AIM Despite extensive use in mental health research and practice, limited evidence exists for the hypothesised unidimensional model of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in adolescents. Few studies have assessed… Click to show full abstract
AIM Despite extensive use in mental health research and practice, limited evidence exists for the hypothesised unidimensional model of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in adolescents. Few studies have assessed competing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) models, and the instrument has yet to be assessed in younger adolescents in Northern Ireland, a jurisdiction characterised by high rates of mental illness. SUBJECT AND METHODS School pupils (n=1,673) aged 13-18 years (M = 14.87, SD = 1.16), including 1,036 females, 997 urban children, and 312 from lower socio-economic status, completed psychometric tests. Seven CFA models based on extant research were tested, including unidimensional, bi-factor, higher-order and clustered. RESULTS Several models, including the default unidimensional model, did not achieve recommended CFA fit thresholds. Model 6 comprising one strong 'general well-being' factor and three residual factors (i.e., figuratively labelled: 'Affective', 'Psychological Functioning' and 'Social Relationships') was confirmed as the superior model. Most item variance was explained by the general factor, relative to residual factors. CONCLUSIONS Adolescents predominantly conceptualise well-being as a unitary construct that coexists with relatively weak affective, psychological and social relationship domains. Researchers and practitioners should foremost calculate a composite score of well-being, and if appropriate, explore sub-domains to supplement understanding of adolescent well-being.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.