Theory and Validity of Life Satisfaction Scales

1,278 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Concept of Subjective Well-being in Housing Research (2017, neutral): “As Diener et al (2013) note, they are reliable in that they yield similar scores when administered in the same condition and are quite stable over time particularly in the case of multi-item scales.”
Bentham or Aristotle in the Development Process? An Empirical Investigation of Capabilities and Subjective Well-Being (2015, background): “Evaluative and hedonic SWB metrics are valid and reliable, psychometrically sound, internally consistent and comparable across individuals, different levels of development, and over time (Diener et al., 1999; Diener et al., 2013; Helliwell et al., 2010; Krueger & Schkade, 2008).”
Is it Pleasure or Health from Leisure that We Benefit from Most? An Analysis of Well-Being Alternatives and Implications for Policy (2016, background): “14 See for example, http://www.thefa.com/my-football/player/5-a-side-and-futsal (retrieved 16th December, 2014) variation in the weather can affect well-being, Diener et al. (2013) argue that this is usually based on very small-scale data, and that in large-scale data the impacts are very small.”
The Effects of Unemployment and Insecure Jobs on Well-Being and Health: The Moderating Role of Labor Market Policies (2018, background): “Global life satisfaction scales have been shown to be valid, reliable, and sensitive to change such that they are well-suited for our analyses (Diener et al. 2013).”