Investigating the Structural Validity of Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scales Across Two Samples

144 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 Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect (2010, methodology): “For example, Lamond et al. (2008) reported using a Principal Components extraction and orthogonal rotation method which is not appropriate for identifying a correlated factor structure (Burns & Machin, 2009).”
Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People (2014, background): “…population segments and a range of geographical contexts have supported this conceptualisation of psychological well-being (Ryff and Keyes 1995; Cheng and Chan 2005) but others suggest that the identification of fewer, hierarchically organised dimensions may suffice (e.g. Burns and Machin 2009).”
Two Concepts or Two Approaches? A Bifactor Analysis of Psychological and Subjective Well-Being (2013, methodology): “We first tested a full second-order model with all six components included as the lowerorder factors, and then tested a competing second-order model identified in previous studies (Abbott et al. 2006; Burns and Machin 2009, 2010).”