Psychometric properties and longitudinal measurement invariance of the Brazilian version of the subjective happiness scale in adolescents
Background. Happiness is a subjective construct. Validation studies to confirm validity and reliability of happiness measures are needed to verify its applicability in research and clinical fields. Aim. The aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties and longitudinal measurement invariance of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) in adolescents.
Methods. A longitudinal study was conducted with a random sample of 1,134 12-year-old adolescents from Santa Maria, a southern city in Brazil, starting in 2012. Two years later, 746 adolescents were reassessed, with an average age of 14. The Brazilian version of the SHS, which is composed of four items, was administered by a face-to-face interview. Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient - ICC), discriminant validity; confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), convergent validity and measurement invariance (MI) were performed through the multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. Socioeconomic, clinical and subjective variables were also collected through clinical exams and structured questionnaires by calibrated and trained dentists.
Results. Cronbach’s alpha and ICC results were moderate (0.51 and 0.70, respectively). The scale was able to discriminate subjective happiness between different oral health groups and socioeconomic status. The CFA revealed a good fit model in both collections, confirming the validity of the scale. Convergent validity was satisfactory, demonstrating that the SHS is similar in theoretical concepts with a subjective scale. Moreover, MI showed a goodness-of-fit statistics across time points.
Conclusions. The Brazilian version of SHS showed adequate validation properties and longitudinal measurement among adolescents.
Relevance for patients. These findings are important for studies that evaluate happiness and oral disorders, through cross-section and longitudinal studies
1.Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: What, Why, How, and Future Implications. J Dent Res 2011;90:1264-70.
2. Diener E. Subjective Well-Being. The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index. Am Psychol 2000;55:34-43.
3. Helliwell J, Layard R, Sacks J. World Happiness Report. New York: Earth Institute Columbia University; 2012. p. 1-170. Available from: http://www.earth.columbia. edu/sitefiles/file/sachs%20writing/2012/world%20 happiness%20report.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 Jun 09].
4. Suh E, Diener E, Fujita F. Events and Subjective WellBeing: Only Recent Events Matter. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;70:1091.
5. Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? Psychol Bull 2005;131:803-55.
6. Piqueras JA, Kuhne W, Vera-Villarroel P, van Straten A, Cuijpers P. Happiness and Health Behaviours in Chilean College Students: A Cross-Sectional Survey. BMC Public Health 2011;11:443.
7. Subramanian SV, Kim D, Kawachi I. Covariation inthe Socioeconomic Determinants of Self Rated Health and Happiness: A Multivariate Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Communities in the USA. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;9:664-9.
8. Tuchtenhagen S, Bresolin C, Tomazoni F, da Rosa GN, Fabro JP, Mendes F, et al. The Influence of Normative and Subjective Oral Health Status on Schoolchildren’s Happiness. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:15.
9. Diener E. Guidelines for National Indicators of Subjective Well-Being and Ill-Being. Appl Res Qual Life 2006;1:151-7.
10. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper H. A measure of Subjective Happiness: Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation. Soc Indic Res 1999;46:137-55.
11. Rodrigues A, da Silva JA. The Role of Characteristics Socio Demographic Aspects of Happiness. Psico USF 2010;15:113-23.
12. Damásio FB, Zanon C, Roller HS. Validation and Psychometric Properties of the Brazilian Version of the Subjective Happiness Scale. Univ Psychol 2014;13:17-24.
13. Emerson SD, Guhn M, Gadermann AM. Measurement Invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale: Reviewing Three Decades of Research. Qual Life Res 2017;26:2251-64.
14. World Health Organization. The World Oral Health Report 2003: Continuos Improvement of Oral Health in the 21st Century-The Approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
15. Torres CS, Paiva SM, Vale MP, Pordeus IA, RamosJorge ML, Oliveira AC, Allison PJ. Psychometric Properties of the Brazilian Version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11-14)-Short Forms. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009;7:43.
16. Gouveia VV, Milfont TL, da Fonseca PN, Coelho JA. Life Satisfaction in Brazil: Testing the Psychometric Properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in Five Brazilian Samples. Soc Indic Res 2009;90:267-77.
17. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, Barofsky I, Berzon R, Leidy NK, et al. Recommendations on HealthRelated Quality of Life Research to Support Labeling and Promotional Claims in The United States. Qual Life Res 2000;9:887-900.
18. Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using Effect Size-or Why the P Value is not Enough. J Grad Med Educ 2012;4:279-82.
19. Barrett P. Structural Equation Modelling: Adjudging Model Fit. Pers Individ Dif 2007;42:815-24.
20. Wu AD, Li Z, Zumbo B. Decoding the Meaning of Factorial Invariance and Updating the Practice of MultiGroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Demonstration with TIMSS Data. Pract Assess Res Eval 2007;2:1- 26. Available from: https://www.pareonline.net/getvn. asp?v=12&n=3. [Last accessed on 2019 Jul 22].
21. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2000;9:233-55.
22. Schmitt N. Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha. Psychol Assess 1996;8:350-3.
23. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
24. Sijtsma K. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach. Psychometrika 2009;74:107-20.
25. Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: An Integration of the Best Features of Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2014;10:85-110.
26. Ortiz FR, Santos MD, Landenberger T, Emmanuelli B, Agostini BA, Ardenghi TM. Comparison of Face-To-Face Interview and Telephone Methods of Administration on the ECOHIS Scores. Braz Dent J 2016;27:613-8.
27. Pattussi MP, Marcenes W, Croucher R, Sheiham A. Social Deprivation, Income Inequality, Social Cohesion and Dental Caries in Brazilian School Children. Soc Sci Med 2001;53:915-25.
28. Piovesan C, Antunes JL, Guedes RS, Ardenghi TM. Impact of Socioeconomic and Clinical Factors on Child Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (COHRQoL). Qual Life Res 2010;19:1359-66.
29. Newton JT, Bower EJ. The Social Determinants of Oral Health: New Approaches to Conceptualizing and Researching Complex Causal Networks. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005;33:25-34.
30. Celeste RK, Nadanovsky P. How Much of the Income Inequality Effect Can be Explained by Public Policy? Evidence from Oral Health in Brazil. Health Policy 2010;97:250-8.
31. Marmot M, Bell R. Social Determinants and Dental Health. Adv Dent Res 2011;23:201-6.
32. Reissmann DR, John MT, Feuerstahler L, Baba K, Szabó G, Čelebić A, et al. Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Prospective Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016;14:88.
33. Esnaola I, Benito M, Antonio-Agirre I, Axpe I, Lorenzo M. Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in Adolescence. Qual Life Res 2019;28:2831-7.