Abstract
AbstractThe 20-item Gomez and Fisher (Personal Individ Differ 35:1975–1991, 2003) Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire (SWBQ) is a widely used measure of spiritual well-being. Its theoretical model is a higher-order model with primary factors for personal, communal, environmental, and transcendental well-being, and a secondary global spiritual well-being factor. The current study, conducted in Australia, reevaluated the factor structure of the SWBQ. Unlike previous studies, the current study also used exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) to examine the factor structure of the SWBQ and selected the preferred model using not only global model fit values, but also the clarity, reliabilities, and validities of the factors in the models. A total of 227 adults (males = 63; females = 164; M age = 26.1 years; SD = 5.2 years) completed the SWBQ. Based on the model selection criteria applied in the study, the ESEM model with four group factors was selected as the preferred model. However, there was also adequate support for the proposed theoretical higher-order model and the first-order oblique model with the four well-being factors. Concerning our preferred model, its factors showed reasonable clarity for factor loadings and (omega) reliabilities. However, only the communal domain scale was supported empirically for external validity. The implications of the findings for the theoretical model, the use of the SWBQ, and future studies are discussed. In this respect, there are three potential models (theorized higher-order model, 4-factor first-order oblique model, and the ESEM model proposed in this study) that warrant further detailed investigation with a larger, more representative population and additional validation measures.
Funder
Federation University Australia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Religious studies,General Medicine,General Nursing
Reference46 articles.
1. Abhari, M. B., Fisher, J. W., Kheiltash, A., & Nojomi, M. (2018). Validation of the Persian version of spiritual well-being questionnaires. Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences, 43(3), 276–285.
2. Arias, V. B., Ponce, F. P., & Núñez, D. E. (2018). Bifactor models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An evaluation of three necessary but underused psychometric indexes. Assessment, 25(7), 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116679260
3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
4. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer [Review]. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
5. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.256
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献