noteworthy, however, is the relative lower correlations for personal growth with the other three scales (self-acceptance, purpose in life, and environmental mastery) that Springer and Hauser proposed to collapse as one, which could explain why in this Spanish language sample, the six factor model had the best fit indices. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Self-acceptance.58 3. Positive relations.38.59 4. Environmental mastery.58.89.59 5. Purpose in Life.62.97.63.96 6. Personal growth.48.74.49.74.79 7.

Second order factor.61.95.62.94 1.00.78 As a final step, the internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) of the six well-being dimensions were estimated. The scales all had good reliabilities, that is.71,.79,.78,.68,.82,.71 for Autonomy, Self-acceptance, Positive relations with others, Environmental mastery, Purpose in Life and Personal growth, respectively. Noteworthy is that all item-total correlations were above.30. Furthermore, the internal consistency of Personal growth improved due to removal of item 34 (from.68 to.71). 3 Conclusion. This article described additional tests of the factorial validity of Ryff’s six-factor model for eudaimonic well-being in a Spanish language sample.

A recently published handbook on positive psychological assessment (Lopez and Snyder ) emphasized the importance of valid and reliable instruments for this research field. With the growing interest for studying well-being in cross-cultural settings, it is vital to get more information on the validity of the Ryff measure in different countries and, especially, in different languages.

A strong element of this instrument is the theoretical base that underlies its development. The results allow for the following conclusions.

The factorial validity of the shortened version of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-being was better than the results reported in Van Dierendonck ( ). The reliability in terms of internal consistency was good. This confirms the previous finding that this version is a good compromise between the importance of factorial validity and good reliability, something that was missing in the original versions of the Scales of Psychological Well-being. One personal growth item was removed due to a non significant factor loading. The results of the confirmatory factor-analyses in a culturally different (non-Anglo–Saxon) sample also shed more light on the six versus three dimensions discussion. We found no confirmation for Springer and Hauser ( ) position––while following their recommendation with regard to the statistical procedures––that there may be not six, but only three dimensions. In our study, Ryff and Singer’s ( ) position was confirmed that there are six dimensions.

Furthermore, the results did not replicate Abbot et al.’s ( ) suggestion of a second order factor underlying only four of the six dimensions. Our results caution researchers for lumping dimensions within this model together because one risks loosing valuable information. Although the dimensions are closely related––as Table shows––, they are not necessarily the same. It seems that by deleting the items from the original measure with too much content overlap between dimensions, the very high correlations between latent variables reported by Springer and Hauser ( ) is remedied so that Ryff’s six theoretically derived dimensions are confirmed empirically. The limitations of this study are its cross-sectional nature and that we had to rely on convenience samples. Nevertheless, its most important strong point should not be overlooked, that we tested the model in two different countries with the same language and a non-anglo–saxon culture.

Also, we used a shortened version of Ryff’s scales that had items with too much overlap between dimensions removed. Of course, factor analysis is only the first step in validating an instrument. As a next step, we suggest studying the extent that the six dimensions differently predict different behaviors. In their review, Ryff and Singer ( ) cited several studies that provided encouraging results in this respect by showing different patterns for development of the dimensions cross-time, and no similar patterns with personality traits across the six dimensions. In conclusion, it seems that this version may hold across different countries and cultures. Although using different shortened versions, other studies in other countries with languages different from English also pointed toward a confirmation of Ryff’s model, for example Chinese (Cheng and Chan ) and Swedish (Lindfors et al.

So it seems that especially when using Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being in different cultures, it is recommended to keep the six dimensions intact so insight into the full breath of the well-being construct can be gained.