Singh Et Al 2016 Muestras

Kamlesh Singh
Mohita Junnarkar
Jasleen Kaur
Measures
of Positive
Psychology
Development and Validation
Measures of Positive Psychology
Kamlesh Singh Mohita Junnarkar
•
Jasleen Kaur
Measures of Positive
Psychology
Development and Validation
123
Kamlesh Singh Jasleen Kaur
Department of Humanities and Social Indian Air Force
Sciences Gurgaon
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi India
New Delhi
India
Mohita Junnarkar
Amity Institute of Psychology and Allied
Sciences
Amity University
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
India
ISBN 978-81-322-3629-0 ISBN 978-81-322-3631-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946321
© Springer India 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Contents
1 Positive Psychology in India: A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Indian Research on Universal Positive Psychology Constructs . . . . . . . . 2
Indian Constructs Contribute to Positive Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Scales on Positive Psychological Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Scales Confirmed Their Factor Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Scales Developed on Indian Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Positive Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Future Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Norms for Test Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
What Is a Psychological Test? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Test Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Principles of Item Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Format of Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Sample Size for Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Preliminary Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Exploratory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Confirmatory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Fit Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Parameters for Accepting a Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3 The Assessment of Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Resilience in the Realm of Developmental Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Risk Factors and Protective Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Empirical Studies on Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
v
vi Contents
Correlates and Predictors of Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Education, Income, and Locality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Individual Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
External Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Resilience Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Indian Studies on Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Existing Scales of Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Revalidation of Resilience Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Relevance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Test Construction and Validation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Concurrent Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Norms for the New Resilience Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4 Flow Scale-Construction and Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Nature of Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Flow Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Causes and Predictors of Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Flow in Web Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Performance-Enhancing Role of Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Correlates of Flow and Its Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Correlation Between Flow and Mindfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Methods of Measuring Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Experience Sampling Method (ESM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Alternative One-Factor Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Norms for the New Flow Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Contents vii
5 Mindfulness and Its Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Correlates and Predictors of Mindfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Mindfulness-Based Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Existing Scales of Mindfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Norms for the New Mindfulness Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6 Spirituality and Its Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Nature of Spirituality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Correlates and Predictors of Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Spirituality and Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Spirituality and Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Spirituality Based Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Existing Scales of Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Need and Objectives for the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Norms for the New Spirituality Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7 Well-Being and Its Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Well-Being in Indian Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Correlates and Predictors of Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Demographic Variables and Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Existing Scales of Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Relevance of Well-Being Scale in Indian Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
viii Contents

Norms for the New Well-Being Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8 Development and Validation of New Interpersonal
and Intrapersonal Strength Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 185
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 185
Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Character Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 186
Correlation of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Character
Strengths with Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 187
Indian Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 188
Existing Measures of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Character
Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Test Construction and Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Measures Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Norms for the New Inter-intrapersonal Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
About the Authors
Kamlesh Singh, Ph.D. (Psychology), joined the Indian Institute of Technology

(IIT) Delhi in 2004 and has about 20 years of experience in research and teaching.
The main areas of her research interests are positive psychology, applied positive
psychology, psychometrics, community psychology, and rural women and ado-
lescents. Kamlesh Singh has to her credit 65 published papers in peer-reviewed
national and international journals and 14 book chapters. She has also presented
about 60 papers at national and international conferences. She has been teaching
courses on positive psychology and psychological testing at IIT Delhi, Indian
Institute of Management (IIM) Indore, and IIM Ranchi. With her ongoing teaching
and various research projects in positive psychology, Kamlesh Singh is also on the
board of directors of the International Association of Positive Psychology (IPPA)
and secretary and founder member of the National Positive Psychology Association
(NPPA). She has recently become Associate Editor of the Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology.
Mohita Junnarkar, Ph.D. (Psychology), joined Amity University, Noida, Uttar
Pradesh, in 2015 and has about 4 years of research experience. She has completed
her post-doctoral fellowship in the area of positive psychology and her key research
and teaching areas are positive psychology, applied positive psychology, psycho-
metrics, adolescent development, and cognitive psychology. She has published
about 11 papers in national and international peer-reviewed journals in the area of
psychometric validation of positive psychology constructs and has a book to her
credit. Currently, she is also serving as a reviewer for the Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology.
Jasleen Kaur, Ph.D. (Psychology), did her doctorate from Panjab University,
Chandigarh. Currently, she is working as a visiting psychologist with the Indian Air
Force. She works closely with serving personnel and their families and deals with
issues such as academic and behavioural problems in children and adolescents,
counselling for marital discord and handling other mental health issues. Her areas of
ix
x About the Authors
interest include developmental psychology, positive psychology, and child and

adolescent mental health. She has to her credit a number of published papers in the
various peer-reviewed journals. She is one of the founder members of the National
Positive Psychology Association (NPPA). She is also serving as a reviewer for the
Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology.
Chapter 1
Positive Psychology in India: A Review
Abstract The current chapter introduces positive psychology (PP), Indian psy-
chology (IP) and connection between two. Broadly both focus on well-being but
with different angle; PP focuses more on external sources of happiness and IP
focuses more on internal sources of happiness. The present chapter addresses PP in
India by considering both the points of view. The major distinguishing factor was in
the approach and methodology. Indian sages focus on ‘experiential state’ as the
method of enquiry whereas Western scholars focus on observed facts. Contrasting
Indian vision of behavior emphasizes interdependence and interrelatedness based
on caste, class, family, community, gods, etc., which shapes one’s ego identity
(Dalal and Misra, 2011). The current chapter is divided into four main parts; Indian
research on universal PP constructs, Indian constructs contribute to understand
human nature, PP scales developed and validated in India and intervention modules
implemented in India. Finally, the chapter concludes with future recommendations.
Keywords Positive psychology

Indian psychology Cultural factors

Well-being Interventions Psychological testing
Introduction
The field of positive psychology can be traced to the Presidential Address delivered
by Martin E. P. Seligman in 1998 to the American Psychological Association
(Seligman 1999). Since the Presidential Address, series of scholarly meetings were
held and the field of positive psychology was established. Many definitions of
positive psychology prevail to describe the field. However, the two most compre-
hensive definitions are as follows:
© Springer India 2016 1

K. Singh et al., Measures of Positive Psychology,
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_1
2 1 Positive Psychology in India: A Review
“The field of positive psychology at the subjective level is about valued subjective expe-
riences: well-being, contentment, and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism (for the
future); and flow and happiness (in the present). At the individual level, it is about positive
individual traits: the capacity for love and vocation, courage, interpersonal skill, aesthetic
sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness, originality, future mindedness, spirituality, high
talent, and wisdom. At the group level, it is about the civic virtues and the institutions that
move individuals toward better citizenship: responsibility, nurturance, altruism, civility,
moderation, tolerance, and work ethic” (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi. 2000, p. 5)
“Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the
flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions.” (Gable and Haidt
2005, p. 104)
Thus, from definitions it can be summarized that positive psychology deals with
achieving happiness and well-being so that individuals flourish. On the other hand,
“Indian Psychology (IP) has its roots in the diverse traditions of knowledge
deliberated upon in various texts (Shastra), as well as the practices and meanings
embodied in various forms, shared by the people (Loka) in the zone of Indian
civilisation,” (Dalal and Misra 2010, p. 122). Positive psychology (PP) and Indian
psychology (IP) are considered to be birds of the same feather (Salagame 2014).
Both PP and IP focus on achieving well-being which is highly connected with the
concept of mental health, happiness, life satisfaction, and actualization of one’s full
potential. Indian psychology is more subjective, experiential and addressed in first
person approach whereas Western psychology is more objective and addressed in
third-person approach which is easily quantifiable. The Western well-being models
of hedonic and eudaimonic (Ryan and Deci 2001) limit to bio-psycho-social aspects
of human nature whereas the spiritual or transcendent perspective of the
Upanishads approaches the subject matter in terms of the dimensions of con-
sciousness and self and encompass bio-psycho-social and spiritual aspects
(Salagame 2011). Interactive researches in the field of PP and IP can be divided
broadly into the four sections which are being discussed below section wise.
Indian Research on Universal Positive Psychology

Constructs
Majority of Indian psychologists who are active researchers in field of positive

psychology have been involved in studying the impact/effect or validate the
Western constructs on Indian population. For instance, they have found robust
predictors of happiness in Indian studies like self-efficacy (Rao and Mehrotra 2010),
extraversion, and conscientiousness (Bhattacharya et al. 2006), optimism (Puri and
Nathawat 2008), hardiness (Nathawat and Joshi 1997), meaning in life
(Bhattacharya et al. 2008) etc.
Lata (2009) studied resilience in adolescents living with political violence in
Kashmir, along with the role of religious meaning system and their political ide-
ology. Singh and Yu (2010) reported an inverse correlation between negative
emotions and resilience. In another study it was reported that factors such as truth,
Indian Research on Universal Positive Psychology Constructs 3
equanimity, joy, synthesis, and discernment as emerging predictors of resilience,

among factors of spirituality (Narayanan and Jose 2011). It is observed that there is
a tendency to explain happiness with regards to interpersonal connectedness
between self and others, especially among East Asians (Uchida et al. 2004). In
recent studies, it was shown that perceived environmental conditions, such as,
interpersonal relationships with their parents at home and friends or classmates at
school, emerged as major contributors to their happiness & acting as the facilitators
of happiness among north Indian adolescents. In addition, it was seen that the
adolescents sought less academic pressure, more time for leisure, better discipline,
and infrastructural facilities in school as the indicators of their happiness, as viewed
from the ecological perspective, (Khanna and Singh 2015; Singh and Sharma
2015). Other constructs such as gratitude (Khanna and Singh 2016), mental health
(Singh et al. 2015a), depression and stress (Singh et al. 2015b), personal well-being
(Singh et al. 2015d), and quality of life (Singh and Junnarkar 2014) were investi-
gated on north Indian adolescents. The results of the studies indicated that females
possessed better mental health and well-being as compared to their male counter-
parts and rural adolescents possessed higher well-being scores as compared to
urban adolescents. Furthermore the studies also reported that adolescents who
attended private schools possessed better well-being scores as compared to ado-
lescents who attended government schools.
Numerous researches in this section from India support the point that
‘Psychology in India’ is affiliated with etic (universal) approach. However, some
psychologists try to find out well-being and its related factors from Indian religious
and philosophical roots.
Indian Constructs Contribute to Positive Psychology
To reiterate, PP and IP are considered as two birds with same feather (Salagame
2014) as they both are inclined towards attaining well-being (Salagame 2011).
However, “IP remained dissociated from its own vast storehouse of knowledge
inherent in the Indian philosophical texts” (Dalal 2011, p. 1). Psychology was
introduced as a science in 1905 in India. Since Indian psychologists were essen-
tially trained in the Western model of research, it has been a long journey to turn
towards their own heritage (Dalal 2011). For instance, well-being which is main
focus of PP has various more prominent meanings in east and west.
Happiness and well-being have deep cultural roots (Diener et al. 2003; Park et al.
2006; Ryan and Deci 2001; Uchida et al. 2004). Understanding of well-being is
important for human flourishing. Research studies have demonstrated that people
who receive support by close friends, family and support groups have higher level
of well-being and are less vulnerable to sickness or illness. Traditionally, well-being
is broadly categorized as hedonic (subjective well-being; SWB) and eudaimonic
(psychological well-being; PWB). Ryan and Deci (2001) mentioned that hedonic
domain focuses on life satisfaction and emotion (increasing positive emotions and
reducing negative emotions) and eudaimonic domain emphasizes the good life,
with a focus on meaning and related well-being factors. Furthermore Keyes (1998)
suggested that well-being included social dimensions such as coherence, integra-
tion, actualization, contribution and acceptance and suggested mental health con-
tinuum by including emotional well-being, psychological well-being and social
well-being. However, more recently Seligman (2011) defined well-being in terms of
five factors: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accom-
plishment (PERMA). On the other hand, Eastern culture has explored more inner
state of mind like inner harmony (Daukantaite et al. 2015) and peace of mind,
(Lee et al. 2013).
Indian psychologists have explored different concepts from Sankhya Yoga,
Vedanta and other religious texts such as Sat-chit-anada, Koshas, Gunas, Doshas,
Vikaras, Anasakti, meditation etc. to understand well-being and factors affecting it.
Dalal and Mishra (2011) supported the ideology that an Indian system concerning
promotion of well-being should have a focus on advance stages of development and
states of well-being. This view is dissimilar to the Western model that aims to
provide details of psychopathology and early development. Indian perspective
postulates that source of all suffering is within the individual and therefore stresses
on exploring the “world within,” to relieve the suffering by the way of attaining
harmony of mind, spirit, and body for happiness and transcendence of an individual
to higher levels of realization and well-being (Dalal and Misra 2010). This is
deduced as human need to seek for inner source of happiness called sat-chit-ananda
or truthful-awareness-bliss (Srivastava and Misra 2011). Furthermore, studies have
demonstrated that there is a significant relationship between flourishing, affect and
Sat-chit-anada (e.g. Singh et al. 2015c).
Buddhism and scriptures such as in Ayurveda, they presume that personality is
constituted of physical, mental and spiritual characteristics (Jha 2009). These two
schools of thought; Ayurveda and Sankhya school discuss about tri-gunas or per-
sonality. Ayurveda banks on the Panch Mahabutas, their combinations resulting in
the biological humors of Tri-doshas, namely, Vata, Pitta and Kapha and the psy-
chological correlates of tri-gunas, namely, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas (Shilpa and
Murthy 2011; Sharma et al. 2012). It is considered that they both elucidate about
the mind, body, and their constituents, along with the corresponding behavioral
manifestations including the spiritual component (Shilpa and Murthy 2011; Sharma
et al. 2012). The concept has been correlated with existing scales of well-being. In
Ayurveda, health results from the balanced interplay between three functional
principles or dosa-Vata (Air & Ether), Pitta (Water & Fire), and Kapha (Water and
Earth)—that regulate psychophysical functions. Delle Fave et al. (2015) reported
that personality, emotion and health as reported by Vata, Pitta and Kapha was
consistent with the descriptions provided in Ayurveda literature. Such study sug-
gests that Prakriti classification can be fruitfully integrated into diagnostic and
treatment protocols in healthcare and psychotherapy.
Sankhya school of Hindu philosophy iterates that the human mind is the
expression of the prakriti (nature). Furthermore, three gunas (constituents) of a
Indian Constructs Contribute to Positive Psychology 5
person has been described; Sattva (signifies purity, wisdom, and bliss), Rajas
(indicates hankering, attachment and action) and Tamas (stands for bias, heed-
lessness and inertia) (Chakraborty 1987; Goyanka 1999; Krishnan 2002). Sattva,
Rajas and Tamas are also translated as goodness, passion and ignorance, respec-
tively (Stempel et al. 2006). These tri-gunas always act together resulting in pre-
ponderance of one over the others. This degree of predominance of the gunas
determines the individual’s personality type (Das 1987). This conceptualization of
tri-gunas is said to bring about individual’s well-being, consisting of the parallel
concept of hedonic and eudaimonic tendencies.
In the correlational studies evaluating the role of tri-gunas on transformational
leadership, Kejriwal and Krishnan (2004) revealed that Sattva leads to enhanced
transformational behavior in a leader, while an opposite effect was observed for
Tamas. Likewise, Chakraborty (1987) compared the gunas as Sattva is superior to
Rajas, and Rajas to Tamas. The scientific tendency of the otherwise elusive con-
struct is established by the way of psychological measurement. The results on tri-
gunas personality indicated that Sattva was found to be positively correlated with
well-being. Rajas and Tamas were negatively correlated with well-being. Higher
levels of Sattva and well-being were reported in the older age-group. Males scored
higher on Rajas while no gender differences were found in well-being (Khanna
et al. 2013). Additionally in a recent cross-cultural study, it was reported that tri-
gunas significantly accounted for well-being. In an under review cross-cultural
paper, it was observed that tri-gunas accounted significantly for well-being
dimensions, for instance, Sattva accounted for 48 % variance in Czechs, 56 % in
Indians and 55 % in Americans, Rajas accounted for 21 % variance in Czechs,
08 % in Indians and 54 % in Americans and Tamas accounted for 50 % variance in
Czechs, 20 % in Indians and 64 % in Americans. The results reinforce that tri-
gunas personality significantly predict well-being dimensions (Singh et al. 2016a).
Among other areas which are contributing to modern PP is Yoga. The concept of
Yoga with roots in Indian literature has been well adapted in the global context of
positive psychology. According to the Yoga Philosophy, one can pervade these
mental planes by practicing eight steps called the Ashtanga Yoga. The religious text
of Bhagvad Gita too prescribes “performing duties established in Yoga- renouncing
attachment and being even-tempered in success and failure; evenness of temper is
Yoga” (Bhagvad Gita, 2.48), (cited in Raina and Singh 2015).
Another construct, Vikaras is a Sanskrit term signifying a change of form from
the natural peaceful condition of the inner being to a worse state, thus indicating
deterioration. Indian religious and philosophical texts like Bhagavad Gita, Guru
Granth Sahib and Dhammapada have mentioned various Vikaras/vices such as
Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha and Ahankara. Concept of prakriti or individual
constitution has also gained worldwide attention. This construct embraces both
physical and mental components whose state of balance is understood to determine
the status of health (Sharma and Singh 2016).
In a succinct model, given by Bhawuk (2011) he explains how spirituality and
indigenous psychology are two-way interactive roads and its scientific realm is
precisely indoctrinated by following organized methodology and by indigenous

models and theories of spirituality, themselves. Therein, he states that the signifi-
cant difference “between philosophy and spirituality, or for that matter religion and
spirituality, is that spirituality, as practiced in India, has an action bias over and
above cognitive (thinking or thoughts) or value (considering something important)
concerns” (Bhawuk 2011, p. 25). However, there is still a need for more insights by
psychologists to understand positive psychology in Indian socio-cultural context.
Numerous studies (Singh et al. 2013b; Delle Fave et al. 2015; Raina and Singh
2015; Singh and Raina 2015; Sharma and Singh 2016) have attempted to develop
and validate different constructs of IP such as Sat-chit-ananda, Vikaras, Anasakti,
Tri-gunas and so forth in Indian context. The studies further have correlated the IP
constructs with existing globally validated scales of PP such as Mental Health
Continuum (Keyes 2009), Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010) and Scale of
Positive and Negative Affect (Diener et al. 2010). These studies have helped to
bridge the gap to understand inclusion of interdisciplinary constructs which are well
understood in Indian religious literature.
Scales on Positive Psychological Constructs
Psychological testing is well-known assessment tool for estimating the effect of

constructs on variables under study. This section gives an account of the various
tests constructed, adapted, validated, and translated in Indian settings.
Different scales such as Positive Personality Traits Questionnaire (Singh and
Duggal-Jha 2010) and Adaptive Schema Questionnaire (Jain and Singh 2015) have
been constructed. Positive Personality Traits Questionnaire (Singh and Duggal-Jha
2010) consists of 43 items that assesses perceived four positive personality traits
namely; Positive Self Image, Commitment, Outward/people orientation, and
Culture identification. Another scale, Adaptive Schema Questionnaire (Jain and
Singh 2015) assesses six adaptive schemas: Adequate schema, Secured schema,
Self-reliant schema, Resistant schema, Success schema, and Self-discipline schema.
Both the scales were found to have sound psychometric properties. It is imperative
to first test the validity of an existing scale in the given culture where it is intended
to be utilized given the cultural variations in understanding of a psychological test.
For instance, Mehrotra et al. (2013) found a four factor psychological well-being
(PWB) solution more suited on Indian sample as compared to the original proposed
six-dimensional PWB model by Ryff (1989), Ryff and Keyes (1995). Four factors
that emerged on the new 20-item scale were Self-acceptance, Mastery and
Competence, Positive Relations, and Engagement and Growth. Similarly, an
alternate a four factor solution was proposed to assess Resilience (Hardiness,
Optimism, Resourcefulness and Purpose) to the original five-factor solution as
measured by Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor and Davidson
2003) in Indian setting (Singh and Xiao-nan Yu 2010). These studies suggest, us to
Scales on Positive Psychological Constructs 7
test psychometric properties of the scales especially if these are being used first time
in the selected setting.
Two new scales were recently constructed to measure the Asian concepts of peace
of mind and inner harmony. The peace of mind scale (Lee et al. 2013) possessed
good reliability and validity measures and further it was observed that Taiwanese
individuals scored higher on peace of mind than European Americans. In a more
recent study the concept of harmony was measured through a harmony in life scale
that emphasizes on psychological balance and flexibility in life. The scale possesses
good reliability, validity, and compliments satisfaction with life scale in forming a
more holistic understanding of subjective well-being, (Daukantaite et al. 2015).
Scales Confirmed Their Factor Structure
The other way of using established scales in new cultures is by first testing their
validity and if the proposed original model is confirmed, the appropriate translation
of the measure can be considered so as to render the tool accessible for native
language speakers of the given culture. On this front, several positive psychology
measures have been successfully validated in Indian setting. That is similar factor
solution was arrived at, confirming the original existing factor structure in Indian
setting after thorough statistical analysis and thereafter have been translated in
Hindi. There are various scales which have replicated their original factor solution
such as Adolescent Resilience Scale (Oshio et al. 2002), The Flourishing Scale
(Diener et al. 2010), Brief Multidimensional Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale
(BMSLSS; Seligson et al. 2003) were translated in Hindi and their factor structure
too was confirmed (Singh 2014). Validation of scales in Hindi has its significance
as 41 % of population speaks Hindi in India (Census 2011). Furthermore, the scales
were confirmed to the original factor structure such as Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule’s model (PANAS; Watson et al. 1988; Pandey and Srivastava 2008;
Singh et al. 2013a), WHO Quality of Life-Brief scale (WHOQOL-BREF;
Skevington et al. 2004) (Singh and Junnarkar 2014), Depression, Anxiety, Stress
Scale-21 items (DASS-21, Lovibond and Lovibond 1995) (Singh et al. 2015) and
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al. 1985) (Singh et al. 2013). The
Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (SPANE) (Diener et al. 2010) was
found to be satisfactory when translated into Hindi (Mishra 2015) and confirmed in
adolescents and working adults (Singh et al. 2016b).
Personal Well-Being Index-School Children (PWI-SC) inventory developed by
Cummins and Lau (2005) also demonstrated good fit for the proposed original
model in India (Singh et al. 2015d). Mental Health Continuum—Short Form
(MHC-SF; Keyes 2005) when assessed in India also indicated original factor
solution acceptable (Singh 2014; Consistent to the original study of Meaning in
Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al. 2006; Singh 2010) a two-factor solution
emerged using the Hindi translated version accounting for 56.42 % of total variance
and the CFA was observed as a good fit in Indian setting (Singh et al. 2016b). This
category strengthens rigorous research findings by reliable and valid scales.
Scales Developed on Indian Constructs
Assessment of Indian constructs may contribute to better understanding of

well-being. Some of these are described in this section. According to the Yoga
Philosophy, one can pervade these mental planes by practicing eight steps called the
Ashtanga Yoga. This concept has been scientifically measured through a recent
scale to measure Ashtanga Yoga with adequate alpha reliability of 0.88 (Raina and
Singh 2015). It constitutes of seven factors in accordance with the theoretical
conceptualization given in (Patanjali Yogasutra, 2.29). Namley, Yama Scale:
Niyama Scale, Asana subscale, Pranayama subscale, Pratyahaar subscale: VI
Dharana subscale: VII Dhyaan subscale. Theoretically, the Samadhi is understood
as the goal of Yoga or achievement of Yoga and both mean spiritual absorption
which is understood as parallel to fully functioning person in Psychology (Raina
and Singh 2015). Another 22 items scale has been developed to assess Anasakti
(non-attachment) broken down into six subscales: Outcome Vulnerability, Faith in
God, Empathy, Frustration Tolerance, Effort Orientation and Emotional Equipoise;
explaining 50.79 % of variance with α = 0.70 (Singh and Raina 2015).
A 60-item questionnaire assessing Prakriti as in Auyrvedic literature corre-
sponding to tri doshas: Vaata, Pitta, and Kapha have also been developed
(Antonella et al. 2015). The Vedic Personality Inventory (VPI; Wolf 1998) is the
most extensively researched and validated psychological assessment tool based on
the three Gunas: Sattva, Rajas and Tamas consisting of 56 items. Shilpa and
Murthy (2012) developed another Mysore Tri-guna scale standardized on Indian
population. In India, Vikaras or vices are documented by several religious and
moral discourses, namely: Kama (lust), Krodha (anger), Lobha (greed), Moha
(attachment), etc, (Sharma and Singh 2016) constructed 37 items Vikaras scales
that measures the seven dimensions: Aantrik Krodha/Internalized Anger, Moha/
Attachment/Delusion, Pratyaksh Krodha/Externalized Anger, Lobha/Greed,
Ahankara/Pride, Kama/Lust and Tamas/Apathy.
A scale to measure Sat (Truthfulness), Chit (consciousness), Ananda (blissful-
ness) and Antahshakti (inner strength) was also constructed (Singh et al. 2013b).
The new Sat-Chit-Ananda measure correlated as hypothesized theoretically with all
the measures. The results showed that the newly developed scale was a valid and
reliable measure of Sat-Chit-Ananda. This study is the original and first attempt to
develop a psychometric scale on Sat-Chit-Ananda. The scale was reconfirmed in
another study (Singh et al. 2015c).
Scales on Positive Psychological Constructs 9
Despite having many scales that are developed and validated for Indian popu-
lation, keeping in purview the vast diversity, there is still a need to revalidate these
scales even though they have been constructed after following rigorous psycho-
metric scale development methods.
Positive Interventions
Positive Psychology is the study of human flourishing. Its challenges lies in the
need to shift the focus from individual happiness to group level well-being as an
intervention outcome; giving more focus on contextual factors as relating to
intervention and by the need to better blending research information
(Biswas-Diener et al. 2011). Focus in PP has recently been also directed towards
flourishing communities and societies. The science of happiness is incomplete
without the understanding of interventions that enhance well-being of individuals
and groups. In intervention studies, well-being is commonly defined and measured
from a subjective well-being approach. In this perspective, well-being is a sum of
positive evaluations of one’s life (cognitive) and frequent experiences of positive
emotions and infrequent experiences of negative emotions (affective) (Diener
2000). Positive interventions are ‘‘treatment methods or intentional activities aimed
at cultivating positive feelings, positive behaviors, or positive cognitions’’ (Sin and
Lyubomirsky 2009, p. 467). Several existing meta-analyses on interventions within
positive psychology summarize positive outcomes of these interventions (Bolier
et al. 2013; Sin and Lyubomirsky 2009). Additionally, alternate techniques could be
by the way utilizing of enhancing the existing well-being indigenous strategies such
as Yoga, Meditation or existing religious practices like Satsang (Singing religious
folk songs in a group) to enhance well-being in Indian settings. Efficacy of dis-
seminating to positive intervention to wide range of English educated and computer
savvy adults through web based interventions have been documented (Ritterband
et al. 2003). On similar lines, a web based positive intervention intertwined with
specific well-being variables was examined on Indian population (Choubisa
and Singh 2011) that yielded promising results.
The philosophy of yoga has been also inculcated in the practice of psy-
chotherapy in India (Neki 1975; Venkoba 1978). Several studies conducted in East
or West, document positive effect of Yoga as a practice and in enhancing subjective
well-being (Ross and Thomas 2010; Malathi et al. 2000; Sharma et al. 2008) along
with reduction in mental disorders (Jadhav and Havalappanavar 2009; Varambally
et al. 2012) in improving the quality of life and the treatment of number of psy-
chiatric and psychosomatic disorders (Vahia et al. 1973) and its enhancing influ-
ence on emotions (Narasimhan et al. 2011) along with cognitive variables
(Patwardhan 2008).
Spiritual component in well-being enabling studies have been an imperative part
in Indian literature. Several studies document the efficacy of spiritual based life
style interventional programs in terms of increasing sense of purpose in life and a
need to achieve a higher state of consciousness (Mohan et al. 2004). Similarly,

mental health of children and adolescents has been established using spiritual
values and positive mental health framework (Vohra, 2006). Further, role of
vipasana in enhancing well-being indicators have also been documented (Purohit
and Sudha 1999). Meditation has also been evaluated as a powerful tool in
enhancing well-being measures through various spiritual groups and missionaries
such as Bhramkumaris and Hare Ram Hare Krishna and through several empirical
studies that have highlighted the positive impact of effects of transcendental
meditation (Sridevi and Rao 1998); residential Preksha meditation program on
emotional intelligence (Singhvi and Puri 2008) and on peace (Khubalkar and
Maharaj 2009).
Positive psychologists too have used existing models to assess the change in
well-being levels of Indians. Sachar et al. (2011) investigated the impact of Soka
Gakkai International’s (SGI) Buddhist practice, on psychological well-being
(PWB) and some other factors (well-being index, general psychological health,
gratitude and wisdom) of positive psychology. The results revealed that practitioners
scored significantly higher than the non-practitioners on all the constructs of positive
psychology. Another study (Dangi and Singh 2011) measured the PWB of married
migrant women by formulating and testing the effectiveness of a psychosocial and
cultural specific intervention module delivered to enhance the well-being of married
migrant women population in Haryana villages. Post intervention it was observed by
researchers that participants started enjoying daily life activities and became more
optimistic toward life after experiencing intervention. Singh et al. (2013) have
demonstrated the effectiveness of Satsang as an existing strategy to enhance
well-being of rural women. Similarly, (Singh et al. 2016c) through a field experiment
demonstrated that participants who are followers of a spiritual or religious group
possessed significantly better well-being, quality of life and physical health than the
non-followers. Another research argues that how folk songs (bhajan) communicate
spiritual messages during satsang (Singh et al. 2016d).
Multiplying benefits of music therapy in a culturally sensitive indigenous pos-
itive intervention, some small message driven songs may be designed (lok geet) as
they rapidly spread in society, being sung during cultural occasions such as
childbirth, marriages, and various festivals. Singing of these songs (lok geet) and
broadcast in the locality to be reinforced. It was believed that this intervention
would have twofold benefits: firstly, working as music therapy being unconditional
social setting and secondly owing to the composition of messages comprised in
folksongs will automatically travel within the society (Singh 2009). Additionally, in
a systematic review of three regional studies conducted in rural India, demonstrated
this culturally sensitive practice denoted a satsang to be robust in enhancing sub-
jective well-being of rural women (Singh et al. 2014).
These trends, combined, highlight towards the bridging of the gap between
Western and Eastern approaches to well-being. Cross-cultural studies interestingly
delineate and unite the cultural differences at the same time. Moreover, according to
Gockel (2004), globalization and the growing diversity of the workforce have
popularized Eastern philosophies and spiritual practices.
Future Recommendations 11
Future Recommendations
As researchers we need to understand all applied psychology constructs and then

decide upon the approach we would want to follow. Either one can choose
downwards or the upwards approach to study the positive psychology constructs.
Indian psychologists also need to understand all aspects of well-being and positive
psychology constructs in Indian context. This would enable us to plan intervention
programs so that we can flourish as communities and empower people by facili-
tating healthy practices. Furthermore, a team effort by different professionals such
as mental health workers, social workers, physiotherapists, psychologists, and
medical professionals can work together towards flourishing communities.
References
Bhattacharya, T., Singh, V., Kaur, R., & Neeti, (2006). Judgement of subjective well-being:
Influences of personality and affect. Psychological Studies, 51(2–3), 132–138.
Bhattacharya, S., Das, S., & Basu, S. (2008). Meaning in life, hope, coping and midlife wellbeing:
A correlational study. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 44–48.
Bhawuk, D. (2011). Spirituality and Indian psychology: Lessons from the Bhagavad-Gita.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological
strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 106–118.
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive
psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public
Health, 13(1), 1.
Chakraborty, S. K. (1987). Managerial effectiveness and quality of work life. New Delhi: Tata
Mcgraw Hill.
Choubisa, R., & Singh, K. (2011, July). A confirmatory randomized control trial of well-being
related skills enhancing internet intervention module for college students. Poster presented at
the Second World Congress on Positive Psychology. Philadelphia, U.S.A.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82.
Dalal, A. K. (2011). A journey back to the roots: Psychology in India. In M. Cornelisson, M.,
Misra, G., & Verma S. (Eds.), Foundations of Indian psychology. New Delhi: Pearson.
Dalal, A. K., & Misra, G. (2010). The core and context of Indian psychology. Psychology &
Developing Societies, 22(1), 121–155.
Dalal, A. K., & Misra, G. (2011). Psychology of health and well-being: Emergence and
development. In A. K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.), New directions in health psychology. New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
Dangi, S., & Singh, K. (2011, July). Effect of acculturation on psychological well-being of married
migrant women in Indian Village’s Miilieu. Poster presented at the Second World Congress on
Positive Psychology. Philadelphia, U.S.A.
Das, R. C. (1987). The Gita typology of personality: An inventory. Journal of Indian Philosophy,
6(1&2), 7–12.
Daukantaitė, D., Hefferon, K., & Sikström, S. (2015). The harmony in life scale complements the
satisfaction with life scale: Expanding the conceptualization of the cognitive component of
subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 1–27.
Delle Fave, A., Negri, L., Manohar, P. R., Morandi, A., & Bassi, M. (2015). The Ayurveda
concept of Prakŗti and the Western construct of personality: A comparative pilot study.
European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 7(4), 396–408.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being:
Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 403–425.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New
well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings.
Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General
Psychology, 9, 103–110.
Gockel, A. (2004). The trend toward spirituality in the workplace: Overview and implications for
career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41(4), 156.
Goyanka, J. (1999). Srimadbhgavadgita tattvavivecani-15th ed. Gorakhpur: Gita Press.
Jadhav, S. G., & Havalappanavar, N. B. (2009). Effect of yoga intervention on anxiety and
subjective well-being. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(1), 27–31.
Jain, A., & Singh, K. (2015, July). Development of Adaptive-Maladaptive Schema Questionnaire.
Poster presented at the American Psychological Association Meeting Toronto, Canada.
Jha, M. K. (2009). Personality: A yogic conception. Indian Journal Social Science Researches,
6(1), 39–45.
Kejriwal, A., & Krishnan, V. R. (2004). Impact of Vedic worldview and Gunas on
transformational leadership. Vikalpa, 29(1), 29–40.
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 121–140.
Keyes, C. L. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete
state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539.
Khanna, P., & Singh, K. (2015). Perceived factors affecting well-being among urban Indian
adolescents. Journal of Indian Association for Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 11(3).
Khanna, P., & Singh, K. (2016). Effect of gratitude educational intervention on well-being
indicators among North Indian adolescents. Contemporary School Psychology, 1–10.
Khanna, P., Singh, K., Singla, S., & Verma, V. (2013). Relationship between Triguna theory and
well-being indicators. International Journal of Yoga-Philosophy, Psychology and
Parapsychology, 1(2), 69.
Khubalkar, R., & Maharaj, R. T. (2009). Effects of Integral meditation on peace in young adult
nonregular meditators. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 39–45.
Krishnan, B. (2002). Typological conceptions in ancient Indian thought. In G. Misra &
A. K. Mohanty (Eds.), Perspectives on indigenous psychology (pp. 292–304). New Delhi:
Concept Publishing Company.
Lee, Y. C., Lin, Y. C., Huang, C. L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). The construct and measurement
of peace of mind. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(2), 571–590.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales.
Sydney: Psychology Foundation.
Malathi, A., Damodaran, A., Shah, N., Patil, N., & Maratha, S. (2000). Effect of yogic practices on
subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 44(2), 202–206.
Mehrotra, S., Tripathi, R., & Banu, H. (2013). Psychological well-being: Reflections on an elusive
construct and its assessment. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 39(2),
189.
Mishra, K. K. (2015). Age related differences in quality of life in urban and rural settings. Indian
Journal of Community Psychology, 11(2), 234–243.
Mohan, K. K., Prasad, S. V., & Rao, P. V. K. (2004). Effects of spiritually based lifestyle change
programme on well-being. Journal of Indian Psychology, 22, 6–13.
Narasimhan, L., Nagarathna, R., & Nagendra, H. R. (2011). Effect of integrated yogic practices on
positive and negative emotions in healthy adults. International Journal of Yoga, 4(1), 13.
References 13
Narayanan, A., & Jose, T. P. (2011). Spiritual intelligence and resilience among Christian Youth in
Kerala. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(2), 263–268.
Nathawat, S. S., & Joshi, U. (1997). The effect of hardiness and type A behaviour pattern on the
perception of life events and their relationship to psychological well-being. Indian Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 24, 52–57.
Neki, J. S. (1975). Psychotherapy in India: Past, present, and future. American Journal of
Psychotherapy.
Oshio, A., Nakaya, M., Kaneko, H., & Nagamine, S. (2002). Development and validation of an
adolescent resilience scale. Japanese Journal of Counselling Science, 35(1), 57–65.
Pandey, R., & Srivastava, N. (2008). Psychometric evaluation of a Hindi version of
positive-negative affect schedule. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 17(1), 49.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the
fifty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129.
Patwardhan, V. (2008). Effect of Yoga training on some psychological components. The Nigerian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 13, 79–91.
Puri, P., & Nathawat, S. S. (2008). Study of optimism, life satisfaction, happiness and personal
growth in college girls. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 49–55.
Purohit, S., & Sudha, H. (1999). Effects of vipassana on adolescent’s adjustment and preference of
power bases. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 205–208.
Raina, M., & Singh, K. (2015). The Ashtanga Yoga Hindi Scale: An assessment tool based on
Eastern philosophy of Yoga. Journal of Religion ad Health, 54(5), 1–14.
Rao, D., & Mehrotra, S. (2010). Personal Goal survey: Development & preliminary trial in the
Indian community. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36, 133–145.
Ritterband, L. M., Gonder-Frederick, L. A., Cox, D. J., Clifton, A. D., West, R. W., & Borowitz,
S. M. (2003). Internet interventions: in review, in use, and into the future. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 527.
Ross, A., & Thomas, S. (2010). The health benefits of yoga and exercise: A review of comparison
studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(1), 3–12.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The Structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.
Sachar, R., Singh, K., & Amulya, K. (2011, July). Impact of Buddhist practice on psychological
well-being and related factors: A comparison of practitioners and non-practitioners. Poster
presented at the Second World Congress on Positive Psychology. Philadelphia, U.S.A.
Salagame, K. K. K. (2011). Ego and ahamkara: Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian
thought. Foundations of Indian psychology, 1, 133–145.
Salagame, K. K. K. (2014). Positive psychology and Indian psychology: Birds of the same feather.
Psychological Studies, 59(2), 116–118.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president’s address. American Psychologist, 54, 559–562.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. Vintage.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Seligson, J. L., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2003). Preliminary validation of the brief
multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale (BMSLSS). Social Indicators Research,
61(2), 121–145.
Sharma, S., & Singh, K. (2016). Vikaras Hindi Scale: Construction and Assessment of
Psychometric Properties. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 19(5), 420–432.
Sharma, R., Gupta, N., & Bijlani, R. L. (2008). Effect of yoga based lifestyle intervention on
subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Physiological Pharmacology, 52(2), 123–131.
Sharma, M. P., Salvi, D., & Sharma, M. K. (2012). Sattva, Rajas and Tamas factors and quality of
life in patients with anxiety disorders: A preliminary investigation. Psychological Studies,
57(4), 388–391.
Shilpa, S., & Murthy, C. V. (2011). Understanding personality from Ayurvedic perspective for
psychological assessment: A case. Ayurveda, 32(1), 12.
Shilpa, S., & Murthy, C. G. V. (2012). Interrelatedness of Tridoshas and Trigunas in
personality: An Empirical investigation. Indian Social and Psychological Studies, 5(1), 32–40.
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms
with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 65(5), 467–487.
Singh, K. (2010). Revalidation of a new instrument for ‘Meaning in Life’ in Indian context and
comparison of cross-cultural findings. Amity Journal of Applied Psychology, 1(1), 96–103.
Singh, K. (2014). Relationship of Demographic Variables, Socio-Cultural Issues and Selected
Psychological Constructs with the Positive Mental Health of North Indian Adolescents, ICMR
Project Report (RP02586).
Singh, K., & Sharma, S. (2015). Self-perception, character strengths and happiness factors among
North Indian adolescents. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1.6), 169–180.
Singh, K., & Choubisa, R. (2009). Psychometric properties of Hindi translated version of Values
in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS). Journal of Indian Health Psychology, 4(1), 65–76.
Singh, K., & Duggal-Jha, S. (2010). The positive personality traits questionnaire: Construction and
estimation of psychometric properties. Psychological Studies, 55(3), 248–255.
Singh, K., & Junnarkar, M. (2014). Validation and effect of demographic variables on perceived
quality of life by adolescents. Asian journal of psychiatry, 12, 88–94.
Singh, K., & Raina, M. (2015). Development and Validation of a Test on Anasakti
(non-attachment): An Indian Model of Well-being. Mental Health, Religion & Culture,
18(9), 715–725.
Singh, K., & Yu, X. N. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale
(CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 23–30.
Singh, K., Duggal Jha, S., & Suri, S. (2013a). The satisfaction with life scale and the positive and
negative affect schedule: psychometric properties of the instruments in India. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 2, 156–171.
Singh, K., Khari, C., Amonkar, R., Arya, N. K., & Kesav, S. K. (2013b). Development and
validation of a new scale: Sat-Chit-Ananda Scale. International Journal on Vedic Foundations
of Management, 1(2), 54–74.
Singh, K., Bassi, M., Junnarkar, M., & Negri, L. (2015a). Mental health and psychosocial
functioning in adolescence: an investigation among Indian students from Delhi. Journal of
Adolescence, 39, 59–69.
Singh, K., Junnarkar, M., & Sharma, S. (2015b). Anxiety, stress, depression & psycho-social
functioning of Indian adolescents. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 57(4), 41–48.
Singh, K., Khanna P., Khosla, M., Rapelly, M., & Soni, A. (2015c). Revalidation of the
Sat-Chit-Ananda Scale. Journal of Religion and Health Under Review.
Singh, K., Ruch, W., & Junnarkar, M. (2015d). Effect of the demographic variables and
psychometric properties of the personal well-being index for school children in India. Child
Indicators Research, 8(3), 571–585.
Singh, K., Jain, A., Kaur, J., Junnarkar, M., & Slezackov, A. (2016a). Cross-cultural difference on
Gunas and other well-being dimensions. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 139–146.
Singh, K., Junnarkar, M., & Jaswal, S. (2016b). Validating the Flourishing Scale and the scale of
positive and negative experience in India. Mental Health, Religion & Culture (In press).
Singh, K., Singh, D., & Shokeen, B. (2016c). Well-being enchancing message in religion and
spiritual folk songs: A rural women study. Mid-Year Conference on Psychology, Spirituality
and Religion, Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (APA Div. 36) and St.
Joseph’s College, New York, USA, 11–12 March 2016.
Singh, K., Singh, D., Mitra, S., Junnarkar, M., & Dayal, P. (2016d). Effect on well-being of
spiritual practices among Indian Elderly Rural Women. Mid-Year Conference on Psychology,
References 15
Spirituality and Religion, Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (APA Div. 36)
and St. Joseph’s College, New York, USA, 11–12 March 2016.
Singhvi, M., & Puri, P. (2008). Effects of preksha dhyana meditation on emotional intelligence and
mental stress. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 82–89.
Skevington, S. M., Lofty, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organisation’s
WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. A report from the WHOQOL group. Quality of
Life Research, 13, 299–310.
Sridevi, R., & Rao, K. P. V. (1998). Temporal effects of meditation and personality. Psychological
Studies, 43, 95–105.
Srivastava, A. K., & Misra, G. (2011). In A. K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.), New directions in health
psychology (pp. 109–131). New Delhi: Sage.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire:
Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
53(1), 80.
Stempel, H. S., Cheston, S. E., Greer, J. M., & Gillespie, C. K. (2006). Further exploration of the
Vedic Personality Inventory: Validity, reliability, and generalizability. Psychological Reports,
98, 261–273.
Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness:
Theory and emprical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 223–239.
Vahia, N. S., Doongaji, D. R., Jeste, D. V., Ravindranath, S., Kapoor, S. N., & Ardhapurkar, I.
(1973). Psychophysiologic therapy based on the concepts of Patanjali: A new approach to the
treatment of neurotic and psychosomatic disorders. American Jjournal of Psychotherapy.
Varambally, S., Gangadhar, B. N., Thirthalli, J., Jagannathan, A., Kumar, S.,
Venkatasubramanian, G., et al. (2012). Therapeutic efficacy of add-on yogasana intervention
in stabilized outpatient schizophrenia: Randomized controlled comparison with exercise and
waitlist. Indian journal of psychiatry, 54(3), 227.
Venkoba Rao, A. (1978). Epidemiology of depression. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 8, 143–154.
Vohra, S. S. (2006). Sowing seeds of happiness through value inculcation in adolescents.
Psychological Studies, 51, 183–186.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54(6), 1063.
Wolf, D. B. (1998). The Vedic personality inventory: A study of the Gunas. Journal of Indian
Chapter 2
Norms for Test Construction
Abstract In the subsequent chapters, different scales have been developed and
validated on Indian population. The current chapter aims to give an overview of
various norms that were followed while constructing the scales. In literature, several
methods for scale development and validation exist however, in this chapter only
those methods are discussed more, which have been used in the later chapters. The
current chapter gives an overview of definition of psychological test, steps of test
construction, norms for sample size, preliminary data analysis, exploratory factor
analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, etc.

Keywords Psychological test Test construction Norms Preliminary data

analysis Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis
Introduction
What Is a Psychological Test?
Psychological test is a set of objective and standardized self-report questions whose

responses are then scored and aggregated to attain a composite score (Zumbo et al.
2002). The main components of a psychological test are (i) series statements to
which an participant responds and (ii) a composite score that arises from scoring of
statements that can be obtained either as binary scores that are dichotomous in
nature or on a Likert type scale with grading statements, for example five points
such as strongly agree to strongly disagree. The items in a test are indicators of the
phenomenon under study and hence a composite score is also an indicator of the
phenomenon and not the phenomenon itself (Zumbo et al. 2002).

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_2
18 2 Norms for Test Construction
Test Construction
Psychological tests are often subject-centered measurements and follow certain

strict guidelines for construction, administration, scoring and interpretation. The
main goal of developing a new scale is to create a valid and reliable measure of an
existing construct. The following steps are followed during construction of a test
(Crocker and Algina 1986):
1. Identification of primary purpose for which the test scores will be used
2. Identify behaviors that represent the construct or define the domain
3. Prepare a set of test specification, delineating the proportion of items that
should focus on each type of behavior identified in step 2
4. Construct an initial pool of items
5. Review of items
6. Pilot test of the revised items
7. Modification of items (if any from the pilot study)
8. Field test the items on a large sample representative of the examinee population
for whom the test is intended
9. Determine statistical properties of item scores and when appropriate, elimina-
tion of items that do not meet pre-established criteria
10. Design and conduct reliability and validity studies for the final form of the test
11. Develop guidelines for administration, scoring, and interpretation of test scores
(Matlock-Hetzel 1997).
In the forthcoming chapters on positive psychology scales, the above guidelines
were followed. An in-depth and exhaustive literature review was undertaken with
respect to test construction and validation of each construct. Based on literature, an
exhaustive list of domains was prepared followed by item pool generation under
each domain. Then the content validity of the pooled items was established with the
help of five experts who held doctoral degrees in Psychology and were well versed
with scale construction. They independently reviewed the items in the context of
their clarity, readability level and their suitability for the purpose on a four point
rating scale with 1 as least relevant to 4 as most relevant. The items that were rated
by all experts as relevant (3) or most relevant (4) were retained. The remaining
items were deleted. After content validity, data were collected and then scrutinized
for item statistical properties. At this stage too few items wherever required were
deleted (Visser et al. 2000; Steger et al. 2006).
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed with an aim to reduce the
number of items and retain most relevant items only. Post EFA, data were collected
again on a different set of sample. The second set of data were split into one-third
and two-third based on recommended methodologies (Guadagnoli and Velicer
1988; MacCallum et al. 1996). On one-third data, EFA was employed whereas on
two-third data confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed. The confirmed
factor validation structure resulted in the final list of domains and items.
Introduction 19
For example, construction of resilience scale was undertaken after exhaustive

literature review of various established resilience scales such as The Adolescent
Resilience Scale (ARS, Oshio et al. 2003), Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA,
Friborg et al. 2003), Connor-Davidson Rating Scale (CD-RISC, Connor and
Davidson 2003), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS, Smith et al. 2008), The Resilience
Scale (RS, Wagnild and Young 1993), Dispositional Resilience Scale Revised 15
(DRS-R15, Bartone et al. 1989) and so on. The existing scales were reviewed for
their factor structure consistency and validity and internal consistency. Later, item
pool was generated by developing new items and items from existing scales which
were subjected to content validity. The pooled items were rated by subject experts
on parameters of relevance, cultural fairness, etc. According to the reviewer’s
suggestions during content validity, some more new items that were culturally
relevant were added. Data were collected on the exhaustive list of items and later
subjected to item analysis and EFA with an aim to reduce items and explore factor
structure. This was followed by data collection on retained item list in the next
phase and once again items analysis; EFA as well as CFA were employed. The
confirmed factor structure items were then translated into Hindi and the CFA was
employed to confirm the factor validation on Hindi version. Same procedure was
followed for all constructs of interest in this book.
It is observed that once established scales show generally acceptable norms
during revalidation except factor solution. Often researchers develop a pool of test
items from existing scales and modify a few items. However, at times the scales
lack rigorous validation process which has become the call of the hour in test
construction. EFA and CFA are the cynosure of test validation. Almost all
researchers use these techniques for analysis. However, several problems arise with
using and reporting these techniques. It is necessary to focus on few parameters
such as creation of item pool, basic principles of item writing, choice of format,
sample size for validation, norms for EFA and CFA. Few other guidelines too were
followed while developing the scales in the next chapters as outlined by Clark and
Watson (1995).
Principles of Item Writing
Writing good items is a precursor to developing a good psychometric test.

A researcher needs to do a thorough literature survey before commencing item
writing (e.g., Angleitner and Wiggins 1985; Comrey 1988; Kline 1986: cited in Clark
and Watson 1995). According to Clark and Watson (1995) the language should be
unpretentious, upfront, suitable and simple in nature. The language should also be of
the reading level of target population. A researcher should avoid using trendy
expressions, idioms, other language forms that vary widely with age, ethnicity,
region, gender, and items that virtually everyone misinterprets (e.g., “Sometimes
I am better-off than at other times”) or no one (e.g., “I am always energetic”)
unless they are intended to assess invalid responding, avoid using complex or
double-barrelled items (Clark and Watson 1995).
In the current book chapters, utmost care was taken by authors while item
writing for the scales. All the items were evaluated by reviewers for the above
discussed precursors for good item writing. All the above mentioned points were
followed during developing items for constructs of interest in the next chapters.
Format of Items
The test developer also has to choose the format in which the items would be
written. The two dominant response formats are dichotomous responding (e.g.,
true–false and yes–no) and Likert type rating scales with three or more options.
Checklists, forced-choice, and visual analogy measures also have been used over
the years, but for various reasons are not in favor (Clark and Watson 1995).
In the forthcoming chapters, the scales were designed as five point Likert type
rating scales. The authors decided this format for construction based on literature
review of the constructs and advantages of Likert type of scale.
The central goal of this stage is to represent thoroughly all content that is
potentially relevant to the target construct. Loevinger (1957) stated that “The items
of the pool should be chosen so as to sample all possible contents which might
comprise the putative trait according to all known alternative theories of the trait”
(p. 659). The two key propositions of Loevinger (1957) statement are (a) the initial
pool of items should be extensive and more widespread than the theoretical view of
the target construct and (b) should include content that ultimately will be shown to
be tangential or even unrelated to the core construct. The aim should be that the
resultant psychometric analyses can identify weak, unrelated items that should be
dropped (Watson 2012) from the emerging scale. While creating an item pool
inclusiveness is always better than excluding items related to any aspect of the
construct (Clark and Watson 1995; Watson 2012).
It is also important that the scale developer must include an adequate sample of
items within each of the major content areas comprising the broadly conceptualized
domain (Clark and Watson 1995; Watson 2012). If one fails to do so then there is a
chance of underrepresentation of items in the final scale. To ensure that each
important aspect of the construct is assessed adequately, it is recommended that
formal subscales be created to assess each major content area (Watson 2012).
Loevinger (1957) recommended that the proportion of items dedicated to each
content area should be proportional to the importance of that aspect in the target
construct (Clark and Watson 1995).
Most researchers employ deductive method for scale construction. Good scale
construction process involves several periods of item writing and conceptual and
psychometric analysis (de Barros 2014). The psychometric analyses sharpen the
understanding of the nature and structure of the target domain and also aid to
Introduction 21
identify deficiencies in the initial item pool. For example, if factor analysis suggests
that scale can be further divided into several subscales, but at item generation stage
enough similar items were not pooled then reliability of the pooled items cannot be
assessed (Clark and Watson 1995). Hence, new items would have to be rewritten
and items would need to be subjected to item analysis once again. Alternatively,
analyses may suggest the conceptualization of the target construct (Clark and
Watson 1995).
In the preceding chapters, the authors have followed the above mentioned item
writing process. An exhaustive list of items was generated by considering all
domains for each of the construct. The list was then given to five experts who
possessed doctoral degree in the subject and were well versed with scale con-
struction. Subject experts independently evaluated the items in the context of their
clarity readability level and their relevance for the construct and only the items
which were rated relevant (3) or most relevant (4) by all experts were retained.
Sample Size for Validation
Most of the times, the bigger question researchers face is “how to determine the
sample size?” for validation. McQuitty (2004) suggested that it is important to
determine the minimum sample size required in order to achieve a desired level of
statistical power with a given model prior to data collection. Schreiber et al. (2006)
mentioned that although sample size needed is affected by the normality of the
data and estimation method that researchers use, the generally agreed-on value is
10 participants for every free parameter estimated (cited in Hoe 2008). Minimums
of 5 or 10 cases per measure have typically been recommended (Comrey and Lee
1992; Gorsuch 1983; Zhao 2009). Tinsley and Kass (1979) recommended a
minimum of five participants per variable whereas as a general rule of thumb for
factor analysis is 300 cases (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996). However, on a more
lenient note 50 participants per factor is acceptable (Pedhazur and Schmelkin
1991; Osborne and Costello 2004). Comrey and Lee (1992) stated that 50 as very
poor, 100 as poor, 200 as fair, 300 as good, 500 as very good, and 1,000 as
excellent sample size for factor analysis (Osborne and Costello 2004). Researchers
(Sivo et al. 2006; Garver and Menter 1999; Hoelter 1983) have proposed a
“critical sample size” of 200. Any number above 200 is considered to provide
sufficient statistical power of data analysis (Hoe 2008). Hence, it can be stated that
larger sample size is appreciable.
In our studies, the sample size was above 200 for EFA and 300 for CFA. It was
ensured that at least five participants were recruited per item. Both data sets were
mutually exclusive. The sample was divided into one-third and two-third and
counterbalanced for gender. On one-third data EFA was employed and two-third
data CFA was employed. After validating scales in English, these scales were
translated in Hindi and established their validation through CFA.
Preliminary Data Analysis
Item Analysis
It is essential that researchers employ preliminary data analysis. This covers

screening the data for item means, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and
item-total correlation. This would also determine which items are to be eliminated
from or retained in the item pool. As a rule of thumb, the criterion suggested by
Jang and Roussos (2007) that items with means less than 2 and more than 4 are to
be rejected and by Jackson (1970) that item standard deviations less than 1 SD < 1)
are to be eliminated. It is also essential to check the data for normality. Finney and
DiStefano (2006a, b) stated that skewness values should not exceed an absolute
value of 3 and kurtosis values not exceed an absolute value of 8 (Barry and Finney
2008) whereas (Curran et al. 1996) recommended level of skeweness <2 and
kurtosis <7. Moreover, item-total correlation should not be less than 0.25 Likert
(1932) or less than 0.2 or 0.3 (Field 2005a, b).
This stage is most important especially when the test developer is seeking to
create a theoretically based measure of a construct. It is essential to be precise which
appears to be a difficult task and often poorly understood by test developers. The
most obvious problem is the ubiquitous misconception that the attainment of this
goal can be established by demonstrating that a scale shows an acceptable level of
internal consistency (alpha reliability), as estimated by an index such as coefficient
alpha (Cronbach 1951, in Clark and Watson 1995) even though there are contrasting
parameters to accept the coefficient alpha (Clark and Watson 1995). For example
Nunnally (1978) recommended minimum standards of reliability r = 0.80 and
r = 0.90 for basic and applied research, respectively. However, contemporary
researchers consider reliabilities in the 0.60 and 0.70 s as good or adequate (Dekovic
et al. 1991; Holden et al. 1991, cited in Clark and Watson 1995). According to Kline
(1998), Cortina (1993a, b) internal consistency of 0.90 and above is excellent,
0.70–0.90 is good, 0.60–0.70 is acceptable, 0.50–0.60 is poor and below 0.50 is
unacceptable. However, when a scale measures several domains, the acceptable
value of 0.50 for eight item domains is deemed fit (Costa and McCrae 1992) as
reliability is affected by number of items in the domain (Field 2005a, b). Thus, from
literature it can be seen that domain Cronbach alpha with lower value is acceptable
depending upon the number of items measuring a domain. It is essential to determine
the internal consistency since it would determine the degree to which the items that
make up a scale are inter-correlated (Clark and Watson 1995). Another view point of
acceptability for Cronbach’s alpha is that coefficients of 0.70 or higher and mean
inter-item correlations in the 0.20–0.40 range indicate good reliability (Clark and
Watson 1995; Nunnally 1978). A scale cannot be homogeneous unless all of its
items are interrelated or correlated (Clark and Watson 1995). If the items are cor-
related then it can be concluded that the scale is measuring the same concept.
In the forthcoming chapters, all the above discussed norms have been followed
very strictly. Items with mean beyond the range of 2–4, SD lesser than 1, skewness
Introduction 23
greater than 2, kurtosis greater than 7, item-total correlation below 0.25, were
deleted in all the constructs. After item analyses the retained items were subjected to
exploratory factor analysis.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is employed to analyze interrelationships among a large number of

variables. The technique also explains these variables in terms of their common
underlying dimensions. It involves condensing the scale items into a smaller set of
dimensions (factors) with a minimum loss of information. In other words, EFA is a
data reduction procedure. Researchers often face the issue of “how to extract factors”
while employing EFA (Russell 2002). The classic factor analysis equation specifies
that a measure being factored can be represented by the following equation:
x1 ¼ w11F1 þ w21F2 þ wn1Fn þ w1U1 þ e1;
where the Fs represent the common factors

Us represent factors
ws represent loadings of each item
es reflect random measurement error
Each measured variable has its own unique factor, reflecting systematic variance
in the item or measure that is not shared with the other measures being analyzed. On
the basis of this equation, the variance in the measure being factored (i.e., σ2 x) can
be separated into three part
• A part of the variance in the measure that reflects the influence of the common
factors, termed the communality of the variable (Russell 2002). However,
communalities below 0.40 are not interpreted as evidence of poor fit so much as
evidence that variables analyzed have little in common with one another and
hence are not ‘reliable’ measures of the proposed factor solution (Russell 2002).
• A part of the variance that reflects the influence of the factor unique to that
measure (Russell 2002).
• Random error variance, i.e., there is no measurement error in its ability to
distinguish among cases/individuals (Russell 2002).
Two common methods employed for extracting factors in context of EFA are
principal component analysis and principal axis factoring. Principal components
analysis (PCA) and principal axis factoring (PAF) differ on the estimation of
communalities for the measured variables, or in other words; the variance that each
measured variable shares with the other measured variables. In PCA, the commu-
nalities for the measures are set at 1.0. It assumes that all of the variance in a
measure is potentially explainable by factors that are derived. PCA extracts the
factors based on correlations among the measures. On the other hand, in PAF the
estimate of the communality reflects the variance in each measure due to the
influence of the factors (Russell 2002). PAF extracts factors using a reduced cor-
relation matrix, where the 1.0 values on the diagonal of the correlation matrix are
replaces by these initial communality estimated. In PAF, the analysis of data
structure is focused on shared variance and not on sources of error that are unique to
individual measurements (Russell 2002).
PCA is applied to a single set of variables to discover which variables in the set
form coherent subsets that are independent of one another. It also provides a unique
solution, so that the original data, the covariance or correlation matrix can be con-
structed from the results. Furthermore it looks at the total variance among the
variables so the solution generated will include many factors or components as there
are variables, although it is unlikely that all of them will meet the criteria for
retention (Russell 2002). PCA is characteristically exploratory in nature. Even
before one proceeds for PCA, it is essential to know “if the data is worth reducing.”
This can be determined from the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy (KMO-MSA) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Floyd and Widaman 1995).
The KMO-MSA is a statistic that indicates the proportion of variance and your
variables that might be caused by common underlying factors. It is an index for
comparing the magnitudes of the observed correlation coefficients to the magni-
tudes of the partial correlation coefficients (Kaiser 1974). High values (close to 1.0)
indicate that a factor analysis may be useful with the data. If the value is less than
0.50, the results of the factor analysis may not be useful (Floyd and Widaman 1995;
Russell 2002). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity test the hypothesis that your cor-
relation matrix is an identity matrix that would indicate the variables are unrelated
and therefore unsuitable for structure detection (Floyd and Widaman 1995).
A significant Bartlett’s test results indicate that EFA can be employed on the items
since the null hypothesis would be rejected.
While employing PCA or Factor reduction in SPSS, one would look at
extraction method tab and rotation tab.
Extraction Methods (Cudeck and O’Dell 1994; Fabrigar et al. 1999; Finch and
West 1997)
• Principal (Axis) Factors method indicates that estimates of communalities are
diagonal. It removes the unique and error variance. In this extraction the solution
depends on quality of initial communality estimates.
• Maximum Likelihood is an intensive method for estimating loadings that
maximize the likelihood of sampling the observed correlation matrix from a
population.
• Unweighted least squares extraction method minimizes off diagonal residuals
between reproduced and original matrix.
• Generalized (weighted) least squares too minimizes the off diagonal residuals
and gives more weight to variables with larger communalities in analysis.
• Alpha factoring maximizes reliability of factors.
• Image factoring minimizes “unique” factors consisting of essentially one mea-
sured variable (Russell 2002).
Introduction 25
Rotation Methods (Cudeck and O’Dell 1994; Fabrigar et al. 1999; Finch and
West 1997).
Rotation is a pattern of loadings where items load most strongly on one factor
and weekly on others. It serves to make the output more understandable. Rotations
can be orthogonal or oblique allowing factors to correlate.
• Varimax rotation is the most popular orthogonal rotation. It cleans up the factors
and it makes large loadings larger and small loadings smaller (Russell 2002).
• Quartimax cleans up the variables; each variable loads mainly on one factor, and
works on rows of loading matrix. This is an orthogonal alternative which
minimizes the number of factors needed to explain each variable. This type of
rotation often generates a general factor on which most variables are loaded to a
high or medium degree. It is not used as often since the goal is not to simplify
variables. Such a factor structure is usually not helpful to the research purpose
(Suhr 2005).
• Equamax is a hybrid of varimax and quartimax criteria and is not popular (Suhr
2005).
• Direct Oblimin is a non-orthogonal (oblique) solution that allows factors to be
correlated. This results in higher eigenvalues but diminished interpretability of
the factors (Suhr 2005).
• Promax is an alternative non-orthogonal (oblique) rotation method which is
computationally faster than the direct oblimin method and therefore sometimes
used for very large datasets (Suhr 2005).
Researchers are often confused to know which factor solution is suitable for their
dataset. Often researchers are faced with the problem of “how many items should be
there in a factor extracted by EFA”. This is the issue of identification, or having a
sufficient number of measures that load on each factor to be able to adequately
operationalize the factor. At least three items per factor are required for a factor
model to be identified; more items per factor results in over identification of the
model. A number of writers (Comrey and Lee 1992; Fabrigar et al. 1999; Gorsuch
1983) recommend that minimum of three items and optimum of four or more items
per factor be included in the factor analysis to ensure an adequate identification of
the factors. MacCallum et al. (1999) found that in addition to the communality of
the items, the results were more accurate if there were more items per factor.
Therefore, it appears wise to test over identified factor models where the researcher
includes four or more items per factor in the analysis (Comrey and Lee 1992;
Fabrigar et al. 1999; Gorsuch 1983; Russell 2002).
Using one or more methods listed below, the researcher can determine an
appropriate range of solutions to investigate. One needs to be cautious while
determining the factor solution since methods may not agree. For example Kaiser
criterion may suggest 5-factor solution and Scree test may suggest 2-factor, hence
the researcher would have to look at 3- and 4-factor solution too (Russell 2002).
However, the most important factor is to also select a more theoretically meaningful
factor solution (Suhr 2005).
A Rule of Thumb for EFA
• Comprehensibility is purely subjective criterion to retain factors whose meaning

is comprehensible (Suhr 2005).
• Kaiser criterion rule is to drop all components with eigenvalues under 1.0.
However, this is default in SPSS. The eigenvalues refer to the amount of variance
explained by a factor and are computed by squaring the loadings on a factor and
summing them together. Although SPSS uses this criterion no matter what
technique is used to extract the factors, in fact this criterion should only be used
when principal components analysis (with communalities fixed at 1.0) is used as
the extraction procedure (see discussion by Gorsuch 1983, cited in Russell 2002).
• In variance explained criteria, researchers use the thumb rule of keeping enough
factors to account for 90 % of variation (Suhr 2005). However, when the goal is
to emphasize on parsimony, variance may be as low as 50 %. Fabrigar et al.
(1999) stated that the eigenvalue < 1.0, criterion often leads to extracting too
many factors. For example, if one is to factor a set of 5 measures versus a set of
20 measures. If cutoff for eigenvalue is 1.0 then for five measures it would
account for 20 % of total variance whereas for 20 measures it would explain just
5 % of the total variance. Hence, when one is factoring a large set of items, it is
more likely that using this criterion will lead to extracting factors that account
for only a small amount of the total variance (Russell 2002).
• Scree test plots the components as the X axis and the corresponding eigenvalues
as the Y axis. Toward the right of the plot, the eigenvalues drop. When the drop
ceases and the curve makes an elbow toward less steep decline, scree test says to
drop all further components after the one starting the elbow. One then looks for
a break in the values, where there is the last substantial drop in the eigenvalues.
The number of factors prior to this drop represents the number of factors to be
extracted (Russell 2002).
In the forthcoming chapters, EFA has been employed twice on all scales with an
aim of item reduction. All parameters such as KMO above 0.80, significant Bartlett
test at p = 0.05 or p = 0.01, loading of items with cutoff at 0.40 factor loading,
minimum of at least three items in every factor and more than 50 % of total
variance was followed. Apart from this varimax rotation with principal component
analysis was initially employed. To ensure robustness of factor solution, promax
with maximum likelihood was employed. This ensured that the factor solution was
near to accuracy and a theoretically sound factor model emerged.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is also used to confirm a priori hypotheses. Researchers have often
been able to generate hypotheses regarding the factors that should be represented in a
given domain of inquiry. The hypotheses may be based on theory or results from
Introduction 27
previous empirical studies. As a confirmatory procedure, factor analysis is primarily a

method for assessing the construct validity of measures and it is not a means for data
reduction unlike EFA. Construct validity is supported if the factor structure of the
scale is consistent with the constructs the instrument wants to measure (Floyd and
Widaman 1995). This approach allows for testing the relative fit of competing factor
models. This approach is primarily useful for confirmation of theories as with other
applications of structural equation modeling that suggest alterations in proposed
factor structure. Therefore, CFA can be used to revise and refine instruments and their
factorial structure. CFA is most effective when it is used to assess whether the
existing factors structure adequately fits the data and if the structure fits as well as and
as parsimoniously as other models (Suhr 2005; Floyd and Widaman 1995). These
days, researchers use computer programs such as LISREL (Joreskog and Sorbom
1986), AMOS and EQS (Bentler 2002) to estimate and evaluate the structural portion
of the model. The raw data for the variables are input into the software to generate the
iterations, goodness-of-fit indices and standardized paths. The various variables are
usually summated scales where the attributes measuring a common underlying
construct are summed and divided by the number of items (Hoe 2008).
While performing CFA there are two important terms that a researcher should be
aware off (i) Measured variables are those variables that are observed directly by
physical measurement or on a scale such as a written test (measuring resilience,
spirituality, flow, etc., on a five point scale). The scale items are measured variables.
(ii) Latent variables are variables that are not directly observed but are rather
inferred (through a mathematical model) from other variables that are observed
(directly measured). To repeat, a factor or latent trait is an unseen construct, such as
intelligence or anxiety or depression, that is responsible for the correlations among
the measured variables that we do see (Norman and Streiner 2003). Hence, resi-
lience is a latent variable. Latent variables reduce dimensionality of data. In other
words, it can state that large numbers of observable variables are aggregated in a
model that enables to understand the data easily. Latent variables represent ‘shared’
variance, or the degree to which variables “move” together. Variables that have no
correlation cannot result in a latent construct based on the common factor model
(Kline 2010; Hoe 2008; Norman and Streiner 2003).
The next step is to understand the output of CFA. There are various fit indices
that are generated in a CFA output. The next section focuses on these indices and
the recommended cutoff’s suggested by various researchers.
Fit Indices
There are abundant indicators of goodness-of-fit and researchers recommend

evaluating the models by observing more than one of these indicators (Bentler and
Wu 2002; Hair et al. 1998). Fit indices are categorized as absolute fit indices and
relative fit indices (Hoe 2008).
Absolute fit indices determine how well, a priori model fits, or reproduces the
data (McDonald and Ho 2002; Hooper et al. 2008a, b). Absolute fit indices include,
but are not limited to, the Chi-Squared test, RMSEA, GFI, AGFI, RMR, and SRMR
(Hooper et al. 2008a, b)
1. Chi-squared (χ2) test indicates the difference between observed and expected
covariance matrices. Values closer to zero indicate a better fit; smaller difference
between expected and observed covariance matrices and it can also be used to
compare the fit of nested models (Gatignon 2010; Hooper et al. 2008a, b). One
obscurity with the chi-squared test of model fit is that researchers may fail to
reject an inappropriate model in small sample sizes and reject an appropriate
model in large sample sizes (Gatignon 2010; Hooper et al. 2008a, b). Therefore,
other measures of fit have been developed. A low χ2 value indicates a good fit
because chi-square test is used to assess actual and predicted matrices. On the
other hand non-significance means that there is no significant difference
between the actual and predicted matrices (Hair et al. 1998, cited in Hoe 2008).
Therefore, low χ2 values, which result in significance levels greater than 0.05 or
0.01, indicate that actual and predicted inputs are not statistically diverse. The
significance levels of 0.1 or 0.2 should exceed before non-significance is con-
firmed (Fornell 1983, cited in Hoe 2008). However, χ2 is highly sensitive to
sample size especially when the observations are greater than 200. Hence an
alternate method is used to evaluate the χ2 statistic. The ratio of χ2 to the degrees
of freedom (df) for the model is calculated (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993; Hoe
2008). A small χ2 value relative to its degree of freedom is indicative of good fit.
Kline (1998) suggested that a χ2/df ratio of 3 or less is a reasonably good
indicator of model fit (Hoe 2008).
2. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) an extremely infor-
mative criterion in evaluating model fit. The RMSEA index measures the dis-
crepancy between the observed and estimated covariance matrices per degree of
freedom (Steiger 1990; Hoe 2008). It measures the discrepancy in terms of the
population and not the sample. Furthermore, it avoids issues of sample size by
analyzing the discrepancy between the hypothesized model, with optimally
chosen parameter estimates, and the population covariance matrix (Hooper et al.
2008a, b). Thus, the value of this fit index is expected to better approximate or
estimate the population and not be affected by sample size. The RMSEA ranges
from 0 to 1, with smaller values indicating better model fit. A value of 0.06 or
less is indicative of acceptable model fit. Values less than 0.05 indicate good fit,
values up to 0.08 reasonable fit and ones between 0.08 and 0.10 indicate
mediocre fit (All et al. 2013; Hu and Bentler 1999).
3. Root mean square residual (RMR) and standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) are the square root of the discrepancy between the sample
covariance matrix and the model covariance matrix (Hooper et al. 2008a, b). The
RMR may be somewhat difficult to interpret, however, as its range is based on the
scales of the indicators in the model (this becomes tricky when you have multiple
Introduction 29
indicators with varying scales; e.g., two questionnaires, one on a 0–10 scale, the
other on a 1–3 scale) (Kline 2010). The standardized root mean square residual
removes this difficulty in interpretation, and ranges from 0 to 1, with a value of
0.08 or less being indicative of an acceptable model (Hu and Bentler 1999).
4. Goodness-of-fit index and adjusted goodness-of-fit index GFI is a measure of
fit between the hypothesized model and the observed covariance matrix. The
adjusted goodness-of fit-index (AGFI) corrects the GFI, which is affected by the
number of indicators of each latent variable. The GFI and AGFI range between
0 and 1, with a cutoff value of 0.9 generally indicating acceptable model fit (All
et al. 2013; Baumgartner and Hombur 1996).
Relative fit indices are also called “incremental fit indices” (Tanaka 1993) and
“comparative fit indices” (Bentler 1990) that compare the chi-square for the
hypothesized model to one from a “null,” or “baseline” model (McDonald and Ho
2002). Relative fit indices include the normed fit index and comparative fit index
(Hooper et al. 2008a, b).
1. Normed fit index (NFI) analyzes the discrepancy between the chi-squared
value of the hypothesized model and the chi-squared value of the null model
(All et al. 2013) and tends to be negatively biased (Bentler and Bonett 1980).
Non-normed fit index (NNFI; also known as the Tucker-Lewis index, as it was
built on an index formed by Tucker and Lewis, in 1973) resolves some of the
issues of negative bias, though NNFI values may sometimes fall beyond the 0–1
range (Bentler 1990). Values for both the NFI and NNFI should range between
0 and 1, with a cutoff of 0.95 or greater indicating a good model fit (All et al.
2013; Hooper et al. 2008a, b; Hu Bentler and Hoyle 1995).
2. Comparative fit index (CFI) was developed by Bentler (1990) as a
non-centrality parameter-based index to overcome the limitation of sample size
effects. It analyzes the model fit by examining the discrepancy between the data
and the hypothesized model, while adjusting for the issues of sample size
inherent in the chi-squared test of model fit (Gatigon 2010), and the normed fit
index (Bentler 1990). CFI values range from 0 to 1, with larger values indi-
cating better fit; a CFI value of 0.90 or larger is generally considered indicating
acceptable model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999).
Parameters for Accepting a Model
Geuens and Pelsmacker (2002, cited in Pandey and Saxena 2012) used the fol-
lowing six criteria for examining the model fit
a. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) greater than 0.80,
b. The adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) greater than 0.90,
c. The root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.08 (Cole

1987),
d. The ratio of maximum likelihood chi-square to the degrees of freedom (X2/df,
Bartone et al. 1989) less than five,
e. Tucker and Lewis non-normed fit index (TLI) greater than 0.90, and
f. Bentler’s comparative fit index (CFI) greater than 0.90 (see Pandey and Saxena
2012).
Here, it is worth mentioning that although we are using the criteria of testing the
model fit as used by Geuens and Pelsmacker (2002) to have parity, the recent
recommendations for some of the said fit indices are slightly different. For example,
now a days a good fit is inferred if the GFI and AGFI are greater than 0.95, χ2/
df < 2 and RMSEA is less than 0.05 (Hooper et al. 2008a, b, cited in Pandey and
Saxena 2012). In all the forthcoming chapters, the models have been accepted or
rejected based on the parameters mentioned above.
The new scales were constructed in English. However, it is a known fact that
Hindi is spoken by approximately 41 % of Indian population (Census 2011).
Therefore, a need was felt to translate the scales into Hindi. All the scales were
translated into Hindi and data were collected from approximately above 500 par-
ticipants. The translation was done by bilingual experts who translated the original
English version into Hindi language. The test was later back-translated into English
to verify the content similarity to the original scale and to ensure that translated tests
were true copy of the original tests. The discrepancies were resolved and the test
was once again verified by the authors and bilingual experts. On the Hindi scales,
only CFA was employed. It was observed that CFA models for the test confirmed
for all the scales.
Furthermore, in the forthcoming chapters concurrent validity too was evaluated
by correlating the scales with other positive psychology constructs/scales. For
establishing concurrent validity, well-established scales were used. For example,
the newly constructed resilience scale’s concurrent validity was evaluated by cor-
relating the new scale with other well-established scales such as Mental Health
Continuum Scale-Short Form (MHC-SF, Keyes 2009), Scale of positive and neg-
ative experiences and Flourishing Scale (SPANE and FS, Diener et al. 2010).
Similarly, concurrent validity of the new spirituality scale was established by
correlating it with Vedic Personality Inventory (VPI, Wolf 1998) and Flourishing
Scale (FS, Diener et al. 2010)
In the future chapters, the cutoffs and statistical recommendations mentioned in
this chapter have been used. If otherwise, the statistical recommendations have been
mentioned in appropriate place. We hope that this chapter would enable the readers
to understand the scale construction procedure followed in the forthcoming
chapters.
References 31
References
All, C., Mahdi, C. G., & Isaksson, V. (2013). The effects of charismatic clients on auditors
objectivity.
Angleitner, A., & Wiggins, J. S. (1985). Personality assessment via questionnaires. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Barry, C. L., & Finney, S. J. (2008). A psychometric investigation of the college self-efficacy
inventory. Center for Assessment and Research Studies, James Madison University. Retrieved
May 10th 2013, from http://www.psyc.jmu.edu/assessment/research/pdfs/BarryFinneyCSEI
NERA.pdf
Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. W., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military
air disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 177, 317–328.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107
(2), 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2002). EQS 6 for windows user’s guide, encino. CA: Mulitvariate
Software.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309.
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical
psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754–761.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cortina, J. M. (1993a). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13(6), 653–665.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York:
CBS College Publishing.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297–334.
Cudeck, R., & O’Dell, L. L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in unrestricted factor
analysis: Significance tests for factor loadings and correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 115,
475–487.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non-normality
and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16.
de Barros, M. T. (2014). Brand relationships and corporate brand identity: A structural modelling
approach. Unpublished Thesis.
Dekovic, M., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1991). Factor structure and construct
validity of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR). Psychological Assessment, 3,
182–187.
Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
Field, A. (2005a). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Field, A. (2005b). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Finch, J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models.
Journal of Research in Personality, 31(4), 439–485.
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006a). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation
models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), A second course in structural equation
modeling (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation
models. In G.R. Hancock & R.O. Mueller (Eds.), A second course in structural equation
modeling (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of
clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286.
Fornell, C. (1983). Issues in the application of covariance structure analysis: A comment. Journal
of Consumer Research, 9(4), 443–448.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for
adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment?
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 65–76.
Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation
modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33–57.
Geuens, M., & Pelsmacker, P. D. (2002). Validity and reliability of scores on the reduced
emotional intensity scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 299. 315.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation to sample size to the stability of component
patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265.
Hair, J. F, Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis
(5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hoe, L. S. (2008). Quantitative research methods. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1),
76–83.
Hoelter, D. R. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological
Methods and Research, 11, 325–344.
Holden, R. R., Fekken, G. C., & Cotton, D. H. G. (1991). Assessing psychopathology using
structured test-item response latencies. Psychological Assessment, 3, 111–118.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008a). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008b). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisci-
plinary journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues,
and applications. Evaluating model fit, 76–99.
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C. D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 61–96). New York:
Academic Press.
Jang, E. E., & Roussos, L. A. (2007). An investigation into the dimensionality of TOEFL using
conditional covariance-based nonparametric approach. Journal of Educational Measurement,
44(1), 1–21. doi:10.2307/20461840.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL6 - computer program. IN, Scientific Software:
Moorseville.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrica, 39, 31–36.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Brief description of the mental health continuum short form (MHC-SF).
Retrieved from http://www. sociology.emory.edu/ckeyes/. [Online, retrieved January 15, 2010]
Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. New
York: Methuen.
References 33
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles And Practice Of Structural Equation Modeling, New York,
Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective test as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports,
3, 635–694.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination
of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130.
Matlock-Hetzel, S. (1997). Basic concepts in item and test analysis. Texas A & M University.
Retrieved May 2nd, 2013 from http://ericae.net/ft/tamu/Espy.htm
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting statistical equation
analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82.
McQuitty, S. (2004). Statistical power and structural equation models in business research. Journal
of Business Research, 57(2), 175–183.
Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (2003). Chapter 17: Path analysis and structural equation
modeling. PDQ Statistics (3rd edn., Vol. 156, p. 177). London: BC Decker Inc.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal
components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(11), 8.
adolescent resilience scale. Japanese Journal of Counseling Science, 35, 57–65.
Pandey, R., & Saxena, P. (2012). Validation of dimensionality of affect intensity using the hindi
version of the emotional intensity scale. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 139–158.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629–1646.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural
equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of
Educational Research, 99(6), 323–337.
Singh, K., Ruch, W., & Junnarkar, M. (2014). Effect of the demographic variables and
psychometric properties of the personal well-being index for school children in India. Child
Indicators Research, 7(3), 1–15. doi:10.1007/s12187-014-9264-4.
Sivo, S. A., Fan, X. T., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for ‘optimal’ cutoff
properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 74(3), 267–289.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief
resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.
Steger, M., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing
the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1),
80–93.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.
Suhr, D. D. (2005). Principal component analysis vs. exploratory factor analysis. SUGI 30
Proceedings, 203, 230.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd edn.). New York:
HarperCollins. Wilkinson, L. (1999) Task force on statistical inference, APA board of scientific
affairs. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American
Psychologist, 54, 594–604.
Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structure equation models. In K. A. Bollen
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Tinsley, H. E., & Kass, R. A. (1979). The latent structure of the need satisfying properties of
leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(4), 278.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Survey research. In H. T. Reis &
C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology
(pp. 223–252). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the
resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–178.
Watson, D. (2012). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory and research. In H.
Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A.T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, K.J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook
of research methods in psychology (Vol 1). Foundations, planning, measures, and psycho-
metrics (pp. 349–369). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, xliv,
744 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13619-019
Wolf, D. B. (1998). The Vedic personality inventory: A study of the Gunas. Journal of Indian
Zhao, N. (2009). The minimum sample size in factor analysis. Retrieved May 5th 2013, from,
https://www.encorewiki.org/display/*nzhao/The+Minimum+Sample+Size+in+Factor
+Analysis
Zumbo, B. D., Gelin, M. N., & Hubley, A. M. (2002). The construction and use of psychological
tests and measures. In Encyclopedia of life support systems. France: United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Publishing (UNESCO-EOLSS Publishing).
Chapter 3
The Assessment of Resilience
Abstract The concept of resilience with emphasis on the psychometric properties

of a newly developed scale is the cynosure of this chapter. The chapter begins with a
brief outline on conceptual definition of resilience and its framework within human
development theories. It then converges upon several different aspects of resilience
such as the risk and protective factors affecting resilience, role of demographic
variables and its correlates and predictors. The different resilience scales, constructed
and validated by other researchers, have been reviewed. The chapter then moves
toward the procedure of development and validation of a new resilience measure
constructed by the authors. Each phase of test construction has been explained
thoroughly in detail for both versions in English and Hindi. The chapter concludes
with discussion centering on the newly developed scale and its explanations.
Keywords Resilience Mental health Flourishing Positive experiences

Negative experiences
Introduction
The word “resilience” originated from Latin word resilere meaning to jump back
(Kumpfer 1999). Each individual shows a different set of capabilities in dealing
with an unpleasant event. Some people are able to come out of it unscathed to lead
fully functional lives whereas others lose their sense of being and are rendered
incapable due to the circumstances, thus leaving long-lasting effects in life. This
observation prompted Norm Garmezy to study the phenomenon of resilience. In the
early 70s, Garmenzy was interested in understanding normal development of at-risk
children who had severe psychopathology in family. Thus, he initiated “Project
Competence,” which was devoted to studies of competence, adversities, and resi-
lience. During 1970s and 1980s empirical studies reported how some children were
able to achieve competency despite their adverse circumstances (Anthony 1974;
Werner and Smith 1982). In the succeeding decades, different definitions of

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_3
36 3 The Assessment of Resilience
resilience emerged such as, “the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful
adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances” (Masten et al. 1990,
p.426), “a personality characteristic that moderates the negative effects of stress and
promotes adaptation” (Wagnild and Young 1993, p.165). Resilience was not only
hailed as the ability to readily recover from illness, depression, and adversity
(Abrams 2001) but also viewed as “a class of phenomena characterized by patterns
of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk,” (Masten and
Reed 2002, p.74) which enables individuals to recuperate quickly and effectively
from adverse events. Resilience also includes constructive and growth-enhancing
consequences of adversity or challenges (Strumpher 2003). Rutter (2006) defined
resilience as “reduced vulnerability to environmental risk experiences, the over-
coming of a stress or adversity or a relatively good outcome despite risk experi-
ences” (p.1). Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) concluded that all definitions of resilience
highlight the individual’s ability to overcome adversity and successful positive
adaptation. Resilience studies encompass all the age groups of life span hence,
review of resilience and human development theories are indispensable.
Resilience in the Realm of Developmental Perspective
Empirical resilience studies in early 1970s reported how children developmentally

progressed despite disadvantageous environments. Resilience is not a static trait but
it arises from interaction between person and environment with description of
proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner and Evans 2000). This aspect can be best
understood in the light of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) and Ungar’s (2011) develop-
mental perspectives. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defined human development as “the
person’s evolving conception of the ecological environment, and individual’s
relation to it, as well as person’s growing capacity to discover, sustain or alter its
properties” (p.9). The study of resilience has evolved from study of invulnerable
child to a focus on the social–ecological factors that facilitate development of
well-being under stress. However, since resilience is a dynamic concept, an indi-
vidual may be resilient with respect to some kinds of stressor and not others.
Therefore, the same individual may display maladaptive function at one time and
resilience later in development. On the basis of developmental theories (Erikson
1959, 1963; Havighurst 1972; Greve and Staudinger 2006) and empirical studies
(Depp and Jeste 2006; DiRago and Vaillant 2007; Vaillant 2002), it can be
hypothesized that resilience increases with age however with aging, the capacity
declines, although there is variation across domains of function and presence of
individual differences in adaptive capabilities.
Resilience researchers have turned their attention to theories and measurement of
positive adaptation or development and normative development or competence.
They recognized the significance of understanding positive development in
Resilience the Realm of Developmental Perspective 37
individual’s life and overcoming odds. The research in developmental resilience

progressed in four phases or waves (Wright et al. 2013). The first wave emphasized
on describing, defining, and measuring resilience. The wave also identified the
differences between those who performed satisfactorily and poorly in context of
adversity. The empirical results were consistent in terms of qualities of people,
relationships, and resources that predicted resilience. The second phase or wave
involved description of factors or variables associated with resilience and attempted
to answer “how” questions aimed to identify and understand processes that led to
resilience. Cicchetti and Curtis (2007) stated that though research on this aspect is
still underway, the statistical analysis has progressed to multiple levels of analysis
and neurobiological processes. In the third phase/wave, resilience was tested
through experimental investigations to promote resilience by boosting protective
processes such as effective parenting (Wolchik et al. 2002), school engagement
(Hawkins et al. 1999), and executive function skills (Diamond et al. 2007). The
empirical studies in the fourth phase are studied resilience in light of genetic
makeup, neurobehavioral development, and statistics for unraveling the complex
process of resilience (Cicchetti and Curtis 2007; Kim-Cohen and Gold 2009;
Masten 2007).
Hence, it can be concluded that resilience is a dynamic concept that is emerging
with new research trends. The concept is highly influenced by interaction between
individual and his environment with prevalence of individual differences.
Therefore, the chapter further unravels the risk and protective factors, correlates and
predictors of resilience, and effect of demographic factors on resilience.
Risk Factors and Protective Factors
Any study on resilience is incomplete without mentioning risk factors and pro-
tective factors of resilience. A risk factor is associated with the increased likelihood
of a behavior that usually has negative consequences. A protective factor reduces
the impact of risk behavior, helps individuals not to engage in potentially harmful
behavior, and/or promotes an alternative pathway (Spooner et al. 2001).
Risk Factors Several risk factors operate in an individual’s environment and how
an individual responds to them predicts life’s outcomes. Mrazek and Haggerty
(1994) defined risk factor as those characteristics, variables, or hazards that, if
present for a given individual, make it more likely that this individual, rather than
someone selected from the general population, will develop a disorder. Garmezy
(1996) defined risk research as the identification of factors that accentuate or inhibit
disease and deficiency states, and the processes that underlie them. Regarding the
nature of risk factors, Coie et al. (1993) made certain observations: (a) Dysfunction
has a complicated relationship with risk factors; one risk factor is rarely associated
with a particular disorder. (b) The impact of risk factors may vary with the
developmental state of the individual (c) Exposure to multiple risk factors has a
cumulative effect and (d) many disorders share fundamental risk factors.
Protective Factors Protective factors refer to those factors that mediate or mod-
erate the effect of exposure to risk factors, resulting in reduced incidence of problem
behavior (Pollard et al. 1999). A protective factor is something that, in certain
contexts, reduces individual risks of psychosocial problems and can, therefore, only
be understood in the context of patterns risk (Little and Mount 1999).
NSW, Department of Community Services (2007) list few risk and protective
factors at family, school, and community level:
• Family Level Risk family factors are poor parental supervision and discipline,
parental substance abuse, family conflict, and domestic violence and social
isolation/lack of support networks whereas protective family factors are sup-
portive caring parents, parental employment, and access to support networks.
• School Level School risk factors for risks are school failure, negative peer group
influences, bullying and poor attachment to school whereas school protective
factors are positive school climate, sense of belonging/bonding, opportunities
for some success at school and recognition of achievement.
• Community level Risks factors present are neighborhood violence and crime,
lack of support services, social or cultural discrimination whereas protective
factors present are access to support services, community networking, and
participation in community groups (NSW, Department of Community Services
2007).
Several risk factors operate at internal and external levels. At the internal levels,
there are certain individual characteristics, such as personality traits and tempera-
ment while external factors include conditions at family, school, and community
level, all of which are known to hamper an individual’s level of functioning, thereby
leading to undesirable outcomes. Resilience is inhibited by risk factors and pro-
moted by protective factors (Alvord and Grados 2005; Benzies and Mychasiuk
2009; Fergus and Zimmerman 2005; Martinez-Torteya et al. 2009). The risk factors
such as birth injury/disability/low birth weight, insecure attachment and poor social
skills are operational during childhood whereas protective factors such as social
skills, attachment to family, and school achievement help to build resilience.
However, resilience may be optimized by strengthening of protective factors at all
interactive levels of the socio-ecological model (i.e., individual, family, and com-
munity; Benzies and Mychasiuk 2009). Kimhi (2014) reported significant positive
correlations among individual, community, and national resilience. The results
further indicated that all three levels of resilience (individual, community, and
national) significantly predicted an individual’s well-being, good adaptation, and
successful coping with potential traumatic events.
Risk Factors and Protective Factors 39
Empirical Studies on Resilience
Resilience researches lead to conception of various theories and models. Literature

on resilience is rich with plethora of findings on different age groups as well as
different segments of population, such as:
• Geriatric population—Hardy et al. (2002); Wells (2010); Jeste et al. (2013)
• School children/adolescents—Hunter (2001); Kenny et al. (2002); Daining and
DePanfilis (2007)
• LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)—Lease et al. (2005); Rosario et al.
(2005)
• Sex workers—Scorgie et al. (2013)
• Cancer patients—Decker and Haase (2005)
• Residing in armed conflict zones—Tol et al. (2009); Tol et al. (2013)
• Immigrants—Cardoso and Thompson (2010)
• Abused children—Wilcox et al. (2004); Dumont et al. (2007) etc.
Correlates and Predictors of Resilience
Previous researchers have correlated resilience with other well-being measures.

A significant correlation between resilience and mental health and its dimensions
(emotional, social, and psychological well-being) was demonstrated in a Portuguese
study (Pinheiro and Matos 2013) as well as on a sample of professional nurses (Koen
et al. 2011). Resilience has been positively associated with positive affect (Huppert
and So 2013; Zautra et al. 2005), physical health (Adams et al. 2004; Hardy et al.
2004; Montross et al. 2006), optimism and self-esteem (Lee et al. 2008), life satis-
faction (Abolghasemi and Varaniyab 2010), mindfulness (Keyes and Pidgeon 2013;
Thompson et al. 2011), spirituality (Manning 2013), etc. Certain intrapersonal (i.e.,
positive personality features of hope, optimism, and self-esteem) and interpersonal
constructs (i.e., perceived social support from family, friends, and significant others),
hailed as sources of resilience, were shown to lessen the effects of PTSD in a female
sample exposed to traumatic events in the face of Middle East violence in November
2012 (Besser et al. 2014). Inverse correlation of resilience with negative emotions
(Singh and Yu 2010), and with mental health disorders, such as depression and
resilience (Hardy et al. 2004; Wagnild and Young 1990) has also been reported.
Demographic Variables
Resilience (Hjemdal et al. 2011) is described as a multidimensional construct

including personal characteristics and skills (e.g., active problem solving) as well as
external protective factors such as a supportive family and social environment.
Numerous factors such as family, community, spiritual, physical, and emotional

factors are known to play a role in an individual’s resilience (Krovetz 1999). The
role of demographic variables on resilience cannot be undermined. Resilience is a
dynamic construct that varies with age, gender, individual circumstance and
developmental, historical, and cultural context (Connor and Davidson 2003).
Several studies on resilience have examined the construct in the context of gender,
age, education, income, and place of residence of the individuals.
Gender
Women have been found to be more resilient than men (Netuveli et al. 2008; Romer
et al. 2011; Manhas et al. 2013). However in few studies men scored higher on
resilience (Campbell-Sills et al. 2009). Though, in other studies (Campbell-Sills
et al. 2006; Lundman et al. 2007; Wagnild 2009b) no significant gender differences
were reported for resilience. The inconsistent findings between resilience and
gender are evident from several such studies.
Age
Mixed findings regarding the relationship between age and resilience have been
reported. While one study reported an increase in resilience with increasing age
(Lundman et al. 2007), a subsequent study reported an inverse relationship between
age and resilience (Mehta et al. 2008). In the same vein, Netuveli et al. (2008) also
reported resilience as being relatively rare in old age.
Education, Income, and Locality
Lower income is associated with lower levels of resilience in individuals (Wagnild

2003). Another similar study also reported lower resiliency scores for individuals
with lower levels of education and income (Campbell-Sills et al. 2009). While
higher incomes were associated with higher resilience level (Hardy et al. 2004),
Wells (2009) did not find any association between location (rural, urban, and
suburban) and resilience levels in older adults. However, evidence regarding lack of
association between resilience and demographic factors (age, education, income,
and gender) has also been reported (Wagnild and Young 1993). In a similar vein,
Netuveli et al. (2008) cited the lack of clear associations between resilience and
socioeconomic factors such as education, wealth, and home ownership.
Individual Characteristics 41
Individual Characteristics
Skills, and inherent qualities that an individual possess go a long way in predicting
resilience. The attention focused on this area of research highlights the importance
of one’s internal qualities in promoting resilience. Three protective factors promote
resilience in children: (a) dispositional attributes of the child, (b) family cohesion
and warmth, (c) availability and use of external support systems by parents and
children (Garmezy et al. 1984). Studies on resilient children have mentioned certain
characteristics possessed by them such as high intellect (Masten and Coatsworth
1998), positive self-concept (Werner and Smith 1982), easygoing temperament
(Perry 2002; Werner 2005), socially competent (Howard et al. 1999), show
curiosity about people and ideas (Murphy and Moriarity 1976), and a sense of
purpose and future orientation (Garmezy 1981; Howard et al. 1999).
Other factors are also known to promote resilience such as faith or a sense of
spirituality (Valentine and Feinauer 1993; Werner 2005). According to Seligman
(1992) resilient people are more optimistic; have a sense of adventure, courage, and
self-understanding; are humorous; have a capacity for hard working; and possess the
ability to cope with and find outlets for emotions. Self-esteem was also reported as a
predictor of resilience (Arrindelle et al. 1999), while in geriatric population, opti-
mism was related to resilience (Lamond et al. 2008). Optimism and a lack of cog-
nitive failures were observed to be predictors of resilience in different studies
(Lamond et al. 2008; Netuveli and Blane 2008) as were positive emotions (Cohn
et al. 2009). Fayombo (2010) reported a positive relationship between the person-
ality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, extraversion)
and psychological resilience, while neuroticism was negatively correlated with
psychological resilience. Resilient individuals are characterized by high positive
emotionality (Block and Kremen 1996; Klohnen 1996) and a capacity to rebound
from negative circumstances despite threats to the individual (Masten 2001).
External Factors
Certain factors in one’s immediate environment are known to promote resilience.

While family schemas and social support were observed as the two most con-
tributing factors to resilience (der Kinderen and Greeff 2003) and several studies
further reported emotional health and well-being, self-rated successful aging, social
contact with family and friends, as predictors of resilience (Lamond et al. 2008;
Netuveli and Blane 2008). Association was also reported between good physical
health and resilience (Wells 2009). Factors such as bonding to family and teachers,
involvement in extracurricular activities, lower levels of parental discord, fewer
adverse life events, and being less involved with delinquent peers promoted resi-
lience in youths exposed to neighborhood risks (Tiet et al. 2010).
Resilience Programs
All definitions of resilience lead to the point that resilience refers to standing up
against challenges, which have emerged as a result of a trauma and/or adversity and
that resilience is affected by a combination of factors which may be external or
internal. However, the mere presence of these factors (or resources) is not enough to
predict resilience. An individual should have the awareness of his/her resources and
be able to use them timely and effectively. Some of these factors are liable to
change with time (such as support network, friends, etc.) while others may remain
unchanged (such as one’s disposition, religiosity, etc.). Any kind of imbalance or
change in one’s resources may lead to lower levels of resilience and hence negative
outcomes. While several studies have highlighted the efficacy of resilience inter-
vention programs (Saltzman et al. 2013; Shakespeare-Finch et al. 2014; etc.), there
are many resilience intervention programs available around the world that address
the needs of all age groups.
The Penn Resiliency Program (PRP) in the Positive Psychology Center,
University of Pennsylvania was initiated by Gillham and Reivich. The main focus
of this program is the late elementary and middle school students and the primary
aim is to teach these children problem solving and coping skills to help them
overcome the challenges in their growing years. Several studies using PRP have
reported positive outcomes in terms of preventing depression, anxiety, and
adjustment disorder diagnoses as well as disruptive behavior (Cutuli 2004; Gillham
et al. 2006). The efficacy of PRP was also proven in a study on Chinese medical
students, wherein PRP was linked to improved levels of resilience, and a positive
emotions regulation style (Peng et al. 2014).
To enhance resilience, coping strategies, and protective factors and reduce
symptomatology during academic stress, Steinhardt and Dolbier (2008) tested the
efficacy of a 4-week resilience intervention program among college students. The
experimental group not only scored higher in overall resilience but also displayed
more effective coping strategies and better performance on protective factors
(self-esteem, self-leadership, and positive affect) and lower scores on symptoma-
tology, including depressive symptoms, negative affect, and perceived stress.
Family-centered resilience programs have also been developed and tested. At
Harvard School of Medicine in collaboration with UCLA, a family-centered resi-
lience program, specifically to target the families of military personnel whose long
deployments often takes a toll on families was developed. FOCUS (Families over
Coming under Stress) is one of the first trauma-informed, skill-based preventive
interventions that has been designed expressly for families (Saltzman et al. 2007,
2009). Since 2008, FOCUS has been delivered to thousands of Navy, Marine, Navy
Special Warfare, Army, and Air Force families (Saltzman et al. 2011).
The Promoting Resilience Officers (PRO) program is another resilience-based
program, developed in collaboration with the State Police Service using the
Resilience Programs 43
Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework (Shochet et al.

2011). PRO focuses on intrapsychic, interpersonal, and organizational protective
factors. Shakespeare-Finch, et al. (2014) reported on the efficacy of PRO on police
recruits who had undergone a traumatic experience during their service. Several
other intervention programs have shown their promising results.
Various researchers (Newman 2004; Schaeffer et al. 2001; Newman 2004;
Luthar and Zelazo 2003) developed resilience programs with specific strategies for
school children such as Early Infancy Project (PEIP, Olds 1997), Social and
emotional aspects of learning (SEAL), PATHS Curriculum (Greenberg et al. 1995),
and Big Brothers and Big Sisters (Grossman and Tierney 1998).
Indian Studies on Resilience
Indian researchers have also explored resilience in adolescents and other groups of
population. Annalakshmi has studied resilience in several contexts such as effect of
probabilistic orientation on resilience (Annalakshmi 2007a, b), in relation to
extraversion–introversion, psychoticism, and neuroticism (Annalakshmi 2007a),
personality traits and resilience (Annalakshmi 2008), its relation with certain cog-
nitive variables (Annalakshmi 2009a, b), resilience among high and low field
independents (Annalakshmi 2010), resilience in context of behavior approach and
inhibition among adolescents (Annalakshmi 2011).
Lata (2009) studied resilience in adolescents living with political violence in
Kashmir, role of religious meaning system and their political ideology. Among
other things, predictors of resilience were also identified in this sample which were
attending private school, having a strong religious meaning system, being less
impacted by socioeconomic impact of the political violence, and being directly
exposed to political violence. In another study on predictors of resilience,
Annalakshmi and Jose (2011) reported truth, equanimity, joy, synthesis, and dis-
cernment as strong predictors of resilience, emerging from among a set of factors of
spirituality.
In high border areas, adolescents with higher resilience levels had lesser mental
health problems and better psychological well-being, emotional ties, and general
positive affect (Sood et al. 2013). Role of genetic factors as well as personality traits
(some of which are the result of social learning) was highlighted by Shastri (2013)
in her review of resilience. Lower levels of resilience among adolescents belonging
to single parent families were evident by their low sense of mastery, low sense of
relatedness, lower levels of resourcefulness with average to high emotional reac-
tivity (Manhas et al. 2013). The role of resilience on the marital satisfaction of the
Indian couples in the context of infertility was reported by Ganth et al. (2013).
Existing Scales of Resilience
Windle et al. (2011) reported that 19 scales of resilience existed in literature. The
scales had as many as 12 factors with 10–102 items. The various factors measured
were commitment, control, challenge, ego-resiliency, personal competence, trust,
intrinsic and extrinsic strengths, family cohesion, social resources, emotional reg-
ulation, positive future orientation, novelty seeking, self-esteem, and so on. A list
has been compiled of resilience measures comprising of information about their
developers, and other information including the psychometric properties and factor
structure. All existing measures of resilience have been reviewed further in this
study (see Table 3.1).
Windle et al. (2011) in their review of 19 resilience measures, reported that three
measures; Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, (Connor and Davidson 2003), the
Resilience Scale for Adults (Friborg et al. 2003), and the Brief Resilience Scale,
(Smith et al. 2008) received the best psychometric ratings.
Table 3.1 Brief information about existing measures of resilience

Scale name Authors Total Factors and their reliabilities
items
Dispositional Bartone et al. 45 items 3 factors: Perceived challenge
Resilience Scale-45 (1989) (4a) (α = 0.72), controlled processing
(DRS-45) (α = 0.68), focused engagement
(α = 0.59) total (α = 0.86)
Resilience Scale Wagnild and 25 and 2 factors: acceptance of life and self and
(RS-25) and Shorter Young (1993), 14 items personal competence (overall α = 0.91
version Resilience Wagnild (7a) for RS-25); (overall α = 0.88 for
Scale (RS-14) (2009a) RS-14)
The Ego Resilience Block and 14 items Uni-dimensional-Overall one Factor
89 Scale (ER-89) Kremen (1996) (4a) (α = 0.76)
Resiliency Scale (RS) Jew et al. 35 items 3 factors solution-Future orientation
(1999) (5a) (α = 0.91), active skill acquisition
(α = 0.79), independence/risk taking
(α = 0.68)
Adolescent Resilience Oshlo et al. 21 items 3 factors solution-Novelty seeking
Scale (ARS) (2003) (5a) (α = 0.79), emotional regulation
(α = 0.77), positive future orientation
(α = 0.81), (overall α = 0.85)
Connor-Davidson Connor and 25 items 5 factors: personal competence and
Resilience Scale Davidson (5a) tenacity, tolerance of negative affect,
(CD-RISC) (2003) positive acceptance of change and
secure relationships and spiritual
influences (overall α = 0.89)
Resilience Scale for Friborg et al. 45 items 5 factors solution-personal competence
Adults (RSA) (2003) (9a) (α = 0.90), social competence
(α = 0.83), personal structure
(α = 0.87), family coherence (α = 0.83)
and social support (α = 0.67)
(continued)
Existing Scales of Resilience 45
Table 3.1 (continued)

items
Resiliency Scales for Sandra 64 items 3 scales: Sense of Mastery, Sense of
Children and Prince-Embury (5a) Relatedness and Emotional Reactivity
Adolescents (RSCA) (2006) Scale (Range for overall α = 0.93–0.95)
The Adolescent Gartland et al. 74 items 5 factors with 13 subscales: (1) Self:
Resilience (2006) (5a) Negative cognition (optimism
Questionnaire reversed), confidence in self and future,
(ARQ)-revised meaning/introspection,
empathy/tolerance, and social skills
(2) Family: Connectedness and
availability; (3) Peers: Connectedness
and availability (4) School:
Engagement and supportive
environment; (5) Community:
Connectedness (for 11 subscales
α = 0.70–0.90, remaining two have
relatively low but acceptable
reliabilities)
Dispositional Bartone (2007) 15 items 3 factors: Commitment (α = 0.77),
Resilience Scale-15 (4a) control (α = 0.71) and challenge
(DRS-15) (α = 0.70) (overall α = 0.83)
The Brief Resilience Smith et al. 6 items Uni-dimensional Factor α = 0.84–0.91
Scale (BRS) (2008) (5a) (Range in different 4 samples)
The Resilience in Ryan and 25 items 5 factors: self-efficacy, family/social
Midlife Scale (RIM Caltabiano (5a) networks, perseverance, internal locus
Scale) (2009) of control, and coping and adaptation
(overall α = 0.87)
Bharathiar University Annalakshmi 30 items 7 factors: duration for getting back to
Resilience Scale (2009a, b) (5a) normalcy, reaction to negative events,
(BURS) response to risk factors (specifically
disadvantaged environment) in life,
perception of effect of past negative
events, defining problems, hope/
confidence in coping with future and
openness to experience and flexibility
(overall α = 0.87)
Lifespan Resilience Ferguson et al. 35 items 5 factors: (1) internal resources
Scale-Business (2010) (5a) (α = 0.84), (2) family support for the
(LRS-B) business α = 0.86, (3) external
resources including community
relationships α = 0.61,
(4) innovation/opportunity/adaptability
α = 0.73 and, (5) risk management
α = 0.85 and overall α = 0.91 (Note:
Displayed reliabilities are from
Roggio’s, 2011 Study)
(continued)

items
Child and Youth Liebenberg 28 items 3 factors: Individual ((Personal skills,
Resilience Measure et al. (2011) (5a) Peer Support and Social skills,
(CYRM)-28 α = 0.80), relationships with primary
care-givers (Physical care giving and
Psychological Care giving, α = 0.83),
and contextual factors Spiritual,
Educational and Cultural α = 0.79)
(CYRM)-12 (Shorter Liebenberg 12 items 4 factors, but model was confirmed on
version) et al. (2013) (5a) overall one factor solution (overall
α = 0.84)
a
Point Likert Scale
Revalidation of Resilience Measures
Over the past few years, a number of resilient measures having different factor
solutions have been developed in recent years. These measures share some com-
monalities as all these are self-report and most of these describe resilience as a
multidimensional construct. Moreover, continuous research in the field of resilience
led many of these existing instruments to be revalidated in different cultural set-
tings. For instance, the two versions of Resilience Scale (RS-25 and RS-14,
Wagnild and Young 1993) have been extensively employed by researchers and
different validation results have been reported so far (Pinheiro and Matos 2013).
The original model (RS-25 items) was tested on Portuguese (Pinheiro and Matos
2013) and Norwegian adolescents (Soest et al. 2010). Concurrent validity
and internal consistency was established on Italian population (Girtler et al. 2010)
and Iranian population (Jowkar et al. 2010).
Another most commonly used measure of resilience, the Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC, Connor and Davidson 2003), has been validated in
various studies. The CD-RISC is a 25-item scale with 5-factor solution comprising
of following domains-personal competence and tenacity, tolerance of negative
affect, positive acceptance of change and secure relationships, and spiritual influ-
ences having overall good reliability (α = 0.89). CD-RISC has been validated in
different cultural settings. While a Korean study revalidated its original 5-factor
solution (Baek et al. 2010), however, other studies have reported different factor
solutions. For instance, Yu and Zhang (2007) failed to verify the original 5-factor
structure of CD-RISC through confirmatory factor analysis, in their study on
Chinese population. Alternatively, a 3-factor structure (tenacity, strength, and
optimism) was suggested. In a US study of community-dwelling women, a 4-factor
solution was found suitable (Lamond et al. 2008). The factors suggested were
personal control and goal orientation, adaptation and tolerance for negative affect,
leadership and trust in instincts, and spiritual coping. In a study on university
Revalidation of Resilience Measures 47
students in Persia (Khoshouei and Sadat 2009), a 4-factor solution for CD-RISC
(achievement motivation, self-confidence, tenacity, and adaptability) was found to
be more appropriate. Singh and Yu (2010) tested CD-RISC for validity and relia-
bility on an Indian sample. The original 5-factor solution was not replicated in the
Indian setting and an alternative 4-factor solution was suggested. The factors
suggested were hardiness, optimism, resourcefulness, and purpose. Another study
(Dong et al. 2013) reported a 4-factor solution for CD-RISC: flexibility to cope with
change and challenge, social and familial support, spiritual support, and
goal-oriented life. A recent study (Green et al. 2014) examined the structural
validity of CD-RISC in a sample of U.S military veterans post 9/11. Instead of the
original 5-factor model, exploratory factor analysis suggested a 2-factor model
composed of adaptability and self-efficacy was deemed appropriate.
Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) reported a 10-item unidimensional scale derived
from CD-RISC that demonstrated good internal consistency, construct validity, and
good reliability (α = 0.85). Psychometric properties of the CD-RISC (10 items)
were assessed in a sample of Chinese earthquake victims (Wang et al. 2010).
CD-RISC (10 items) emerged as a reliable tool for assessing resilience. The mea-
sure showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91) and test–retest
reliability (r = 0.90 for a 2-week interval). The 10-item CD-RISC was recently
validated in Spanish patients with fibromyalgia (Pacheco et al. 2014). Results
reported acceptable psychometric properties, including good reliability and validity.
Relevance of the Study
The current study attempted to address and explore resilience from different per-
spectives. To address the aim of the study, two objectives were undertaken (i) an
exhaustive literature review and (ii) various psychometric scales were extensively
appraised for their properties. It was observed that, in India, resilience research is
being undertaken most of times without validation of scales and thus, validity of
results remains unknown. Annalakshmi (2009a, b) attempted to tackle this lacuna in
literature. She constructed an Indian resilience scale for adolescents, Bharathiar
University Resilience Scale (BURS, Annalakshmi 2009a, b). However, further
validation is required for the scale. Apart from this scale, the most widely used scale
in literature the CD-RISC (Connor and Davidson 2003) was also validated on Indian
sample. However, the original model failed to confirm. It was found that 4-factor
solution was better fit than original 5-factor solution on Indian sample (Singh and Yu
2010). The two drawbacks that emerged from literature were (i) a need for scale for
age groups above adolescents with larger age span and (ii) psychometrically sound
scale to be developed on Indian population. Therefore, it was decided to construct a
new reliable and valid measure of resilience. The new scale construction would
follow rigorous test construction and validation norms. For acquiring concurrent
validity of the newly developed Resilience scale, correlations with already validated
scales on Indian population in English and Hindi such as Mental Health Continuum
—Short Form (Keyes 2009), validated in India by (Singh et al. 2015; Singh 2014),
Flourishing scale and Scale of Positive and Negative Experience Diener et al. (2010)
and validated in India by (Singh 2014) was established. It was hypothesized that
resilience and its factors would be positively correlated with flourishing, mental
health continuum and its dimensions and SPANE P (positive experiences) and
negatively with SPANE N (negative experiences). Furthermore, the finalized
Resilience measure was translated and validated in Hindi language also. The
translation into Hindi language was deemed essential since 41.03 % of the total
Indian population speaks and understands Hindi (Census 2011).
Test Construction and Validation Methodology
The new resilience scale was developed in different phases and studies. Two sep-
arate studies were conducted for scale construction and validation. The study no.
1 was further divided into two phases and five stages namely; (i) item generation,
(ii) item refinement and modification, (iii) expert panel review, (iv) factor structure
analysis and item selection, and (v) factor structure validation. The first four stages
were conducted in phase 1 of the study and the fourth stage was repeated once again
and fifth stage in phase 2 of the study. The study no. 2 was one phase study in
which the final scale of study 1 was translated into Hindi and validation of the Hindi
scale was undertaken.
Study 1
In this study, all the steps of test construction as discussed in Chap. 2 were fol-
lowed. The current study was divided into two phases. The phase 1 focused on item
generation, item refinement, and preliminary factor structure. The phase 2 focused
on finalizing the factor structure and validation of new resilience scale (English
version).
Phase 1
Stage 1: Item Generation
The first step involved generating a pool of 92 items (79 positively worded items
and 13 negatively worded items) covering various aspects of resilience, as defined
by the various scales namely: The Adolescent Resilience Scale (ARS, Oshio et al.
2003), Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA, Friborg et al. 2003), Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC, Connor and Davidson 2003), Brief Resilience Scale
Test Construction and Validation Methodology 49
(BRS, Smith et al. 2008), The Resilience Scale (RS, Wagnild and Young 1993),
Dispositional Resilience Scale Revised 15 (DRS-R15, Bartone et al. 1989), and so
on. Generated items pool was combination of both; newly developed items and
borrowed from existing scales. A response format of 5-point Likert scale with
option 1 as “never or very rarely true” to 5 as “very often or always true” was
chosen for the scale.
Stage 2 and 3: Item refinement, modification, and expert review
As discussed in Chap. 2, item refinement, modification, and expert review were

undertaken. Five experts conducted the content validity of the items on a 4-point
Likert rating scale. The items which were rated as 3 or 4 by all the experts on the
scale were retained. On the basis of the feedback, 16 items were deleted and 9 new
were added. Thus, the resultant scale consisted of 85 items (73 positively worded
and 12 negatively worded).
Data Collection Procedure and Participants Information
The 85-item scale was administered on a set of 100 participants (males = 32 %,

females = 68 %) belonging to urban North India. The age range of the participants
was 17–31 years (M = 21.05 years, SD = 3.03). Three-fourth of the sample (75 %)
consisted of students whereas the rest were either working full-time or part-time.
All the volunteer participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses.
A booklet with a demographic information sheet and new resilience scale was filled
out by the participants
Stage 4: Factor structure analysis and item selection
The collected data was subjected to preliminary analysis with the intention of
retaining and rejecting the items using SPSS version 15.0. The range of missing
values was 1.2–2.4%. The missing values were substituted by the mid-value (3) of
the 5-point Likert scale. Items were then screened for their tendency to elicit
extreme mean responses. The item analysis criteria mentioned in Chap. 2 was
adhered to delete items. On the basis of the discussed criteria, no item was deleted
on basis of mean (mean range 2.94–3.88), 13 items were deleted on basis of SD
(Retained items SD range = 1–1.22), and 12 items were discarded on the basis of
item total correlation (<0.25). The factor analysis was employed because the
KMO-MSA value (0.71) was above the recommended norms for acceptance of
KMO-MSA as discussed in Chap. 2. A principal component factor analysis with
varimax rotation was applied on the retained items. Factor analysis for more than 1
eigenvalue was employed. However, no conclusive factor solution was decided at
this stage. Six items with less than 0.40 factor loadings were discarded during factor
analysis. Thus, there was a pool of 54 items for next phase.
Phase 2
Participants
A total of 723 participants (males = 42.9 %, females = 55.3 %) were taken for the
study. Out of them, 8 participants who were above 32 years and 81 participants,
who did not report their demographic information, were excluded. Hence, a total of
89 cases were reduced from the data. The final data on which further analysis were
conducted consisted of 634 participants (males = 43.5 %, females = 56.5 %). The
age range of the sample was 17–30 years (M = 21.71 years, SD = 2.96 years). The
22.5 % of participants were undergraduates, 36.9 % were graduates and 31.0%
were postgraduates. Majority of the participants were students (92.3 %) whereas
remaining participants were working (7.7 %). The 47.6 % of participants were
married, 26.6 % were single, and 25.9 % of participants did not report their marital
status.
Out of these, 467 participants of which 183 were males (39 %) and 284 females
(61 %) were administered the validity scales. The mean age of the participants was
21.77 years (SD = 3.23). Scales administered were namely: Mental Health
Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF, Keyes 2009), Flourishing Scale and Scale of
Positive and Negative Experience (FS and SPANE, Diener et al. 2010).
Procedure
All the participants were given a booklet which contained a demographic infor-
mation sheet (age, sex, educational qualification, occupation, and marital status) and
new resilience scale along with other measures.
Measures
The following instruments were used to evaluate the newly developed resilience
scale’s validity.
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF, Keyes 2009): MHC-SF
measures positive mental health and comprises of 14 items, representing various
aspects of well-being. The internal reliability reported for total MHC score was
0.89, emotional well-being was 0.83, psychological well-being, 0.83 and social
well-being was 0.74 (Lamers et al. 2011). In the present study, the reliability values
were for EWB α = 0.87; for PWB α = 0.85 and for SWB α = 0.87 and for total
MHC-SF α = 0.91.
Flourishing Scale (FS, Diener et al. 2010): This is an 8-item scale that provides a
single measure of the positive human functioning. The scale was found to have
acceptable reliability with Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.87 (Diener et al. 2010) and
α = 0.93 in the present study.
Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE, Diener et al. 2010): It
contains 12 items that are divided into two subscales with six items each. SPANE P
assesses positive experiences and SPANE N assesses negative experiences. Each
item is scored on a scale ranging from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or
always) to assess the respondent’s positive or negative experience over the past four
weeks. The positive and negative scales are scored separately because of their
partial independence (Diener et al. 2010). Scores on each subscale (SPANE P and
SPANE N) range from 6 to 30. The two scores are combined by subtracting the
negative score from the positive score, and the resulting SPANE B scores range
from −24 to 24. The SPANE showed good psychometric properties as SPANE P
α = 0.87, SPANE N α = 0.81 and SPANE B α = 0.89 (Diener et al. 2010) and in
the present study SPANE P α = 0.80, SPANE N α = 0.77, and SPANE B. α = 0.71
were obtained.
Results
The data were coded and analyzed using the SPSS 15.0 version and Lisrel 8.8
version. The SPSS preliminary frequency output was analyzed for missing values.
Frequency analysis for each item indicated that responses for each item had scores
within the range. The percentage of missing values for all items on all the tests were
under 5 % and random in nature. One item in resilience scale had missing values
more than 5 % and hence the item was deleted from the scale for further analysis.
The remaining missing values were replaced with series means.
In second phase, the mean range (3.30–4.05), SD range (0.92–1.12), skewness
(−0.22 to −1.08), kurtosis (0.66 to −0.58), and corrected item total correlation range
(r = 0.30–0.70) were within the acceptable parameters discussed in Chap. 2 except
SD of some items which have less than 1 SD but were found relevant on the basis of
all other parameters thus retained at this stage. The exploratory factor analysis and
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for the new resilience scale.
In this phase, data were split into one-third (one subsample) and two-third parts
for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as discussed in Chap. 2. The two
parts were counter balanced for gender and age. A t-test was conducted to confirm
that both the parts were balanced. The results of the t-test were not significant hence
indicating that both the parts were equal (Age, t = −0.10, p = 0.92; Gender, t = −0.
03, p = 0.98). The one-third of the sample consisted of 211 participants (Males =
92, Females = 119, Mean = 21.69, SD = 2.97) whereas two-thirds consisted of
423 (Males = 184, Females = 239, Mean = 21.72, SD = 2.96) participants.
Stage 4: Factor Structure Analysis and Item Selection
The preliminary principal component analysis was employed with varimax rotation
with Kaiser Normalization, eigen values >1, saturation cutoff = 0.40 on 53 items.
The value of KMO-MSA was 0.92, χ2 (465) = 3460.40, p < 0.01, thus indicating
that the data were suitable for factor analysis (Cerny and Kaiser 1977; Kaiser 1974).
The communalities values ranged from 0.28 to 0.69. Six factors with eigenvalues
>1 were extracted. However various factor solutions 4, 5, and 6 were evaluated to
see most suitable solution. The 4-factor solution was deemed fit because it seemed
theoretically better interpretable. EFA was employed using principal component
analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA) by maximum likelihood (ML) strategy.
The ML strategy was employed because the skewness and kurtosis demonstrated
modest normality patterns (Russell 2002; West et al. 1995). The varimax and
promax rotation both were employed to ensure robustness of factor structure. The
4-factor solution shared 54.24 % of variance and it consisted of 31 items. Four
items had secondary loadings more than 0.40, indicating a correlation between the
factors. The alpha reliability coefficient for the 31 items was 0.95. Table 3.2
indicates the items and factor loadings.
Factor 1—Sense of self-efficacy: This 16 items factor measures the self-efficacy
of an individual with respect to his achievements, his relationships and his ability to
shape his destiny. It also includes items dealing with experiencing a sense of pride
and accomplishments, and at the same time confidence in achieving goals. For
example, “When I make plans, I’m certain I can make them work,” “I am able to
shape my current environment and future destiny,” “I generally persist in a given
task until success is achieved,” “I have secure social relationships which help me
frequently,” etc.
Factor 2—Emotional Regulation: This factor looks at the individual’s ability to
regulate his emotions at the time of crisis. This factor has 7 items all of which deal
with how well an individual copes with a situation that threatens his well-being. For
example “I usually come through difficult times with little trouble,” “When I find
difficult situation, I can usually find my way out of it,” “I can handle unpleasant
feelings,” etc.
Factor 3—Resourcefulness: This 5-items factor measure looks into the
resourcefulness of an individual at the time of crisis. It includes engaging the
support of other people, relying on previous experiences etc. It has items such as
“I am capable of engaging the support of others,” I have enough previous expe-
riences where I have successfully dealt with stressful situations,” etc.
Factor 4—Future planning/goal orientation: This 3-item factor is based on an
individual’s goals for the future. It includes aspects of planning, and accomplish-
ment. For example, It includes items such as “My goals for the future are well
thought through,” etc.
The results of exploratory factor analysis and item selection resulted in a scale
with all positively scored items in the final version of the test.
Table 3.2 Rotated factor loadings of the exploratory factor analysis for New Resilience Scale
(n = 211)
Original Statements F1 F2 F3 F4
item No.
41 My past success gives me confidence for new 0.71
challenges
28 I am optimistic about my ability to create positive 0.62 0.40
outcomes
42 I feel pride in my achievements 0.61
33 When I make plans, I’m certain I can make them 0.60
work
34 I feel that I have accomplished things in my life 0.59
47 I can handle difficult situations 0.55
40 I have close and secure relationships 0.55
43 I am able to shape my current environment and future 0.54
destiny
18 I clearly see purposeful meaning of my life 0.53
39 When I evaluate my past experiences I can see 0.53
successful adaptation
26 I like challenges 0.53
27 In difficult periods I have a tendency to find 0.52
something good that help me thrive
29 I do not let negative forces around me affect my 0.51
performance
32 By working hard, I can nearly always achieve my 0.48
goals
20 I generally persist in a given task until success is 0.46
achieved
44 I have secure social relationships which help me 0.42
frequently
13 When I find difficult situation, I can usually find my 0.55
way out of it
21 I can handle unpleasant feelings 0.53
22 Having to cope with stress makes me stronger 0.52
14 I believe I can get through difficult times 0.51 0.42
3 It does not take me long to recover from a stressful 0.48
event
11 I usually come through difficult times with little 0.47
trouble
2 I can control my negative emotions during hard times 0.44
6 Keeping me interested in things is important to 0.70
myself
16 I am capable of engaging the support of others 0.57
(continued)

Original Statements F1 F2 F3 F4
item No.
5 If I’m working on a difficult task, I know when to ask 0.53
other people for help
7 I am sure that good things will happen in the future 0.50 0.42
15 I have enough previous experiences where I have 0.47
successfully dealt with stressful situations
9 My goals for the future are well thought through 0.68
8 I think I have a bright future 0.60
12 I know how to accomplish my future goals 0.41 0.57
Eigen value 12.24 1.65 1.60 1.32
% Variance 39.48 5.34 5.16 4.26
Cronbach’s alpha 0.92 0.81 0.81 0.81
Note The items with factor loadings lesser than 0.40 have been suppressed. F1 Sense of Self-Efficacy,
F2 Emotional Regulation, F3 Resourcefulness, F4 Future planning/goal orientation
Stage 5: Factor Structure Validation
The fit indices were Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.85, Adjusted Goodness of Fit
Index (AGFI) = 0.83, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.97, root mean square error
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06 and χ2/d.f. = 2.65. The GFI and AGFI range 0
and 1 that indicated acceptable model fit (Baumgartner and Hombur 1996). CFI
values range 0–1 and RMSEA ranges 0–1, with smaller values indicates better
model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). However, the current model is a fair fit since
RSMEA values of 0.00, 0.03 and 0.06, respectively, correspond to perfect, good
and fair model fit (Preacher and MacCallum 2002). It indicates a moderate model fit
for new resilience scale. Further Fig. 3.1 indicates the domain factor loadings.
Concurrent Validity
The overall scale reliability was 0.95. The concurrent of the resilience scale was
established by correlating the factors on the resilience scale with the other con-
structs of well-being, namely MHC and its factors, Flourishing Scale, and SPANE.
The results indicated significant correlations ranging from r = −0.26 to r = 0.63
supporting hypothesis as positively correlated with flourishing, mental health
continuum and its dimensions and SPANE P (positive experiences) and negatively
correlated with SPANE N (negative experiences). Table 3.3 indicates the correla-
tion between new resilience scale and the well-being measures.
Table 3.3 Correlation between the four factors of resilience and other well-being measures
Concurrent Validity
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. F1 0.92
2. F2 0.69** 0.81
3. F3 0.70** 0.61** 0.81
**
4. F4 0.67 0.56** 0.65** 0.81
** **
5. TOT-R 0.96 0.82 0.82** 0.77** 0.95
** ** **
6. EWB 0.47 0.38 0.33 0.38** 0.47** 0.87
** ** ** **
7. SWB 0.35 0.24 0.14 0.25 0.32** 0.61** 0.85
** ** ** ** **
8. PWB 0.54 0.41 0.39 0.42 0.54 0.59** 0.56** 0.87
9. MHC-TOT 0.53** 0.40** 0.33** 0.41** 0.52** 0.81** 0.86** 0.87** 0.91
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
10. FS 0.61 0.47 0.55 0.46 0.63 0.51 0.32 0.58 0.55** 0.93
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
11. SPANE P 0.51 0.41 0.42 0.36 0.51 0.51 0.36 0.54 0.55** 0.59** 0.80
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
12. SPANE N −0.26 −0.17 −0.17 −0.21 −0.25 −0.43 −0.26 −0.31 −0.37 −0.28** −0.35** 0.77
13. SPANE B 0.47** 0.35** 0.36** 0.35** 0.47** 0.57** 0.38** 0.52** 0.56** 0.52** 0.82** −0.82** 0.71
Note **p < 0.01 level (2-tailed). (N = 467). F1 Sense of Self-efficacy, F2 Emotional Regulation, F3 resourcefulness, F4 Future planning/goal orientation,
5. TOT-R total resilience score, EWB emotional well-being, SWB social well-being, PWB psychological well-being, MHC Total mental health continuum,
FS Flourishing Scale, SPANE P positive experiences, SPANE N negative experiences, SPANE B difference between positive and negative experiences. The
numbers in bold indicate alpha reliability
55
Fig. 3.1 Factor loadings for new resilience scale. Note F1 sense of self-efficacy, F2 emotional
regulation, F3 resourcefulness, F4 future planning/goal orientation
Concurrent Validity 57
Study 2
In this study, the validated English tool was translated into Hindi language. The aim
of this phase was to collect data on the new resilience scale as well as the validity
scales, i.e., Mental Health Continuum (Keyes 2009), Flourishing and Scale of
Positive and Negative Experiences (Diener et al. 2010) that have been psychomet-
rically validated in Hindi. The translated Hindi scales, used for validating new resi-
lience scale have acceptable psychometric properties on Indian sample (Singh 2014).
Participants
study with age range of 18–55 years (Mean = 28.38 year; SD = 7.55). The 20 %
of participants were undergraduates, 44 % were graduates and 36 % were post-
graduates. The 48.4 % of participants were married, 43.2 % were single, 0.5 % was
divorced and 0.2 % was widow but 7.7 % of participants did not report their marital
status.
Procedure
mation sheet (age, sex, educational qualification, occupation and marital status),
newly developed resilience scale and other tests. The Resilience scale that was
confirmed in the phase 2 of the study was translated into Hindi. Bilingual experts
translated the scales back into English. This was done to verify the content simi-
larity to the original scale and to ensure that translated tests were true copy of the
original tests. The discrepancies were resolved and the test was once again verified
by the authors and bilingual experts. All the scales were administered in Hindi to
the participants who were well verged with the language.
Measures
scale’s validity.
Newly Developed Resilience Scale: It has 31 items representing four factors
namely; self-efficacy (α =0.88), coping/emotional regulation (α = 0.75), resource-
fulness (α = 0.70), and goal orientation (α = 0.78). The total Cronbach alpha was
0.93 in the current study.
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF, Keyes 2009): In the present
study the reliability values were acceptable (for EWB α = 0.82; for PWB α = 0.77;
for SWB α = 0.76 and for total MHC-SF α = 0.81).
Flourishing Scale (FS, Diener et al. 2010): The scale was found to have good
psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.87 in the present study.
Scale of Positive and Negative Experience: (SPANE; Diener et al. 2010) In the
present study SPANE P α = 0.82, SPANE N α = 0.79 and SPANE B. α = 0.80
were obtained.
Results
The data were analyzed similarly as discussed in study 1, phase 2. The mean and
SD ranged from 3.50–3.98 and 0.82–1.34, respectively. The skewness (−0.59 to
1.79) and kurtosis (−0.08 to 1.09) were within acceptable range. Even though SD
was less for some of the items, as per criteria discussed in Chap. 2, all other
parameters demonstrated acceptable properties.
The CFA fit indices were Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.84, Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.82, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96, root
mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07 and χ2/df = 3.75. The current
model is a fair fit according to the parameters described in Chap. 2 for acceptability
of CFA model. Further, Fig. 3.2 indicates the domain factor loadings. In Fig. 3.2, it
can be observed that standard coefficient has exceeded than the 1.00 benchmark.
However, it is acceptable because standardized coefficient of above 1 does not
imply that something is wrong, although it seems so, it however suggest that there
is a high degree of multicollinearity in the data. This also suggests that factors are
correlated (oblique), the factor loadings are regression coefficients and not corre-
lations hence they can be larger than one in magnitude (Joreskog 1999).
Concurrent Validity
The overall scale reliability was 0.93. The concurrent criterion validity of the
resilience scale was established by proving hypothesis. The results indicated sig-
nificant correlations ranging from r = −0.09 to r = 0.55 among resilience and its
factors and scales used for validity (Table 3.4).
Norms for the New Resilience Scale
A t-test was employed to explore the gender differences for Hindi and English data
set separately. However, no gender differences were observed for any of the resi-
lience factors or the total resilience score. When the English and Hindi data sets were
combined, it was observed that only factor of coping/emotional regulation differed
significantly (t(1028) = 3.56, p < 0.01). Males (Mean = 26.06; SD = 4.55) were
better at coping/emotional regulation than females (Mean = 25.04; SD = 4.70).
Norms for the New Resilience Scale 59
Fig. 3.2 CFA for new resilience scale (Hindi)
Further the data were analyzed for age as well. The participants were divided into two
age groups (<30 years and >30 years). The results indicated no significant difference
between both the age groups for participants who filled the form in English.
However participants who filled the form in Hindi differed on coping/emotional
regulation (t(546) = −2.49, p < 0.01), resourcefulness (t(546) = −2.30, p < 0.05)
60
Table 3.4 Pearson’s Correlational Analysis between the Resilience and its factors and Other Well-Being Measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. F1 0.88
2. F2 0.79** 0.85
3. F3 0.81** 0.70** 0.70
**
4. F4 0.79 0.68** 0.70** 0.78
** **
5. TOT-R 0.97 0.88 0.87** 0.84** 0.93
** ** **
6. FS 0.53 0.44 0.51 0.50** 0.55** 0.87
** ** ** **
7. SPANE P 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.45 0.46** 0.49** 0.82
** * ** * **
8. SPANE N −0.13 −0.11 −0.14 −0.09 −0.13 −0.29** −0.08 0.79
9. SPANE B 0.35** 0.31** 0.32** 0.32** 0.36** 0.50** 0.62** −0.83** 0.80
10. EWB 0.32** 0.30** 0.31** 0.32** 0.34** 0.47** 0.51** −0.17** 0.42** 0.82
** ** ** ** ** **
11. SWB 0.30 0.32 0.28 0.27 0.32 0.33 0.32** −0.09* 0.11* 0.39** 0.77
** ** ** ** ** ** ** * **
12. PWB 0.47 0.40 0.44 0.40 0.48 0.54 0.37 −0.09 0.28 0.44** 0.52** 0.76
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
13. MHC TOTAL 0.46 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.48 0.56 0.48 −0.06 0.32 0.70** 0.82** 0.85** 0.81
Note **p < 0.01 level (2-tailed). (N = 467). F1 Sense of Self-efficacy, F2 Emotional Regulation, F3 resourcefulness, F4 Future planning/goal orientation,
5. TOT-R total resilience score, EWB emotional well-being, SWB social well-being, PWB psychological well-being, MHC Total mental health continuum,
FS Flourishing scale, SPANE P positive experiences, SPANE N negative experiences, SPANE B difference between positive and negative experiences. The
numbers in bold indicate alpha reliability
3 The Assessment of Resilience
Norms for the New Resilience Scale 61
and total resilience score (t(546) = −2.17, p < 0.05) on the basis of their age
group. Results indicated that participants whose age was more than 30 were better in
emotional regulation/coping (Mean = 27.29; SD = 4.71), resourcefulness
(Mean = 19.61; SD = 3.53) and total resilience sore (Mean = 11.75; SD = 1.91)
than those below 30 on emotional regulation/coping (Mean = 26.14; SD = 4.91),
resourcefulness (Mean = 18.86; SD = 3.48) and total resilience sore (Mean = 10.95;
SD = 2.01). When the data for Hindi and English was combined, it was observed
that participants differed significantly on sense of self-efficacy (t (1024) = −2.66,
p < 0.01), coping/emotional regulation (t (1024) = −5.02, p < 0.01), resourceful-
ness (t (1024) = −2.12, p < 0.05), and total resilience score (t(1024) = −3.31,
p < 0.01). Results indicated that participants whose age was more than 30 were
better in sense of self-efficacy (Mean = 62.54; SD = 9.30), emotional
regulation/coping (Mean = 27.23; SD = 4.67), resourcefulness (Mean = 19.62;
SD = 3.48) and total resilience sore (Mean = 12.12; SD = 1.83) as compared to
those below 30 on self-efficacy (Mean = 60.18; SD = 10.38), emotional
regulation/coping (Mean = 25.23; SD = 4.58), resourcefulness (Mean = 18.96;
SD = 3.61) and total resilience sore (Mean = 11.57; SD = 1.89). However, further
studies can be conducted to establish the norms for the scale.
Discussion
Factor analyses revealed a multidimensional four factor model of resilience.

Previous studies too have reported that resilience is a multidimensional construct
(Ryan and Caltabiano 2009). In an Indian adaptation study of CD-RISC, it was
reported that a four factor model was suitable for Indian population. The four factors
that emerged in the study were hardiness, optimism, resourcefulness, and purpose
(Singh and Yu 2010). Four factors emerged in the present study too namely;
(1) sense of self-efficacy (2) emotional regulation (3) resourcefulness and (4) posi-
tive future orientation. The four factors were similar to the earlier documented
empirical research (Friborg et al. 2005; Oshio et al. 2003; Singh and Yu 2010).
The first factor that is named as self-efficacy is a characteristic of resilient
individuals. Hamill (2003) demonstrated that self-efficacy was an important char-
acteristic of resilient children. Evidence supports emotional regulation (the second
factor) as one of the defining characteristics of resilient people (Cicchetti et al.
1995; Cicchetti et al. 1991; Cicchetti and Lynch 1993; Cicchetti et al. 1993;
Limonero et al. 2012). The third and the fourth factors of resilience have shown
positive relationship with resilience—resourcefulness (Bonanno et al. 2007) and
future planning/goal orientation (Splan et al. 2011), respectively. The confirmatory
analysis too revealed that the current proposed model is a good fit.
The current study developed and validated a new measure of resilience among
Indian population. The study further reported correlation between resilience mea-
sure with MHC-SF, Flourishing Scale, and SPANE. The authors propose a new
scale of 31 items with adequate psychometric properties. The overall reliability of
the new scale is reportedly α = 0.95 whereas above α = 0.80 for the subscales. The
new resilience measure also demonstrated high correlation with the other tests used
in the study (MHC-SF, Flourishing Scale, and SPANE). It showed a significant
correlation with all three dimensions of the MHC-SF (emotional well-being, social
well-being, and psychological well-being), flourishing scale and SPANE (positive
and negative experiences). A review of literature on resilient measures (Sood et al.
2013) reported positive correlation of resilience with positive effect, emotional ties,
and psychological well-being, a finding corroborated in the present study as well.
Other studies (Carver et al. 2010; Besharat 2007; Haddadi and Besharat 2010) too
endorsed a positive association of resilience with psychological well-being. The
relationship between resilience and affect in the present study is in line with the
previous studies wherein a significant positive correlation has been observed for
the positive affect and a significant negative correlation has been observed for the
negative affect (Mak et al. 2011; Sood et al. 2013). Studies have shown that
resilience shares a significant relationship with all the four factors studied in this
study. Thus, it can be observed that the proposed scale is a valid and reliable
measure on the basis of its construct and criterion validity.
Conclusion
In today’s times where stress and challenges define one’s life, resilience is a much
desired characteristic. The current study proposes a new measure of resilience with
adequate psychometric properties. Presenting resilience as a multidimensional con-
struct, a 4 factor solution is suggested for measuring resilience. Future use can be made
in terms of its validation, starting with males and females to look for gender variations.
It can also be validated across different socioeconomic strata of the society/different
occupational and educational groups. To increase its usability, it can be translated
to other Indian languages apart from Hindi or any other regional language.
References
Abolghasemi, A., & Varaniyab, T. (2010). Resilience and perceived stress: Predictors of life
satisfaction in the students of success and failure. Journal of Social and behavioral Sciences, 5,
748–752.
Abrams, M. S. (2001). Resilience in ambiguous loss. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 55,
283–291.
Adams, K. B., Sanders, S., & Auth, E. A. (2004). Loneliness and depression in independent living
retirement communities: Risk and resilience factors. Aging and Mental Health, 8(6), 475–485.
Alvord, M. K., & Grados, J. J. (2005). Enhancing resilience in children: A proactive approach.
Professional Psychology. Research and Practice, 36(3), 238–245.
Annalakshmi, N. (2007a). Probabilistic orientation and resilience. Journal of the Indian Academy
of Applied Psychology, 33(2), 267–272.
Annalakshmi, N. (2007b). Resilience in relation to Extraversion-Introversion, Psychoticism, and
Neuroticism. Indian Journal of Psychometry & Education, 38(1), 51–55.
References 63
Annalakshmi, N. (2008). The resilient individual: A personality analysis. Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, 34, 110–118.
Annalakshmi, N. (2009a). Bharathiar University resilience scale. In Harish Purohit & Ajay Wagh
(Eds.), Research methodology tools and techniques (pp. 105–121). New Delhi: Sri Publishers.
Annalakshmi, N. (2009). Resilience, metacognition and complexity. Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(special issue), 112–118.
Annalakshmi, N. (2010). Resilience among high and low field-independents. Indian Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 36(2), 39–45.
Annalakshmi, N. (2011). Resilience, behaviour approach and inhibition among adolescents.
Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(special issue), 119–127.
Annalakshmi, N., & Jose, T. P. (2011). Spiritual intelligence and resilience among Christian youth
in Kerala. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(2), 263–268.
Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologically invulnerable child. In E. J. Anthony &
C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk (pp. 529–545). New
York: Wiley.
Arrindelle, W. A., Heesink, J., & Feij, J. A. (1999). The satisfaction with life scale (SWLS):
Appraisal with 1700 healthy young adults in The Netherlands. Personality and Individual
Differences, 26, 815–826.
Baek, H. S., Lee, K. U., Joo, E. J., Lee, M. Y., & Choi, K. S. (2010). Reliability and validity of the
Korean version of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale. Psychiatry Investigation, 7(2),
109–115.
Bartone, P. T. (2007). Test retest reliability of the dispositional resilience scale-15, a brief
hardiness scale. Psychological Reports, 101, 943–944.
Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. W., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military
air disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 177, 317–328.
Baumgartner, H., & Hombur, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modelling in
marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
13, 139–161.
Benzies, K., & Mychasiuk, R. (2009). Fostering family resiliency: A review of the key protective
factors. Child & Family Social Work, 14, 103–114.
Besharat, M. A. (2007). Psychometric properties of a farsi version of the resilience scale.
Unpublished research report. Tehran: University of Tehran. (Farsi).
Besser, A., Weinberg, M., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Neria, Y. (2014). Acute symptoms of posttraumatic
stress and dissociative experiences among female israeli civilians exposed to war: The roles of
intrapersonal and interpersonal sources of resilience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1–13.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections
and separateness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(2), 349.
Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2007). What predicts psychological
resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 671.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging
theoretical models, research designs, and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115–125.
Bronfernrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,
coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour research and therapy, 44(4),
585–599.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the
connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028.
Campbell-Sills, L., Forde, D. R., & Stein, M. B. (2009). Demographic and childhood
environmental predictors of resilience in a community sample. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 43(12), 1007–1012.
Cardoso, J. B., & Thompson, S. J. (2010). Common themes of resilience among latino immigrant
families: A systematic review of the literature. Families in Society, 91(3), 257–265.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review,
30(7), 879–889.
Census of India. (2011). Retrieved from http://censusindia.gov.in/
Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A Study of a measure of sampling adequacy for
factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 43–47.
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (Eds.). (2007). Special issue: A multilevel approach to resilience.
Development and Psychopathology, 19(3).
Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community
violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children’s development. Psychiatry, 56(1),
96–118.
Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in
developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 1–10.
Cicchetti, D., Ganiban, J., & Barnett, D. (1991). Contributions from the study of high-risk
populations to understanding the development of emotion regulation. In J. Garber & K.
A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation. Cambridge
studies in social and emotional development (pp. 15–48). New York, NY, US: Cambridge
University Press.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Lynch, M., & Holt, K. D. (1993). Resilience in maltreated children:
Processes leading to adaptive outcome. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 629–647.
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness
unpacked: positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3),
361–368.
Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., et al. (1993).
The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research
program. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1013–1022.
Cutuli, J. J. (2004). Preventing externalizing symptoms and related features in adolescence.
Unpublished honors thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Daining, C., & DePanfilis. (2007). Resilience of youth in transition from out-of-home care to
adulthood. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1158–1178.
Decker, C., & Haase, J. (2005). The relationships of uncertainty, family, social support and
resiliency to coping in adolescents with cancer. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36(2), 126–127.
Depp, C. A., & Jeste, D. V. (2006). Definitions and predictors of successful aging: A
comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry,
14, 1064–7481.
Der Kinderen, S., & Greeff, A. P. (2003). Resilience among families where a parent accepted a
voluntary teacher’s retrenchment package. South African Journal of Psychology, 33(2), 86–94.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves
cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388.
Social Indicator Research, 97, 143–156.
DiRago, A. C., & Vaillant, G. E. (2007). Resilience in inner city youth: Childhood predictors of
occupational status across the lifespan. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 61–70.
Dong, F., Nelson, C., & Shah-Haque, S. (2013). A Modified CD-RISC: Including previously
unaccounted for resilience variables. Kansas Journal of Medicine, 6(1), 11–20.
DuMont, K. A., Widom, C. S., & Czaja, S. J. (2007). Predictors of resilience in abused and
neglected children grown-up: the role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 31(3), 255–274.
References 65
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1(1).
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Fayombo, G. A. (2010). The Relationship between personality traits and psychological resilience
among the caribbean adolescents. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2(2),
105–116.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding
healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419.
Ferguson, C., Cohen, L., Pooley, J. -A., & Harms, C. (2010). Resilience in small business owners.
Unpublished manuscript, Edith Cowan University. Perth, WA.
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2103). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions,
concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18(1), 12–23.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for
adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment?
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 65–76.
Ganth, D. B., Thiyagarajan, S., & Nigesh. (2013). Role of Infertility, emotional intelligence and
resilience on marital satisfaction among Indian couples. International Journal of Applied
Psychology, 3(3), 31–37. doi:10.5923/j.ijap.20130303.01.
Garmezy, N. (1981). Stressors in childhood. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping,
and development in children (pp. 43–84). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children:
A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97–111.
Garmezy, N. (1996). Reflections and commentary on risk, resilience, and development. In R.
J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in
children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (p. 118). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gartland, D., Bond, L., Olsson, C., Buzwell, S. & Sawyer, S. (2006). (available from the first
author) Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. www.
ahda.org/downloads/ISSBD2006Gartland.pdf
Gillham, J. E., Hamilton, J., Freres, D. R., Patton, K., & Gallop, R. (2006). Preventing depression
among early adolescents in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled study of the Penn
Resiliency Program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 203–219.
Girtler N, Casari, E. F., Brugnolo, A., Cutolo, M., Dessi, B., Guasco, S., Olmi, C., & De Carli, F.
(2010). Italian validation of the Wagnild and Young Resilience Scale: a perspective to
rheumatic diseases. Clinical Experimental Rheumatology, 28(5), 669–78.
Green, K. T., Hayward, L. C., Williams, A. N., Dennis, P. A., Bryan, B. C., & Taber, K. H. (2014).
Examining the factor structure of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a Post 9/11
U.S. Military Veteran Sample. Assessment, 1–9.
Greenberg, M., Kusche, C., Cooke, E., & Quamma, J. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in
school aged children: the effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 7–16.
Greve, W., & Staudinger, U. M. (2006). Resilience in later adulthood and old age: resources and
potential for successful aging. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology: Vol. 3. Risk, disorder and psychopathology (2nd ed., 796–840). New
York: Wiley.
Grossman, J., & Tierney, J. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers
and Big Sisters programme. Evaluation Review, 22(3), 403–426.
Haddadi, P., & Besharat, M. A. (2010). Resilience, vulnerability and mental health.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 639–642.
Hamill, S. K. (2003). Resilience and self-efficacy: The importance of efficacy beliefs and coping
mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate University Journal of the Sciences, 35, 115–146.
Hardy, S. E., Concato, J., & Gill, T. M. (2002). Stressful life events among community‐living
older persons. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17(11), 841–847.
Hardy, S. E., Concato, J., & Gill, T. M. (2004). Resilience of community-dwelling older persons.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(2), 257–262.
Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education (3rd ed.). New York: McKay.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R.D., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing
adolescent health risk behavior by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226–234.
Hjemdal, O., Vogel, P. A., Solem, S., Hagen, K., & Stiles, T. C. (2011). The relationship between
resilience and levels of anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in
adolescents. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18(4), 314–321.
Howard, S., Dryden, J., & Johnson, B. (1999). Childhood resilience: Review and critique of
literature. Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 307–323.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisci-
plinary journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Hunter, A. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of resilience in adolescents. Journal of
PediatricNursing., 16(3), 172–179.
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: application of a new conceptual
framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861.
Jeste, D. V., Savla, G. N., Thompson, W. K., Vahia, I. V., Glorioso, D. K., Martin, A. V. S., ... &
Depp, C. A. (2013). Association between older age and more successful aging: critical role of
resilience and depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(2), 188–196.
Jew, C. J., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of
resilience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 32, 75–89.
Joreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved from August 3,
2014, http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf
Jowkar, B., Friborg, O., & Hjemdal, O. (2010). Cross-cultural validation of the resilience Scale for
Adults (RSA) in Iran. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.
00794.x.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Kenny, M. E., Gallagher, L. A., Alvarez-Salvat, R., & Silsby, J. (2002). Sources of support
and psychological distress among academically successful inner-city youth. Adolescence, 37,
161–182.
Retrieved from http://www.sociology.emory.edu/ckeyes/. [Online, retrieved January 15, 2010]
Keyes, C. L. M., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2013). An Investigation of the Relationship between
Resilience, Mindfulness, and Academic Self-Efficacy. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 1(6),
1–4.
Khoshouei, & Sadat, M. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the connor-davidson resilience scale
(CD-RISC) using Iranian students. International Journal of Testing, 9(1), 60–66.
Kim-Cohen, J., & Gold, A. L. (2009). Measured gene-environment interactions and mechanisms
promoting resilient development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 138–142.
Kimhi, S. (2014). Levels of resilience: Associations among individual, community, and national
resilience. Journal of Health Psychology, 1–7.
Klohnen, E. C. (1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(5), 1067.
Koen, M. P., Van Eeden, C. & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The prevalence of resilience in a group of
professional nurses. Health SA Gesondheid 16(1), Art. #576, 11 pages. doi:10.4102/hsag.
v16i1.576
Krovetz, M. (1999). Fostering resiliency. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28(5), 28–31.
Kumpfer, L. K. (1999). Factors and Processes Contributing to Resilience: The Resilience
Framework. In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life
adaptations (pp. 179–224). New York: Academic/Plenum.
Lamers, S. M., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., Ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011).
Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF).
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 99–110.
References 67
Lamond, A. J., Depp, C. A., Allison, M., Langer, R., Reichstadt, J., Moore, D. J., et al. (2008).
Measurement and predictors of resilience among community-dwelling older women. Journal
of Psychiatric Research, 43, 148–154.
Lata, N. (2009). Resilience of adolescents living with political violence in Kashmir: role of
religious meaning system and political ideology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://
shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/
Lease, S. H., Horne, S. G., & Nofffsinger-Frazier, N. (2005). Affirming faith experiences and
psychological health for Caucasian lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 378–388.
Lee, H. S., Brown, S. L., Mitchell, M. M., & Schiraldi, G. R. (2008). Correlates of resilience in the
face of adversity for Korean women immigrating to the US. Journal of Immigrant Minority
Health, 10, 415–422.
Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., & DeVijver, F. V. (2011). Validation of the child and youth resilience
measure-28 (CYRM-28) among canadian youth. Research on Social Work Practice,. doi:10.
1177/1049731511428619.
Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., & LeBlanc, J. C. (2013). The CYRM-12: A brief measure of resilience.
Canadian Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 131–135.
Limonero, J. T., Matthew, D., Maté-Mendez, J., Gonzalez-splash, J., Bayes, R., Bernaus, M., et al.
(2012). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the emotional upset detection (SMD) in
cancer patients. GacetaSanitaria, 26(2), 145–152.
Little, M., & Mount, K. (1999). Prevention and early intervention with children in need.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Lundman, B., Strandberg, G., Eisemann, M., Gustafson, Y., & Brulin, C. (2007). Psychometric
properties of the Swedish version of the Resilience Scale. Scandinavian Journal of Caring
Sciences, 21, 229–237.
Luthar, S. S., & Zelazo, L. B. (2003). Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of
Childhood Adversities. In S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and Vulnerability. New York: Cambridge
University Place.
Mak, W. W. S., Ng, I. S. W., & Wong, C. C. Y. (2011). Resilience: Enhancing well-being through
the positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 610–617.
Manhas, S., Sharma, A., & Riya. (2013). Assessment of the Level of Resilience among
Adolescence of Single Parent Families. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 6(3), 294–297.
Manning, L. K. (2013). Navigating Hardships in Old Age Exploring the Relationship between
Spirituality and Resilience in Later Life. Qualitative Health Research, 23(4), 568–575.
Martinez-Torteya, C., Bogat, G. A., von Eye, A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2009). Resilience among
children exposed to domestic violence: The role of risk and protective factors. Child
Development, 80(2), 562–577.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, D. J. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and
unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American
Psychologist, 53(2), 205–220.
Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave
rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921–930.
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions
from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2(4),
425–444.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
psychologist, 56(3), 227.
Mehta, M., Whyte, E., Lenze, E., Hardy, S., Roumani, Y., Subahan, P., et al. (2008). Depressive
symptoms in late life: Associations with apathy, resilience and disability vary between
young-old and old-old. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23, 238–243.
Montross, L. P., Depp, C., Daly, J., Reichstadt, J., Golshan, S., Moore, D., et al. (2006). Correlates
of self-rated successful aging among community-dwelling older adults. American Journal of
Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(1), 42–51.
Mrazek, P., & Haggerty, R. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive
intervention research. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Murphy, L., & Moriarity, A. (1976). Vulnerability, coping and growth from infancy to
adolescence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Netuveli, G., & Blane, D. (2008). Quality of life in older ages. British Medical Bulletin, 85, 113–
126.
Netuveli, G., Wiggins, R. D., Montgomery, S. M., Hildon, Z., & Blane, D. (2008). Mental health
and resilience at older ages: bouncing back after adversity in the British Household Panel
Survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(11), 987–991.
Newman, T. (2004). What works in building resilience. London: Barnardo’s.
NSW, Department of Community Services. (2007). Risk, protection and resilience in children and
families. Retrieved from http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/
321633/researchnotes_resilience.pdf
Olds, D. L. (1997). The prenatal/early infancy project: Fifteen years later. In G. W. Albee &
T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Primary Prevention Works. London: Sage.
adolescent resilience scale. Japanese Journal of Counseling Science, 35, 57–65.
Pacheco, N. B., Vizcaino, M. V., Calvo, T. E., Yus, P. M. C., Parra, S., & Campayo, G. J. (2014).
Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the 10-item CD-RISC in patients with
fibromyalgia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-14.
Peng, L., Li, M., Zuo, X., Miao, Y., Chen, L., Yu, Y., et al. (2014). Application of the
Pennsylvania resilience training program on medical Students. Personality and Individual
Differences, 61–62, 47–51.
Perry, B. D. (2002). Resilience: Where does it come from? Early Childhood Today, 17(2), 24–25.
Pinheiro, M., & Matos, A. P. (2013). Exploring the construct validity of the two versions of the
Resilience Scale in a Portuguese adolescent sample. The European Journal of Social &
Behavioural Sciences, 179–189.
Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, D., & Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk and protective factors: Are both
necessary to understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence? Social Work Research,
23(3), 145–158.
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics
research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32, 153–161.
Prince-Embury, S. (2006). Resiliency scales for children and adolescents: Profiles of personal
strengths. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments.
Romer, N., Tom, K. M., Ravitch, N. K., Wesley, K., & Merrell, K. W. (2011). Gender differences
in positive social and emotional functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 931–1075.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2005). Psychological distress following suicidality
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Role of social relationships. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34(2), 149–161.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.
Rutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 1–12.
Ryan, L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (2009). Development of a new resilience scale: The resilience in
midlife scale (RIM Scale). Asian Social Science, 5(11), 39–51.
Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Beardslee, W., & Pynoos, R. (2007). FOCUS for military families:
Individual family resiliency training manual (1st ed.). UCLA: Unpublished manual.
Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Pynoos, R., Mogil, C., Green, S., Layne, C. M., et al. (2009). FOCUS
for military families: Individual family resiliency training manual (2nd ed.). UCLA:
Unpublished manual.
Salztman, W. R., Lester, P., Beardslee, W. R., Layne, C. M., Woodward, K., & Nash, W.
P. (2011). Mechanisms of risk and resilience in military families: theoretical and empirical
References 69
basis of a family-focused resilience enhancement program. Clinical Child and Family

Psychology Review, 14, 213–230.
Saltzman, W. R., Pynoos, R. S., Lester, P., Layne, C. M., & Beardslee, W. R. (2013). Enhancing
family resilience through family narrative co-construction. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 16(3), 294–310.
Schaeffer, C. M., Stolbach, A., Tashman, N. A., Acosta, O. M., & Weist, M. D. (2001). Why did
they graduate? A pilot study considering resilience among inner-city youth, International
Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 3(2), 8–14.
Scorgie, F., Vasey, K., Harper, E., Richter, M., & Nare, P., et al. (2013). Human rights abuses and
collective resilience among sex workers in four African countries: a qualitative study. Global
Health, 9–33.
Seligman, M. (1992). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York:
Pocket Books.
Shakespeare-Finch, J. E., Shochet, I. M., Roos, C. R., Craig, C., Armstrong, D., Young, R. M., &
Wurfl, A. (2014). Promoting posttraumatic growth in police recruits: preliminary results of a
randomized controlled resilience intervention trial. In Australian & New Zealand disaster and
emergency management conference, association for sustainability in business Inc., QT Hotel
Gold Coast, Surfers Paradise, QLD.
Shastri, P. C. (2013). Resilience: Building immunity in psychiatry. Indian Journal of Psychiatry,
55(3), 224–234.
Shochet, I. M., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Craig, C., Roos, C., Wurfl, A., Hoge, R., et al. (2011). The
development and implementation of the promoting resilient officers (PRO) program.
Traumatology, 17, 43–51.
Singh, K., & Yu, X. N. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the connor-davidson resilience scale
(CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 23–30.
Singh, K., Bassi, M., Junnarkar, M. & Negri, L. (2015). Mental health and psychosocial
functioning among Indian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 39, 59–69.
Singh, K. (2014). Relationship of Demographic variables, socio-cultural issues and selected
psychological constructs with the positive mental health of north Indian adolescents. ICMR
Project Report.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief
resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.
Soest, T., Mossige, S., Stefanse, K., & Hjemdal, O. (2010). a validation study of the resilience scale
for adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32(2), 215–225.
Sood, S., Bakshi, A., & Devi, P. (2013). An Assessment of perceived stress, resilience and mental
health of adolescents living in border areas. International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, 3(1), 1–4.
Splan, R. K., Brooks, R. M., Porr, S., & Broyles, T. W. (2011). Resiliency and achievement Goal
Orientation among Agricultural Students. NACTA Journal.
Spooner, C., Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. (2001). Structural determinants of youth drug use.
Canberra: Australian National Council on Drugs.
Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008). Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping
strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of American College
Health, 56(4), 445–453.
Strumpher, D. J. W. (2003). Resilience and burnout: A stitch that could save nine. South African
Journal of Psychology, 33(2), 69–79.
Thompson, R. W., Arnkoff, D. B., & Glass, C. R. (2011). Conceptualizing mindfulness and
acceptance as components of psychological resilience to trauma. Trauma, Violence and Abuse,
12, 220–235.
Tiet, Q. Q., Huizinga, D., & Byrnes, H. F. (2010). Predictors of resilience among inner city youths.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 360–378.
Tol, W. A., Jordans, M. J. D., Reis, R., & De Jong, J. T. V. M. (2009). Ecological resilience:
working with child-related psychosocial resources in war-affected communities. In D. Brom, R.
Pat-Horenczyk & J. Ford (Eds.), Treating traumatized children: Risk, resilience, and recovery
(pp. 164–182). London: Routledge.
Tol, W. A., Song, S., & Jordans, M. J. D. (2013). Annual Research Review: Resilience and mental
health in children and adolescents living in areas of armed conflict—a systematic review of
findings in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12053.
Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience. Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity
of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 1–17.
Vaillant, G. (2002). Aging well. Boston: Little, Brown.
Valentine, L., & Feinauer, L. (1993). Resiliency factors associated with female survivors of
childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Family Therapy., 21(30), 216–224.
Wagnild, G. (2003). Resilience and successful aging: Comparison among low and high income
older adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 29(12), 42–49.
Wagnild, G. M. (2009). A review of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17,
105–113. doi:10.1891/1061-3749.17.2.105.
Wagnild, G. M. (2009b). The Resilience scale user’s guide for the US English version of the
Resilience Scale and the 14-Item Resilience Scale.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–178.
Wagnild, G., & Young, H. (1990). Resilience among older women. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 22(4), 252–255.
Wang, L., Shi, Z., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Psychometric properties of the 10-item
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in Chinese earthquake victims. Psychiatry and Clinical
Neurosciences, 64(5), 499–504.
Wells, M. (2009). Resilience in rural community-dwelling adults. Journal of Rural Health, 25(4),
416–420.
Wells, M. (2010). Resilience in older adults living in rural, suburban, and urban areas. Online
Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care, 10(2), 45–52.
Werner, E. E. (2005). Resilience research: Past, present, and future. In R. D. Peters, B. Lead
beater, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Resilience in children, families, and communities: Linking
context to practice and policy (pp. 3–11). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal
variables: Problems and Remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts. Issues and Applications: Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks CA.
Wilcox, D. T., Richards, F., & O’Keeffe, Z. C. (2004). Resilience and risk factors associated with
experiencing childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse Review, 13, 338–352.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience
measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(8), 1–18.
Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Millsap, R. E., Plummer, B. A., Greene, S. M., Anderson, E. R.,
et al. (2002). Six-year follow-up of preventive interventions for children of divorce:
A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 1874–1881.
Wright, M., Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2013). Resilience Processes in Development: Four
waves of Research on Positive Adaptation in Context of Adversity. In Goldstein, S. & Brooks,
R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children. Springer Science+Business Media New
York. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_2.
Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the connor-davidson
resilience scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people. Social Behavior and Personality: an
international journal, 35(1), 19–30.
Zautra, A. J., Johnson, L. M., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Positive affect as a source of resilience for
women in chronic pain. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(2), 212–220.
Chapter 4
Flow Scale-Construction and Validation
Abstract The chapter centers around the concept of “flow”, a relatively less
explored concept in the field of positive psychology but one that has garnered a lot
of interest in the last few decades. Flow has been studied in various fields such as
art, sports, and workplaces. However, most of the research on flow-theoretical as
well as psychometric testing has come from west. The primary focus of the present
research was to study flow in Indian setting and to find out what factors constitute
flow in India. Results revealed a 24 items scale and a three-factor model of flow-(1)
concentration and sense of control during activity, (2) experience during activity,
and (3) transformation of time, with an overall α = 0.92. The authors also translated
the new psychometrically sound flow scale in Hindi and found acceptable psy-
chometric properties of the translated version.
Keywords Flow Positive experiences Negative experiences Flourishing
Introduction
We all at some point of time, while performing any activity have felt a sense of
achievement and exhilaration coupled with a desire to repeat the activity. The sheer
motivation to finish the activity and the pleasure derived from the activity is an
experience best explained by the individual involved in it. Positive psychology
defines this experience as “flow”. The concept of flow owes it finding, to Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi who in the 1960s observed how artists while painting, became so
involved with it that it led to complete disregard of hunger and fatigue. To strengthen
his observations, Csikszentmihalyi observed people across various fields—sport
persons, doctors, dancers, rock climbers, etc., and noticed a certain consistency
regarding the enjoyment felt during the activity and the fact that the experience for
those involved, stood out in a special way. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975),
flow is a highly enjoyable psychological state that refers to “the holistic sensation,

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_4
72 4 Flow Scale-Construction and Validation
people feel when they act with total involvement” (p. 36). Following the introduction
of flow in positive psychology, several researches were carried out around the world
in the 1980s and 1990s. The studies on optimal experience, and intrinsic motivation
in positive psychology were coupled with the study of flow which was also
assimilated within the humanistic tradition of Maslow and Rogers (McAdams 1990).
Since then, presence of flow has been reported in varied studies of art and science
(Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson 1990), sports (Jackson 1995, 1996), music (Fritz
and Avsec 2007), technology (Ghani and Deshpande 1994), and teaching (Bakker
2005) and also during several other activities. Clarke and Haworth (1994), described
flow as “the subjective experience that accompanies performance in a situation
where the challenges are matched by the person’s skills. Descriptions of the feeling
of ‘flow’ indicate an experience that is totally satisfying beyond a sense of having
fun” (Clarke and Haworth 1994, p. 511). Moneta and Csikszentmihalyi (1996)
defined flow “as a psychological state in which the person feels simultaneously
cognitively efficient, motivated, and happy” (p. 277). Asakawa (2004) defined flow
as the optimal state of mind in which an individual feels cognitively efficient, deeply
involved, and highly motivated, and also experiences a high level of enjoyment’’
(p. 124).
Describing the experience of flow, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) stated that, “in flow,
we are in control of our psychic energy and everything we do adds order to
consciousness. Following a flow experience, our self becomes more complex than
that it had been before, due to two broad psychological processes—differentiation
and integration. The self becomes differentiated as the person after a flow experi-
ence feels more capable and skilled. Flow leads to integration because thoughts,
intentions, feelings and the senses are focused on the same goal. After a flow
episode, one feels more together than before, not only internally but also with
respect to other people and the world in general. Differentiation promotes indi-
viduality while integration facilitates connections and security” (p. 3). Furthermore,
Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde (1992) referred to flow experience as a ‘‘subjective
state that people report when they are completely involved in something to the point
of forgetting time, fatigue, and everything else but the activity itself’’(p. 52). The
concept of flow can be studied at different levels ranging from major scientific
discoveries (Csikszentmihalyi 1996) to daily living (Csikszentmihalyi 1997) and
from micro to macro level. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975), the everyday
patterns of living were flow at the micro level whereas situations that demanded a
higher complexity levels and made more demands on the participants were flow at
the macro level.
Nature of Flow
Studying flow has also resulted in describing the nature of flow and its components.
According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975) flow state is mainly characterized by the
following components: (1) A balance between perception of one’s skills and the
Nature of Flow 73
perception of difficulty of the activity (task demand). In this state of balance, one
feels both optimally challenged and confident that everything is under control.
(2) The activity has coherence, contains no contradictory demands, and provides
clear, unambiguous feedback. (3) The activity seems to be guided by an inner logic.
(4) A high degree of concentration on the activity due to undivided attention to a
limited stimulus field. (5) A change in one’s experience of time. (6) The self and the
activity are not separated, leading to a merging of the self and the activity and the
loss of self-consciousness. Webster et al. (1993) in their work on flow in
human-computer interaction described flow as playful and exploratory experiences.
Bakker (2005) while defining flow in context of a work situation described it as a
short-term peak experience at work that is characterized by absorption, work
enjoyment, and intrinsic work motivation. Three components of flow that are found
in most definitions of flow are absorption (i.e., the total immersion in an activity),
enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation (Bakker 2008). He highlighted the presence of
these three components in previous flow researches (Csikszentmihalyi 1997;
Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1988; Csikszentmihalyi et al. 1993).
Engeser and Rheinberg (2008) described flow as a state with a strong functional
aspect where individuals while experiencing flow are highly concentrated and
optimally challenged while being in control of the action.
However, till date the most widely accepted nature of flow is based on nine
dimensions, as stated by Csikszentmihalyi (1990, 1993):
1. Challenge-Skill balance—In flow, there is a feeling of balance between the
demands of the situation and personal skills.
2. Action-Awareness Merging—Involvement is so deep that there is a feeling of
automaticity about one’s actions.
3. Clear Goals—A feeling of certainty about what one is going to do.
4. Unambiguous Feedback—Immediate and clear feedback is received, confirming
feelings that everything is going according to plan.
5. Concentration on Task at Hand—A feeling of being really focused.
6. Sense of Control—The distinguishing characteristic of this feeling in the flow
state is that it happens without conscious effort.
7. Loss of Self-Consciousness—Concern for the self disappears as the person
becomes one with the activity.
8. Transformation of Time—Time can be seen as passing more quickly, more
slowly, or there may be a complete lack of awareness of the passing of time.
9. Autotelic Experience—Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes this as the end result
of being in flow, a feeling of doing something for its own sake, with no
expectation of future reward or benefit.
Flow Models
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) proposed a flow model according to which flow occurs

when a person experiences balance between the challenge of the activity and his or
her own skill. According to this model, flow occurs when there is a balance between
perceived balance and perceived skills to perform an activity, i.e., when both
perceive challenge and skills are at the same plane—high, low, or medium. Yet, not
all flow states are the same: when achieved in high-challenge/high-skill situations,
flow will be more intense, ordered, and complex than when it is achieved in
low-challenge/low-skill situations (Csikszentmihalyi, personal communication,
1987) (Fig. 4.1).
However, the model was revised by Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989) due to
theoretical inconsistencies. According to the new model, to experience flow, two
conditions are needed to be satisfied (a) there is balance between challenges and
skills, and (b) both challenges and skills are greater than their weekly average. The
new model defined experience in four main states—flow, anxiety, boredom, and
apathy, and therefore known as the “quadrant model”. According to Moneta (2012),
the main difference between the two models of the flow state, is the addition of the
“apathy” state, which is posited to be the least positive of the four states.
Fig. 4.1 The first model of the flow state (adapted from Csikszentmihalyi 1975/2000 and
reproduced with authors’ permission
Causes and Predictors of Flow 75
Causes and Predictors of Flow
Flow is said to occur while performing any activity such as dancing, playing music,
sports, etc. But what is it that causes flow? Is it our innate capabilities, the nature of
activity being performed or environmental factors? According to Csikszentmihalyi
(1997) people involved in some kind of work report more flow experiences than
people in their free time. Literature on flow cites two causes responsible for causing
flow: (1) challenge—skills balance and (2) resources in hand. According to various
researchers (for example, Clarke and Haworth 1994; Csikszentmihalyi 1990; Ellis
et al. 1994; Massimini and Carli 1988), flow is possible when an individual per-
ceives balance between the challenge of a situation and their own skills to deal with
this challenge. Second possible cause of flow (at work) is the available resources at
hand. For example, Bakker (2005) in his study on music teachers showed that
teachers working at schools with high levels of autonomy, social support, super-
visory coaching, and feedback were most likely to experience flow at work. Job
characteristics were found to correlate with flow in a study among people of various
occupations (Demerouti 2006). A similar study (Mäkikangas et al. 2010) among
working professionals, correlation between job resources (social support, oppor-
tunities for professional development, supervisor coaching) and flow was reported.
Previous studies too, have reported positive correlation between job resources and
flow (Engeser et al. 2005; Bakker et al. 2003).
Regarding the predictors of flow, Csikszentmihalyi (1988), highlighted individual
differences in people experiencing flow and considered that people with “autotelic
personality” were more prone to experiencing flow. The term introduced by
Csikszentmihalyi in 1990, “autotelic personality” referred to people highly capable
of experiencing flow. Composed of two Greek words auto (self) and telos (goal),
Csikszentmihalyi defined autotelic self as “as one that easily translates potential
threats into enjoyable challenges, and therefore maintains its inner harmony.
A person who is never bored, seldom anxious, involved with what goes on, and in
flow most of the time may be said to have an autotelic self” (p. 209). Asakawa (2004,
2010) defined an autotelic personality as the one with propensity to experience flow.
Researches on autotelic personality types have shown these individuals to have high
self-esteem, able to resist distracters, less anxious and intrinsically motivated
(Jackson and Roberts 1992). Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) described
autotelic personalities as those possessing general curiosity and interest in life,
persistence, and low self-centeredness.
Privette and Bundrick (1989) found that the most commonly reported triggering
activity for flow experiences was a sport or another physical activity. Jackson et al.
(2001) cited association between flow with aspects of self-concept and use of
psychological skills. Self-control was cited as predictor of flow in a longitudinal
study on 697 school going children (Kuhnle et al. 2011). Seger and Potts (2012)
examined several personality traits that predicted flow in youngsters during a
videogame play. Results revealed that flow was predicted by a need to learn and a
low need for activity, and a strong competitive disposition.
Flow in Web Interactions
Several researchers such as Ghani (1995), Hoffman and Novak (1996), Chen (2006)
studied flow state in web interactions. People especially youngsters spend a major
part of their day immersed in virtual world. With increasing number of applications
and social sites, people find themselves unable to get away from the screens.
Ghani’s model describes flow in terms of antecedents and consequences and
measuring flow. While fitness of task (difference between challenges and skills),
perceived control, and cognitive spontaneity (playfulness) are defined as the ante-
cedents of flow, focus on process, learning, and creativity are the consequences of
flow. Flow itself was measured through enjoyment and concentration. According to
Ghani’s model, with an excess of skills, the user feels more in control, which can
lead to flow. However, when the skills greatly exceed challenges, boredom will
likely be resulted, providing a negative influence on flow. In Hoffman and Novak’s
(1996) conceptual model of flow, flow is determined by high skills and challenges
and focused attention, and is enhanced by interactivity and telepresence. Chen
(2000) model of flow explains flow in terms of its three factors—antecedents,
behavior, and consequences. Antecedents of flow are clear goals, immediate
feedback, potential control, and merger of action and awareness. The flow expe-
rience dimensions are concentration, telepresence, time distortion, and loss of
self-consciousness, while the consequences are positive affect and autotelic expe-
rience. Commenting on the experience of web users, Chen et al. (2000) opined that
web users’ in virtual space tend to forget their problems and tend to integrate
themselves with keyboard, monitor and cyberspace.
Performance-Enhancing Role of Flow
Flow has been demonstrated to be a consistent experience across different walks of

life (Csikszentmihalyi 1975; Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1988).
Subsequently, studies have examined the role of flow in various domains of work.
For example, evidence shows that some flow characteristics directly influence per-
formance because they are performance-enhancing in their nature (e.g., Engeser
et al. 2005; Jackson and Roberts 1992). For example, high concentration and a sense
of control have often been cited as facilitators of performance (e.g., Eklund 1994,
1996; Williams and Krane 1997). Flow has been observed to enhance performance
and lead to better productivity in many domains such as—sport performance (e.g.,
Jackson et al. 1998; Jackson et al. 2001; Pates et al. 2003). Furthermore, flow
experience has also been known to predict learning behavior (Cskiszentmihalyi et al.
1993) and creativity (Perry 1999) and exam performance (Engeser et al. 2005).
Association has also been reported between the dimensions of flow and variables
such as perceived sport ability, perceived skill, and self-reported concentration
(Marsh and Jackson 1999). Similarly, association between the post exercise positive
Performance-Enhancing Role of Flow 77
engagement, revitalization, and tranquility states and the global flow factor has also
been documented (Karageorghis et al. 2000).
At a professional level, flow promotes positive affect, thereby further promoting
creativity and positive thinking and encouraging employees to think about favor-
able characteristic of coworkers leading to helping others (George and Brief 1992).
A study by Hoffman and Novak (1996) on marketing, reported many positive
consequences of flow including increased consumer learning, exploratory behavior,
and positive affect. Experiencing flow has also been linked to increase in produc-
tivity (Csikszentmihalyi 2003), and better performance (Engeser and Rheinberg
2008). A recent study by Esteban-Millat et al. (2014) on role of flow on students’
learning environment showed two benefits of flow experience—positive affect (such
as feeling happy, satisfied and cheerful) and student learning.
While most of the studies link flow to better performance, there are some studies
which reveal contradictory findings, such as Stoll and Lau (2005) who reported how
flow did not directly fostered performance in a marathon. In a similar vein, Schüler
and Brunner (2009) reported how flow was linked to future running motivation, but
not directly linked to race performance.
Correlates of Flow and Its Dimensions
As stressed by Csikszentmihalyi and Figurski (1982), if flow is absent from a

person’s life, there would be little purpose in living. It strongly influences an
individual’s subjective well-being (Diener 1984) and improve a person’s happiness,
life satisfaction, and positive affect. Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989) called the
flow experience the ‘‘optimal experience’’ and reported an association between
experiencing flow during an activity with positive affect during a working day.
Studies have found positive correlations between flow and quality of life
(Csikszentmihalyi 1990). He also stated that flow experience, which is linked to
enjoyment, can bring about further personal growth. Experiencing flow has been
known to positively affect an individual’s subjective well-being, improving hap-
piness, life satisfaction and positive affect (Chen et al. 1999). Various studies have
also linked dimensions of flow with perceived ability (Jackson et al. 1998), and
perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Kowal and Fortier 1999),
areas of self-concept, and basic psychological skills (Jackson et al. 2001). In a study
on flow and subjective well-being, Frtiz and Avsec (2007) reported associations
between dimensions of flow (clear goals, challenge-skill balance, concentration on
the task, and autotelic experience) and positive affect. Experiencing flow has also
been linked to life satisfaction (Chen et al. 2010) and loyalty (Zhou et al. 2010).
In an Indian study on flow (Sahoo and Sahu 2009) a significant association was
reported between flow experience and total life satisfaction. The authors further
observed that happier people reported high levels of flow. The study also reported
significant association of flow experience with age, education and income.
Correlation Between Flow and Mindfulness
Many researchers have been interested in the relationship of flow and mindfulness.
One school of thought opines that flow and mindfulness can be used inter-
changeably, while the other holds the notion that the two constructs are totally
different entities. Proponents of the first school of thought define flow as “mind-
fulness while accomplishing something (Siegel 2010), whereas the other side states
flow as being “non-self-consciously immersed in the sensations of an experience,”
lacks mindful awareness (Siegel 2007). Even though both flow and mindfulness are
part of positive psychology, the truth is that mindfulness has its roots in Buddhism.
Studies have tried to examine the relationship between flow and mindfulness, for
example, in a study on nonathletes, Clark (2002) examined the impact of a
mindfulness training protocol (based on a self-regulated attention regulation
intervention program) on daily flow experiences. Findings suggested that mind-
fulness training may help some individuals in increasing the time spent in flow
during the course of their day. Kee and Wang (2008) in their study on relationships
between mindfulness, flow dispositions, and mental skills adoption suggested
mindfulness tendency being linked to the flow dispositions of clear goals, con-
centration, sense of control, and loss of self-consciousness. Komagata and
Komagata (2010) noted mindfulness and flow to be connected, especially around
the state of access concentration. They further suggested that mindfulness cannot be
sustained beyond access concentration and flow involves both mindfulness and the
level of concentration beyond that of access concentration. While both flow and
mindfulness are discussed in terms of personal experience of an individual leading
to a sense of achievement and fulfillment, the relationship between them lacks
clarity. More research is needed to get a clearer picture of the relationship shared by
these two constructs of positive psychology.
Methods of Measuring Flow
Flow is a subjective experience which is hard to measure. Measuring subjective

experience such as flow is complex and consequently challenging because of the
‘‘unstable and un-self-conscious’’ characteristics (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi
2002). Early research on flow made use of semi-structured interviews to understand
the phenomenon, to provide accounts of flow in real-life contexts (Csikszentmihalyi
2000). Even though agreement exists between the researchers regarding the defi-
nition of flow, however, when it comes to measuring flow a certain level of dis-
agreement is seen (Moneta 2012).
To measure this theoretical construct of flow, various scales exist along with
another common method which is the Experience Sampling Method (ESM).
Methods of Measuring Flow 79
Experience Sampling Method (ESM)
The introduction of ESM, with its goal of studying individuals’ subjective expe-
riences in their natural settings, made it possible to test the theory of flow
(Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1987). This approach requires the timing of the
recording to be very close to the timing of the event, aiming to reduce the distortion
of retrospective recollection (Wheeler and Reis 1991). Participants are given pagers
and are required to respond to beep signals to a set of questions (open ended as well
as closed ended) at random time intervals during their daily tasks. The responses are
elicited from the participants daily over a period of 1 week. The original form of the
ESM (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1987) gathers eight self-reports per day. ESM
has been used to study flow in other studies as well (Guastello et al. 1999). This
method was hailed as practical and a useful tool in an online flow study (Chen
2006) based on detecting web users’ positive affects and other flow states.
Applicability of ESM has also been proven in other disciplines such as medicine,
nursing and pharmacology (Weber and Beverly 2000; Hektner et al. 2006) and
ESM has proved to be a useful method of measuring flow (Hektner et al. 2007).
Flow State Scale (FSS) was one of the first scales developed to assess flow.
Subsequently, the Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS) was developed. What led to the
development of the DFS was that Csikszentmihalyi and other flow researchers (e.g.,
see Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1988) proposed that individual differ-
ences exist in the ability to experience flow. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) suggested that
certain types of people might be better psychologically equipped, regardless of the
situation, to experience flow. This individual difference factor is termed the “au-
totelic personality.”
Even though the two flow measures had adequate psychometric properties
(FSS = 0.72–0.91 with mean alpha = 0.85 and DSF = 0.70–0.88 with mean
alpha = 0.82), certain concerns such as weak associations between some of the
dimensions of flow and the global flow factor (Kowal and Fortier 1999;
Vlachopoulos et al. 2000), etc., and concerns related to factor loadings of some
items led to the conclusion that revision of some of the flow items is needed. Thus,
the revised versions (FSS-2 and DFS-2) followed. Validation of flow scales has also
been reported from different countries such as France (FSS-2, Fournier et al. 2007)
and Japan (FSS-2 and DFS-2, Kawabata et al. 2008), See Table 4.1 for details of
different flow scales.
Need for the Study
Research on flow has steadily gained momentum in the last few decades. However,
in the Indian scenario paucity of research still exist. To the best of our knowledge,
no Indian study on development and validation of flow scale has ever been
Table 4.1 Existing flow scales

S. Name/authors No. of items (response type) and Factors
No. and Their alpha reliabilities
1 Flow State Scale (FSS) (To assess flow at a 36 items; (5-point Likert scale) nine factors
state level) Jackson and Marsh (1996) challenge-skill balance, action-awareness
merging, clear goals, unambiguous
feedback, concentration on the task at
hand, sense of control, loss of
self-consciousness, time transformation,
and autotelic experience (overall α = 0.83)
2 Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS) (To assess 36 items; (5-point Likert scale) nine
flow at a dispositional level) Jackson et al. subscales: skill balance, merging of action
1998 (Renamed from its original name, and awareness, clear goals, unambiguous
Trait Flow Scale) feedback, total concentration, sense of
control, loss of self-consciousness,
transformation of time and autotelic
experience.) α = 0.72–0.91
3 Flow State Scale II (FSS-2) (designed to 36 items; (5-point Likert scale) nine factors
assess flow experiences within a particular (challenge-skill balance, merging of action
event, items use a past tense, Jackson and and awareness, clear goals, unambiguous
Eklund (2002) feedback, total concentration, sense of
control, loss of self-consciousness,
transformation of time and autotelic
experience.) α = 0.80–0.90
4 Dispositional Flow Scale—II (DFS-2) 36 items; (5-point Likert scale); nine
(designed to assess dispositional tendency factors (challenge-skill balance, merging of
to experience flow in physical Activity, action and awareness, clear goals,
items use a present tense) Jackson and unambiguous feedback, total
Eklund (2002) concentration, sense of control, loss of
self-consciousness, transformation of time
and autotelic experience.) α = 0.81–0.90
5 Flow Short Scale (Rheinberg et al. 2003). 10 items; (7-point Likert scale) two factors
(fluency α = 0.93 and absorption α = 0.78)
6 Work Related Flow Inventory (WOLF) 13 items; (7-point Likert scale) three
Bakker (2008) factors-absorption α = 0.75–0.86, work
enjoyment α = 0.88–0.96, intrinsic work
motivation α = 0.63–0.82
undertaken. The current study is a step in this direction as it attempts to address this
gap. An attempt was also made to find out what dimensions constitute flow in the
Indian population.
The new flow scale was developed in different phases and studies. Two separate
studies were undertaken for scale-construction and validation. The study 1 was
further divided into three phases and five stages namely (i) item generation,
refinement, and modification, (ii) expert panel review, (iii) item reduction,
(iv) factor structure analysis and item selection, and (v) factor structure validation.
The four stages were conducted in phase 1 and 2 of the study and in phase 3 the
fourth stage was repeated and fifth stage was executed. The study 2 was one phase
study in which the final scale of the study 1 was translated into Hindi and validation
of the Hindi scale was undertaken.
Study 1
In this study all the steps of test construction as discussed in Chap. 2 were followed.
The current study was divided into three phases. The phase 1 focused on item
generation, item refinement and preliminary factor structure. The phase 2 focused
on further item refinement. The phase 3 focused on finalizing the factor structure
and validation of new flow scale (English version).
Phase 1
Stage 1: Item Generation, Refinement and Modification
The first step involved generating a pool of items from various flow scales such as
Dispositional Flow Scale (Jackson and Eklund 2002), Work Related Flow
Inventory (WOLF; Bakker 2008), and some of the items were borrowed by the
questions used by Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993). A pool of 77 items (72 positively
worded and 5 negatively worded) was generated with 5-point Likert scale as its
response format (from 1 as “never or very rarely true” to 5 as “very often or always
true”).
Stage 2 and 3: Item Refinement, Modification, and Expert Panel Review
As discussed in Chap. 2, item refinement, modification, and expert review was

undertaken. On the basis of experts feedback during content validity six items were
deleted and one new was added. Thus, the scale consisted of 72 items (66 positively
worded and 6 negatively worded).
Data was collected from 100 participants (37 % males and 63 % females) with an
age range of 17–25 (mean age = 21.09 years, SD = 3.52). The participants who
voluntarily consented for the study were recruited and assured of confidentiality.
Majority of the sample (77 %) were students, nearly 16 % were working, 6 % were
students working part time, and 1 % was nonworking. A booklet with demographic
information and new flow questionnaire was handed to the participants and were
asked to fill it.
The collected data were subjected to preliminary analysis with the intention of
retaining and rejecting the items using SPSS version 15.0. The range of missing
values was 1–4 (1.4–5.6 %) for 72 items. Since the response format was a 5-point
Likert scale (with 1 “never or very rarely true” to 5 as “very often or always true”),
the missing values were substituted with the midpoint response (3 “sometimes
true”).
On the basis of item selection criteria discussed on Chap. 2 no item was deleted
on the basis of mean, since mean range was 2.21–4.12. On the basis of SD, 14 items
were deleted. The SD of retained items ranged from 1 to 1.22. Nine items were
discarded on the basis of item-total correlation. The items showed very high reli-
ability (α = 0.96). Hence, no item was deleted on the basis of low reliability. The
factor analysis was employed on 49 items.
A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was applied on the
retained 49 items. The factor analysis was employed because the KMO-MSA value
(0.84) was above the recommended norms for acceptance of KMO-MSA as dis-
cussed in Chap. 2. Also Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was highly significant (p < 0.
01). Items with factor loading >0.40 were retained. The eight-factor solution was
found to be most suitable and explaining 63.62 % of the total variance with
eigenvalue above 1. Item loadings of the retained items ranged from 0.40 to 0.73.
However, there were 12 items with secondary loadings, which were retained
considering the highly correlated factors of the construct. The eigenvalues for four
factors were greater than 2.00, whereas it was greater than 1.00 for eight factors.
Four items in the eight factor solution had factor loading less than 0.40 and were
thus, considered redundant and discarded. The remaining pool consisted of 45 items
for next phase.
Phase 2
The final 45 items questionnaire was administered on 184 participants (males = 40

%, females = 60 %) in phase 2. The missing values ranged from 1 to 3 (2.2–6.7 %).
Based on the criteria discussed in Chap. 2, no item was deleted on the basis of means.
However, three items with standard deviation <1 were deleted and one item with
correlation value <0.25 was deleted. On the remaining 41 items, factor analysis
with alternative factor solutions was run. The KMO-MSA was 0.92 and the Bartlett’s
test of Sphericity was found to be highly significant (p < 0.001). All items had
above 0.40 loading and, no item was deleted based on its redundant status in factor
analysis in this phase. However, factor solution was not finalized at this stage.
Phase 3
Participants
The data were collected on the final pool of 41 items generated in phase 2 from 630
participants. However, data of four participants was deleted since they did not
provide demographic details as well as missing values was higher. Analysis was
employed on 626 participants (Males = 289; Females = 337) with age range
17–32 years (Mean = 21.62 years; SD = 3.16 years).
Out of these, 480 participants of which 192 were males (40 %) and 288 were
females (60 %) were administered validity scales. The mean age of the participants
was 23.35 years (SD = 3.19). Scales administered were namely; Flourishing scale
and SPANE (Diener et al. 2010). Both the scales have established validity on Indian
population in English and Hindi (Singh 2014).
Measures
The following scales were employed to evaluate the newly developed flow scale’s
validity.
Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010): This is an 8-item scale that provides a
acceptable reliability with Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.87 (Diener et al. 2010) and
α = 0.93 in the present study.
Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE; Diener et al. 2010): It
contains 12 items that are divided into two subscales with six items each. SPANE P
always) to assess the respondent’s positive or negative experience over the past
4 weeks. The positive and negative scales are scored separately because of their
partial independence (Diener et al. 2010). Scores on each subscale (SPANE P and
SPANE N) range from 6 to 30. The two scores are combined by subtracting the
negative score from the positive score, and the resulting SPANE B scores range
from −24 to 24. The SPANE showed good psychometric properties as SPANE P
α = 0.87, SPANE N α = 0.81 and SPANE B α = 0.89 (Diener et al. 2010) and in
the present study SPANE P α = 0.83, SPANE N α = 0.79, and SPANE B. α = 0.80
were obtained.
Procedure
The current proposed new flow scale aimed to measure the state flow of an indi-
vidual. On the basis of the following instructions, the participants rated the
statements.
Instructions for flow
• My mind isn’t wandering. I am totally involved in what I am doing and I am not
thinking of anything else. My body feels good… the world seems to be cut off
from me… I am less aware of myself and my problems.
• My concentration is like breathing… I never think of it… When I start, I really
do shut out the world.
• I am so involved in what I am doing… I don’t see myself as separate from what I
am doing.
• I have been challenged but I believe that my skills will allow me to meet the
challenge.
• I know what I want to achieve, how good I am performing and experience a
sense of control during activity.
The participants were instructed as “Please answer the following questions in
relation to your experience in your chosen activity. These questions relate to the
thoughts and feelings you experienced during participation in your activity. There is
no right or wrong answer. Think about how often you experience each character-
istic during your activity and tick the box that best matches your experience.”
The above instructions were administered in all phases of the study.
Qualitative Analysis
The activities mentioned by participants were coded as creative activities (listening
to music, singing songs, dramatics, dancing), sports (football, swimming, chess,
badminton, table tennis), academic (enjoying studying), entertainment (watching
T.V.), computer related activities (online games, coding, programming), and
extracurricular activities (involvement with NGO, participating in various debates,
quizzes). There were 34.79 % of participants who engaged in creative activity,
24.07 % participated in sports, 19.48 % enjoyed academic activities, 3.06 % pre-
ferred entertainment, 5.25 % experienced flow when they were engaged in com-
puter activities and 13.35 % preferred extracurricular activities.
Statistical Analysis
The data were coded and analyzed using the SPSS 15.0 version and LISREL 8.8
version and was screened for minimum and maximum values for each of the
psychometric scales and the new flow scale. The SPSS preliminary frequency
output was analyzed for missing values. Frequency analysis for each item indicated
that responses for each item had scores within the range. The percentage for FS,
SPANE, and new flow scale were under 5 % and random in nature. The missing
values were replaced with series means.
In this phase, the data were split into one-third (one subsample) and two-third
(second subsample) parts for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as dis-
cussed in Chap. 2. The two parts were counter balanced for gender and age. A t-test
was conducted to confirm that both the subsamples were balanced. The results of the
t-test (Gender: t = −0.08, p = 0.94, Age: t = 0.03, p = 0.98) were not significant
hence indicating that both the parts were equal. The one-third of the sample con-
sisted of 209 participants (Males = 97, Females = 117, Mean = 21.62, SD = 3.22)
whereas two-thirds consisted of 417 (Males = 197, Females = 225, Mean = 21.62,
SD = 3.13) participants.
The mean range (3.09–3.88), SD range (0.96–1.13), skeweness (−0.79 to
−0.07), and kurtosis (−0.54 to 0.31) were within acceptable parameters discussed in
Chap. 2 except SD of some items which have less than 1 SD but were relevant on
the basis of all other parameters thus retrained at this stage. The EFA and CFA were
conducted for the new flow scale. The EFA was confirmed through varimax and
promax rotation to arrive at a robust factor solution (see Table 4.2).
Factor 1—Concentration and Sense of Control during Activity-The first factor
was defined by 11 items. Items from various dimensions of flow were found to be
grouped under factor 1. It was observed that grouping the items under “concentration
and sense of control” would appropriately define these set of items. For example, “I
was completely focused on the task at hand. I had a sense of control over what I was
doing.”, “I knew where I required going next and what to do next,” etc.
Factor 2—Experiential Flow during Activity-The 10 items under factor 2 were
primarily observed to be defining experience during activity. For example,. “I loved
the feeling of the performance and want to capture it again.”, “Things just seemed
to be happening automatically.”, “I experienced total focus on the activity,” etc.
Factor 3—Transformation of Time-All the three items in this factor referred to
transformation of time. For example, “I was so focused that I completely lost track
of time”, “Time went faster than I thought and I did not even sense it”, and “I lost
my normal awareness of time.”
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.08 and χ2/df = 3.98, thus indicating that current
model is a moderate fit according to the parameters discussed in Chap. 2. Further
Fig. 4.2 indicates the domain factor loadings.
Table 4.2 Factor loadings of the exploratory factor analysis for new flow scale (n = 209)
S. No Item No. Statements F1 F2 F3
1 34 I knew how well I was proceeding 0.73
2 29 I had a sense of control over what I was doing 0.68
3 32 I was completely focused on the task at hand 0.66
4 30 I knew clearly what I was supposed to do 0.65
5 31 Doing activity had its own significance to me 0.62
6 33 I am looking forward to the next time same activity 0.61
7 35 I was concentrating fully on the activity 0.61 0.40
8 37 My work gave me a good feeling 0.58
9 13 I knew where I required going next and what to do 0.53 0.46
next
10 28 I felt an absolute absence of any kind of mental strain 0.51
during the activity
11 27 I felt an absolute absence of any kind of physical 0.48
strain during the activity
12 6 I experienced total focus on the activity 0.72
13 5 I have experiences where my skills came very 0.69
naturally to meet environmental demands
14 7 I think I utilized my fullest potentiality in the activity 0.68
15 4 I loved the feeling of the performance and want to 0.66
capture it again
16 2 I had been conscious of how well I was performing 0.57
17 17 I had total concentration 0.48 0.57
18 3 I experienced I was competent enough to meet the 0.47 0.56
high demands of the situation
19 1 I was challenged, but I believed my skills would 0.55
allow me to meet the challenge
20 8 It felt like time went by quickly 0.54
21 9 Things just seemed to be happening automatically 0.47
22 39 I was so focused that I completely lost track of time 0.79
23 40 Time went faster than I thought and I did not even 0.65
sense it
24 19 I lost my normal awareness of time 0.47
Eigenvalues 11.01 1.75 1.33
% of variance 45.88 7.28 5.53
Cronbach’s alpha 0.92 0.90 0.75
Note The items with factor loadings lesser than 0.40 were suppressed
Alternative One-Factor Solution 87
Fig. 4.2 Factor loadings for new flow scale. Note Factor 1 Concentration and Sense of Control
during Activity. Factor 2 Experiential Flow during Activity and Factor 3 Transformation of Time
Alternative One-Factor Solution
An alternative one-factor solution was also employed on 24 items. The value of

KMO-MSA were 0.93, χ2 (276) = 3015.57, p < 0.01, thus indicating that the data
were suitable for factor analysis (Cerny and Kaiser 1977; Kaiser 1974). The
communalities values ranged from 0.41 to 0.68. The one-factor solution shared a
variance of 45.88 % with eigenvalue >1. The factor loadings ranged from 0.50
to 0.78.
Construct Validity for One-Factor Solution

approximation (RMSEA) = 0.10 and χ2/d.f. = 5.22. However, the one-factor model
was a fair fit according to the parameters discussed in Chap. 2. Further, Fig. 4.3
indicates the domain factor loadings.
Fig. 4.3 One factor solution of New Flow Scale

Table 4.3 Pearson’s correlational analysis between the three factors of flow and other well-being
measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Flow Factor 1 0.92
2. Flow Factor 2 0.80** 0.84
**
3. Flow Factor 3 0.57 0.51** 0.73
**
4. Total Flow 0.95 0.93** 0.67** 0.95
**
5. FS 0.50 0.57** 0.20** 0.54** 0.93
** ** **
6. SPANE P 0.35 0.38 0.13 0.37** 0.59** 0.80
7. SPANE N −0.12 **
−0.15 **
0.01 −0.13**
−0.27** −0.36** 0.77
8. SPANE B 0.28** 0.32** 0.07 0.30** 0.52** 0.82** −0.82** 0.84
Note **p < 0.01. F1 Concentration and sense of control during activity, F2 Experiential flow
during activity, F3 Transformation of Time, Flow Tot. Flow Total
Concurrent Validity
The overall scale reliability was 0.95. The concurrent validity of flow scale was
established by correlating the factors on the flow scale with other established
constructs of well-being, namely; FS and SPANE. The results indicated significant
correlations and partially supporting the hypothesis as positively correlated with
flourishing and SPANE P and SPANE B and negatively correlating with SPANE N.
Table 4.3 indicates the correlation between new flow scale and well-being measures
in detail.
Study 2
In this phase, the validated English tool was translated into Hindi language. The
Indian population speaks and understands Hindi (Census 2011). The aim of this
phase was to collect data on the new flow scale as well as the validity scale, i.e.,
Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (Diener et al. 2010) and Flourishing
Scale (Diener et al. 2010) that have been psychometrically validated in Hindi. The
translated Hindi scales used for validating new flow scale have acceptable psy-
chometric properties on Indian sample (Singh, 2014).
Participants
of participants were undergraduates, 44 % were graduates and 36 % were post-
graduates. The 48.4 % of participants were married, 43.2 % were single, 0.5 %
were divorced, and 0.2 % were widows while 7.7 % of participants did not report
their marital status.
Measures
The following instruments were used to evaluate the newly developed Flow scale`s
validity.
Newly Developed Flow Scale: Has 24 items representing three factors, namely;
Concentration and Sense of Control during Activity (α = 0.84), Experiential Flow
during Activity (α = 0.83), and Transformation of Time (α = 0.58). The total
Cronbach alpha was 0.92 in the present study.
Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (Diener et al. 2010) Hindi version
(Singh, 2014): In the present study the reliability values were for SPANE P
α = 0.82; for SPANE N α = 0.77 and SPANE B α = 0.76.
Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010) Hindi version (Singh 2014): The scale has
good psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s α higher than 0.80 (Diener et al.
2010). In the present study Cronbach alpha obtained α = 0.91.
Procedure
mation sheet (age, sex, educational qualification, occupation, and marital status),
newly developed flow scale, flourishing scale, and SPANE. The flow scale items
that were confirmed in the phase 2 of the study were translated into Hindi. The
bilingual experts back translated the scales into English. This was done to verify the
content similarity to the original scale and to ensure that translated tests were true
copy of the original tests. The discrepancies were resolved and the test was once
again verified by the author and bilingual experts. All the scales were administered
in Hindi to the participants.
Results
The data were analyzed similarly as discussed in study 1, phase 3. The mean and
SD ranged from 3.19 to 3.99 and 1.52–1.94, respectively. The skeweness (−2.89 to
2.59) and kurtosis (−2.01 to 2.29) were within acceptable range.
mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.08 and χ2/d.f. = 4.77. However,
the current model is a fair fit as per the parameters discussed in Chap. 2. Figure 4.4
Fig. 4.4 Factor loadings on the new flow Hindi scale
Alternative one-factor solution

The fit indices were Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.84, Adjusted Goodness of
Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.81, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.95, root mean square
error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.086 and χ2/d.f. = 5.07. However, the one-factor
Fig. 4.5 One Factor solution of the New Hindi Flow Scale
model was a fair fit according to the parameters discussed in Chap. 2. Further Fig.
4.5 indicates the domain factor loadings.
Concurrent Validity
The overall scale reliability was 0.92. The concurrent validity of the new flow scale
was established like study 1, phase 3. The results indicated significant correlations
ranging from r = 0.19 to r = 0.48. However, SPANE N is not correlated with Flow
and its factors. Table 4.4 indicates the correlation between new flow scale, flour-
ishing, and SPANE in detail.
Norms for the New Flow Scale 93
Table 4.4 Correlation between new flow scale, flourishing, and SPANE
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. F1 0.84
2. F2 0.85** 0.83
3. F3 0.73** 0.74** 0.58
4. Flow tot. 0.96** 0.96** 0.83** 0.92
** **
5. FS 0.48 0.37 0.39** 0.45** 0.91
** ** **
6. SPANE P 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.42** 0.49** 0.82
7. SPANE N −0.04 0.03 −0.06 −0.01 −0.29** −0.08 0.77
8. SPANE B 0.26** 0.19** 0.25** 0.24** 0.50** 0.62** −0.83** 0.76
Note **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. F1 Concentration and sense of control during activity,
F2 Experiential flow during activity, F3 Transformation of Time, Flow Tot. Flow Total
Norms for the New Flow Scale
set. Gender difference was observed for factor 2 (t(1017) = 3.18, p < 0.01) and factor
3 (t (1017) = −3.74, p < 0.01) with males (factor 2 mean = 39.10, SD = 7.60; factor
3 mean = 11.06, SD = 2.42) possessing higher mean score than females (factor 2
mean = 37.60, SD = 7.41; factor 3 mean = 10.47, SD = 2.62). When the data were
split for English and Hindi, it was noted that gender differences was present in English
and Hindi data. Hindi participants differed significantly on factor 2 (t (545) = 2.22,
p < 0.05) with males (mean = 40.45, SD = 7.22) possessing higher mean score than
females (mean = 39.05, SD = 7.20). On the other hand, English participants differed
on factor 3 (t (470) = 2.72, p < 0.05) with males (mean = 10.50, SD = 2.66) pos-
sessing higher mean score than females (mean = 9.83, SD = 2.55).
The participants were divided into two groups (<30 and >30) for exploring the
difference of age group on spirituality. Hindi participants differed significantly on
factor 2 (t (546) = −2.18, p < 0.05), and total score (t (546) = −2.11, p < 0.05)
with >30 (factor 2 mean = 40.97, SD = 6.87, total score mean = 90.68,
SD = 14.75) having higher mean score than <30 (factor 2 mean = 39.48,
SD = 7.34; total score mean = 87.59, SD = 15.71). On the other hand, English
participants differed on factor 1 (t (478) = 2.10, p < 0.05) and total score
(t (478) = 1.99, p < 0.01) with >30 (factor 1 mean = 40.58, SD = 8.37; total score
mean = 87.40, SD = 16.53) having higher mean scores than <30 (factor 1
mean = 37.24, SD = 9.53; total score mean = 81.18, SD = 19.54) on both the
factors. However, when data were combined for Hindi and English participants on
age group, it was observed that participants differed significantly on factor 2
(t (1026) = −3.18, p < 0.01) and factor 3 (t (1026) = −2.85, p < 0.01) with <30
(factor 2 mean = 39.22, SD = 7.48; factor 3 mean = 11.23, SD = 2.48) having
higher mean scores than >30 (factor 2 mean = 37.98, SD = 7.53; factor 3
mean = 10.65, SD = 2.55) on both the factors.
However, further studies can be conducted to establish the norms for these scales
with respect to place of residence (urban vs. rural), type of family (nuclear vs. joint),
gender, and age too. Age and gender can be counter balanced in future studies to
establish age and gender norms for the scale.
Discussion
The current study was undertaken with two-fold objectives-the first was to develop
a new scale to assess flow and the second was to validate this new measure. The
results revealed that flow in Indian youth can be suitably represented by the
three-factor structure model. The three factors that were found to constitute flow in
the Indian population are namely: factor 1—Concentration and Sense of Control
during Activity, factor 2—Experience during Activity and factor 3—
Transformation of Time. Amongst the nine dimensions of flow conceptualized by
Csikszentmihalyi (1993, 1996), four (with two of these merged as factor 1) of these
dimensions were found to be prevalent and constituting flow in the Indian setting.
In a study on detecting flow in web users, Chen (2006) suggested three factors
defining flow experiences in web users. These were labeled as antecedents, expe-
riences, and consequences. The first factor corresponding to antecedents included
(telepresence, time distortion, concentration, loss of self-consciousness, the second
factor experiences was found to be constituting (clear goal, potential control,
immediate feedback, and merger of action and awareness whereas the third factor
labeled as consequences included concept of positive affect (enjoyable feeling and
positivity of affects). Bakker (2008) developed and validated an instrument (Work
Related Flow Inventory-WOLF) to assess flow experiences at work. He suggested a
three-factor model characterized by absorption, work enjoyment and intrinsic work
motivation. Significant positive correlations among the three factors as well as
between factors and general flow index was validated WOLF. The results further
revealed that the new measure of flow is a psychometrically sound instrument with
α = 0.92. The analysis also proved the hypothesis that the new measure of flow
would correlate well with Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010). In the current
study all the correlations (i.e., factors and total flow with flourishing scale and
among factors) were significantly (p < 0.01) positively correlated. Different studies
done on flow have reported correlations with well-being indicators. For instance,
Fritz and Avsec (2007) reported a significant positive correlation of flow with
positive affect, and satisfaction with life and Jackson et al. (1998) have reported
correlation between dimensions of flow with perceived ability and anxiety.
Conclusion 95
Conclusion
The measure of flow developed and validated on India population has been pre-
pared keeping in mind the standardized procedures of test construction. With its
psychometrically sound properties, this new measure seems like a promising tool to
measure flow in various settings.
References
Asakawa, K. (2004). Flow experience and autotelic personality in Japanese college students: How
do they experience challenges in everyday life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 123–154.
Asakawa, K. (2010). Flow experience, culture, and well-being: how do autotelic Japanese college
students feel, behave, and think in their daily lives? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2),
205–223.
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 26–44.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of the
WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 400–414.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call centre: An
application of the job demands–resources model. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 12(4), 393–417.
Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for
factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47.
Chen, H. (2000). Exploring Web Users’ On-line Optimal Flow Experiences, Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, School of Information Studies, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Chen, H. (2006). Flow on the net–detecting Web users positive affects and their flow states.
Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 221–233.
Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. (2000). Exploring Web users’ optimal flow experiences.
Information Technology & People, 13(4), 263–281.
Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. S. (1999). Optimal experience of web activities. Computers
in Human Behavior, 15(5), 585–608.
Chen, L. H., Ye, Y. C., Chen, M. Y., & Tung, I. W. (2010). Alegría! Flow in leisure and life
satisfaction: The mediating role of event satisfaction using data from an acrobatics show.
Clark, S. R. (2002). The impact of self-regulated attention control on the amount of time spent in
flow. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(5), p. 2615B (UMI no. 3055205).
Clarke, S. G., & Haworth, J. T. (1994). ‘Flow’ experience in the daily lives of sixth-form college
students. British Journal of Psychology, 85(4), 511–523.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
15(3), 41–63.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium. New York:
HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Experiencing flow in work and play.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1975).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow and the making of meaning.
Coronet Paperback.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of
Flow in consciousness. Cambridge: University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Figurski, T. J. (1982). Self-awareness and aversive experience in
everyday life. Journal of Personality, 50(1), 14–26.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of the
aesthetic encounter. Getty Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1992). The measurement of flow in everyday life: Toward
a theory of emergent motivation. In R. Dienstbier & J. E. Jacobs (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium
on motivation (pp. 57–97). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented Teenagers: The roots of
success and failures. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, H., & Larson, R. (1987).‘Validity and reliability of the experience sampling
method’, Mental disorders in their natural settings: The application of time allocation and
experience-sampling techniques in psychiatry. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9),
526–536 (special issue).
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 266.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
Eklund, R. C. (1996). Preparing to compete: A season-long investigation with collegiate wrestlers.
Sport Psychology, 10, 111–131.
Eklund, R. C. (1994). A season-long investigation of competitive cognition in collegiate wrestlers.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 169–183.
Ellis, G. D., Voelkl, J. E., & Morris, C. (1994). Measurement and analysis issues with explanation
of variance in daily experience using the flow model. Journal of leisure research, 26(4), 337.
Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill
balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 158–172.
Engeser, S., Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Bischoff, J. (2005). Motivation, flow experience and
performance in learning settings at university. Journal of Educational Psychology, 19,
159–172.
Esteban-Millat, I., Martínez-López, F. J., Huertas-García, R., Meseguer, A., & Rodríguez-Ardura,
I. (2014). Modelling students’ flow experiences in an online learning environment. Computers
& Education, 71, 111–123.
Fournier, J., Gaudreau, P., Demontrond-Behr, P., Visioli, J., Forest, J., & Jackson, S. (2007).
French translation of the Flow State Scale-2: Factor structure, cross-cultural invariance, and
associations with goal attainment. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(6), 897–916.
Fritz, B. S., & Avsec, A. (2007). The experience of flow and subjective well-being of music
students. Horizons of Psychology, 16(2), 5–17.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood
at work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.
Ghani, J. A. (1995). Flow in human computer interactions: Test of a model. Human factors in
information systems: Emerging theoretical bases (pp. 291–311).
Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in
human—computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381–391.
Guastello, S. J., Johnson, E. A., & Rieke, M. L. (1999). Nonlinear dynamics of motivational flow.
Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 3(3), 259–273.
References 97
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Experience sampling
method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN
978-1-4129-2557-0
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method:
Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage.
Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments:
Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 50–68.
Jackson, S. A. (1995). Factors influencing the occurrence of flow state in elite athletes. Journal of
applied sport psychology, 7(2), 138–166.
Jackson, S. A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite athletes.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1), 76–90.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal
experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.
Jackson, S. A., & Roberts, G. C. (1992). Positive performance states of athletes: Toward a
conceptual understanding of peak performance. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 156–171.
Jackson, S. A., Kimiecik, J. C., Ford, S., & Marsh, H. W. (1998). Psychological correlates of flow
in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 358–378.
Jackson, S. A., Thomas, P. R., Marsh, H. W., & Smethurst, C. J. (2001). Relationships between
flow, self-concept, psychological skills, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 13, 129–153. doi:10.1080/104132001753149865.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State
Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24,
133–150.
Karageorghis, C. I., Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Latent variable modelling of the
relationship between flow and exercise-induced feelings: An intuitive appraisal perspective.
European Physical Education Review, 6(3), 230–248.
Kawabata, M., Mallett, C. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). The flow state scale-2 and dispositional
flow scale-2: Examination of factorial validity and reliability for Japanese adults. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 9(4), 465–485.
Kee, Y. H., & Wang, C. J. (2008). Relationships between mindfulness, flow dispositions and
mental skills adoption: A cluster analytic approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9(4),
393–411.
Komagata, N., & Komagata, S. (2010). Mindfulness and flow experience. http://nobo.komagata.
net/pub/Komagata+10-MindfulnessFlow.pdf
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from
self-determination theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 355–368.
Kuhnle, C., Hofer, M., & Kilian, B. (2011). The relationship of self-control, procrastination,
motivational interference and regret with school grades and life balance. Diskurs Kindheits-und
Jugendforschung, 6(1).
Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., Aunola, K., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Job resources and flow at
work: Modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model methodology.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 795–814.
Marsh, H. W., & Jackson, S. A. (1999). Flow experiences in sport: Construct validation of
multidimensional, hierarchical state and trait responses. Structural Equation Modelling, 6,
343–371.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (Ed); Csikszentmihalyi, Isabella Selega (Ed), (1988). Optimal
experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266–287). New York, NY, US:
Cambridge University Press, xiv, 416 pp.
McAdams, D. P. (1990). The person: An introduction to personality psychology. San Diego, CA:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the
quality of subjective experience. Journal of personality, 64(2), 275–310
Moneta, G. B. (2012). On the measurement and conceptualization of flow. In Advances in flow

research (pp. 23–50). New York: Springer.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pates, J., Karageorghis, C. I., Fryer, R., & Maynard, I. (2003). Effects of asynchronous music on
flow states and shooting performance among netball players. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 4(4), 415–427.
Perry, S. K. (1999). Writing in flow: Keys to enhanced creativity. Writers Digest Books.
Privette, G., & Bundrick, C. M. (1989). Effects of triggering activity on construct events: Peak
performance, peak experience, flow, average events, misery, and failure. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 4(3), 299.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens [The
assessment of ow experience]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von
Motivation und Selbstkonzept (pp. 261–279). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Sahoo, F. M., & Sahu, R. (2009). The role of flow experience in human happiness. Journal of the
Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 40–47.
Schüler, J., & Brunner, S. (2009). The rewarding effect of flow experience on performance in a
marathon race. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 168–174.
Seger, J., & Potts, R. (2012). Personality correlates of psychological flow states in videogame play.
Current Psychology, 31(2), 103–121.
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Cultivation of
Well-Being (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology). WW Norton & Company.
Siegel, R. D. (2010). The mindfulness solution: everyday practices for everyday problems. New
York: Guilford Press.
Singh, K. (2014) Relationship of Demographic Variables, Socio-Cultural Issues and Selected
Psychological Constructs with the Positive Mental Health of North Indian Adolescents, ICMR
Unpublished report.
Stoll, O., & Lau, A. (2005). Flow-Erleben beim Marathonlauf. Zeitschrift für Sport psychologie,
12(3), 75–82.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Motivation profiles in sport: A
self-determination theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71,
387–397.
Weber, B. A., & Beverly, R. (2000). Data collection using handheld computers. Nursing Research,
49(3), 173–175.
Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
human-computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(4), 411–426.
Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self-recording of everyday life events: Origins, types, and uses.
Journal of Personality, 59(3), 339–354.
Williams, J. M., & Krane, V. (1997). Psychological characteristics of peak performance.
In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(Vol. 3, pp. 158–170). Mayfield: Mountain View, CA.
Zhou, T., Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2010). The effect of flow experience on mobile SNS users’ loyalty.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(6), 930–946.
Chapter 5
Mindfulness and Its Assessment
Abstract The current chapter focuses on the various aspects of mindfulness. The
chapter begins with a brief introduction on the conceptual definitions and historical
perspective of mindfulness with special focus on difference between Buddhist and
Western concept of mindfulness. It then converges to explain the different
mindfulness-based intervention programs currently established in the field. The
different existing mindfulness scales to measure the construct are also reviewed.
The chapter then gives a brief relevance to the test construction of a mindfulness
scale followed by the procedure of development and validation of a new mind-
fulness measure by authors. Each phase of test construction for English and Hindi
version of mindfulness has been discussed in detail. The chapter concludes with
discussion centering on the newly developed mindfulness scale and its validation in
Indian setting.
Keywords Mindfulness
Emotional well-being Psychological well-being

Social well-being Mental health
Introduction
Mindfulness has grown in popularity in past two decades and there is a growing
evidence for its positive impact on well-being (Keng et al. 2011; Slade 2010).
However, mindfulness finds its reference in notion of sati in the Buddhist Pali
(Schmidt 2011). Buddhist teachers who follow the Theravada tradition, advocate
mindfulness. Mindfulness is a function or quality of mind, but it is often described
as something to be practiced or cultivated. Buddha started teaching and prescribed
an eightfold path to reach salvation namely; Right Understanding or Samma ditthi;
Right Thought or Samma Sankappa; Right Speech or Samma Vaca; Right Action or
Samma Kammanta; Right Livelihood or Samma Ajiva; Right Effort or Samma
Vayama; Right Mindfulness or Samma Sati; and Right Concentration or Samma
Samadhi. “Right Mindfulness” is the seventh step in the eightfold path.

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_5
100 5 Mindfulness and Its Assessment
Etymologically the Pali term sati, is a Sanskrit derivative of word smrti which
means memory, however, new connotations, such as conscience, attention, medi-
tation, contemplation, insight were assigned in the early Buddhism. In Buddhist text
Sati widely appears as a positive mental state that should be developed (Kuan
2008).
Mindfulness is closely related to Eastern traditions and predominantly Buddhist
philosophy (Schmidt 2011) as well as western philosophical systems such as
phenomenology as explained by Husserl (Sauer et al. 2013). Husserl’s phe-
nomenology concept aimed to establish scientific analysis of consciousness and
related subjective experiences (Sepp and Embree 2010; Sauer et al. 2013).
Psychologists such as Langer (1989) perceived mindfulness as a concept that draws
on novel distinctions on the information derived from perception. Furthermore,
Langer (1989) also included openness to new information, flexibility to take over
different cognitive perspective and performing task in step-wise manner so as to
enhance concentration. The concepts stated by Langer (1989) are similar to those of
Kabat-Zinn (1990). Though there is a wide variation in conceptualization of
mindfulness, all authors agree that mindfulness is a human quality. Brown and
Ryan (2003) demonstrated that there are inter-and intra-individual difference in the
degree of mindfulness.
Recently, various researchers have defined the construct by highlighting various
component of mindfulness. For instance, Jon Kabat-Zinn (2006) defined mind-
fulness as “paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudg-
mentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (p. 145). Bishop et al.
(2004) proposed a two-factor model of mindfulness consisting of an attentive factor
focusing on present moment experience and an emotion regulation factors char-
acterized by openness, curiosity, and acceptance. On the other hand, Brown and
Ryan (2003) conceptualized mindfulness as unidimensional construct where
attentive and emotive factors cannot be distinguished. Hence, without doubt it can
be quoted that mindfulness implies a sense of being in the present, vivid awareness
of sensory and mental experience and it calls of voluntary conscious disruption of
automatic mental processes.
Mindfulness is a skill that can be developed through practice and has been found
to have beneficial psychological, somatic, behavioral, and interpersonal effects
(Brown et al. 2007), defined tolerance, acceptance, patience, trust, openness,
gentleness, generosity, empathy, and gratitude that are relevant to the recovery of an
individual with mental disorders as well as to positive well-being in general (Slade
2010). Coffey et al. (2010) demonstrated that mindfulness reduces psychological
distress and optimizes psychological functioning in young people. Empirical evi-
dence is growing in the field for the efficacy of mindfulness-based program in
promoting well-being (Irving et al. 2009), reducing depression (Khoury et al. 2013)
and preventing relapse of depression (Chiesa and Serretti 2011). There are sub-
stantial number of studies that affirm the positive health effects of mindfulness,
although the magnitude of effect varies between studies. There are various
Introduction 101
interventions in which mindfulness components have been included to reduce

broadly negative affects and improve positive affects which have been highlighted
in the later section of this chapter.
Correlates and Predictors of Mindfulness
Mindfulness plays an important role in regulating one’s emotions. Practicing

mindfulness has been known to enhance emotional regulation (Hayes and Feldman
2004), reduction in cognitive distortions (Sears and Kraus 2009), promote greater
cognitive flexibility (Moore and Malinowski 2009), less emotional reactivity to
external stressors (Arch and Craske 2010) etc. Erisman et al. (2005) highlighted the
role of mindfulness in controlling the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress.
Several other researchers have mentioned about the relationship of mindfulness with
emotional regulation and how this relationship further impacts one’s level of
well-being (Jimenez et al. 2010; Roemer et al. 2009). Robins et al. (2012) found that
practicing mindfulness was shown to decrease fear of emotions, suppression of
anger, aggressive anger expression, worry, and difficulties regulating emotions as
compared to the control group who did not practice mindfulness. Effects of mind-
fulness in reducing anger and violence were studied in Thai youth (Wongtongkam
et al. 2013), wherein no significant reduction was observed in anger or violence.
However, improvement in self-regulation and greater self-awareness was reported.
Mindfulness-based training was proven to be beneficial in reducing aggressive
behaviors in a juvenile correction and rehabilitation center, (Milani et al. 2013).
Empirical studies on undergraduate students (e.g., Baer et al. 2006; Brown and
Ryan 2003), community adults (e.g., Brown and Ryan 2003; Chadwick et al. 2008)
and clinical populations (e.g. Baer et al. 2004; Chadwick et al. 2008; Walach et al.
2006) reported correlation between self-reported mindfulness and psychological
health. Self-reported mindfulness has also been associated with higher levels of life
satisfaction (Brown and Ryan 2003), agreeableness (Thompson and Waltz 2007),
conscientiousness (Giluk 2009), vitality (Brown and Ryan 2003), self-esteem
(Rasmussen and Pidgeon 2011), empathy (Dekeyser et al. 2008), sense of auton-
omy (Brown and Ryan 2003), competence (Brown and Ryan 2003), optimism
(Brown and Ryan 2003), and pleasant affect (Brown and Ryan 2003). Mindfulness
has demonstrated significantly negative correlations with depression (Cash and
Whittingham 2010), neuroticism (Giluk 2009), absent-mindedness (Herndon 2008),
cognitive reactivity (Raes et al. 2009), social anxiety (Rasmussen and Pidgeon
2011), difficulties in emotion regulation (Baer et al. 2006), and general psycho-
logical symptoms (Baer et al. 2006).
Cash and Whittingham (2010) explored which of the five facets of mindfulness
(i.e., observe, describe, act with awareness of present moment experience, with a
nonjudgmental and nonreactive attitude) predict psychological well-being and
symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Findings revealed that higher scores
on act with awareness and nonjudgmental attitude predicted lower levels of
depression. In a Swedish study, Bränström et al. (2011) reported that mindfulness

was strongly related to well-being and perceived health. Further, its subscales of
Acting with awareness and Non-reactivity to inner experiences were strongly
related to Positive States of Mind Scale and perceived health, and inversely related
to depression and anxiety. Mindfulness has also been known to benefit subjective
well-being of social workers, (Shier and Graham 2011a, b). Grégoire et al. (2012)
observed that people reporting higher levels of mindfulness were seen to be more
engaged in their autonomously motivated personal endeavors, which in turn
appeared to foster their well-being.
Mindfulness at work is known to reduce and manage stress (e.g., Mackenzie
et al. 2006; Whetten and Cameron 2007) and aids in positive work relationships and
enhanced adaptability (Hunter and McCormick 2008). Hunter and McCormick
(2008) studied the effects of mindfulness at workplace. The studies indicate that
mindfulness at work was associated with favorable work outcomes and fewer
cognitive failures. The findings further highlight that these people were more
accepting of their work situation; had more modest, realistic work goals, enjoyed
their work more, and were better able to cope and remain calm in difficult work
situations, etc. Mindfulness has also been shown to promote healthy relationship
with others at workplace (Giluk 2010).
Benefits of mindfulness are not just limited to the above discussed areas, but
these are quite vast in reality. For instance, mindfulness is also known to promote
empathy (Shapiro and Izett 2008), enhance self-compassion (Kingsbury 2009),
predicts relationship satisfaction (Wachs and Cordova 2007), encouraging higher
use of approach coping than avoidant coping (Weinstein et al. 2009), promotes
optimism (Kiken and Shook 2014), substance abuse (Breslin et al. 2002; Marlatt
2002), posttraumatic stress disorder (Wolfsdorf and Zlotnick 2001), eating disor-
ders (Guardiola‐Wanden‐Berghe et al. 2011). Jones et al. (2014) demonstrated that
psychological acceptance was found to act as a mediator variable for maternal
anxiety, depression, stress and paternal depression. General mindfulness and
mindful parenting had significant mediation effects for maternal anxiety, depres-
sion, and stress. These results contribute to evidence that mindfulness and accep-
tance may be important parental psychological processes with implications for
parent support.
Mindfulness-Based Interventions
As described above, mindfulness is an old paradigm, but in late 1970s mindfulness

meditation began as an intervention strategy to enhance psychological well-being.
Jon Kabat-Zinn’s (1990) work on application of mindfulness meditation as form of
behavioral intervention for clinical problems which is currently known as
mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) gave mindfulness intervention an
impetus. Since conceptualization and establishment of MBSR, several other inter-
ventions have also been developed, such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
Mindfulness-Based Interventions 103
(MBCT; Segal et al. 2002), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT, Linehan 1993), and
acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; Hayes et al. 1999).
1. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn 1982, 1990)—
Originally developed as a treatment for patients suffering from chronic pain, MBSR
is currently being used in many dimensions of life and have been successful in
reducing stress, anxiety, and depression (Roth and Creaser 1997; Shapiro et al.
1998). MBSR came into being with the idea of helping patients view their pain in a
more objective manner, to be more accepting of their physical and psychological
conditions, thereby reducing their suffering. MBSR is an 8 week course, with each
class of 2.5 h duration, wherein the participants are imparted mindfulness medi-
tation instructions as well as training. Benefits of MBSR has been reported in
decreasing stress among nurses (Mackenzie et al. 2006), reducing social anxiety
disorder (Goldin and Gross 2010), depression (Ramel et al. 2004) etc. In a review
article, Grossman et al. (2004) reported on the efficacy of MBSR on wide range of
medical problems, such as pain, cancer, heart disease, depression, anxiety, etc.
Furthermore, Niazi and Niazi (2011) reviewed 18 studies all of which were based
on patients suffering from chronic diseases (such as cancer, hypertension, diabetes,
HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, and skin disorders). All the studies reported improvement
in the condition of patients after employing MBSR.
2. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT, Segal et al. 2002)—
Developed with a specific focus on preventing relapse/recurrence of depression,
MBCT is an 8-week group program with 8–15 participants per group. MBCT
combines the effectiveness of MBSR (Kabat-Zinn 1990) and cognitive behavior
therapy (CBT, Beck et al. 1979). Ma and Teasdale (2004) reported how MBCT
reduced relapse from 78 to 36 % in 55 patients with 3 or more previous episodes.
According to the authors, MBCT was most effective in preventing relapses not
preceded by life events. Efficacy of MBCT was also reported in another study
(Kuyken et al. 2008) wherein it was observed how MBCT in depressive patients
was responsible for lowering the dosage of their antidepressants. In some cases, the
patients completely discontinued their antidepressants following MBCT.
Effectiveness of MBCT has also been reported in treating anxiety disorders (Kim
et al. 2009), social phobias (Piet et al. 2010), panic disorder (Kim et al. 2013) and
so forth.
3. Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT, Linehan 1993)—This therapy was
designed to cater to female patients suffering from borderline personality disorder
who showed suicidal tendencies and behavior and self-harm. Encompassing the
elements of cognitive behavior therapy, DBT is available via four modes, namely-
individual therapy, group skills training, individual telephone consultation, and
therapists’ consultation meetings. DBT is an elaborate 16 weeks program during
which the multimodal approach is followed. Presently, DBT is not just restricted to
its original area and is now being successfully used to treat various mental health
issues. Usefulness of DBT has been reported in lowering depression (Lynch et al.
2003), improving psychological and social well-being in females victims of
domestic abuse (Iverson et al. 2009).
4. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes et al. 1999): To

handle psychological distress and promote coping styles and challenge a negative
thought pattern, ACT was developed. Hayes et al. (2006) listed out six elements
that form the core of ACT-acceptance, defusion, contact with the present moment,
self as context, values, and committed action. ACT through its mindfulness-
oriented and behavioral activation approach aims to increase psychological flexi-
bility and helps to alleviate psychological distress in people suffering from any kind
of mental health issues. Of the six processes in ACT, mindfulness-oriented
approach in employed in the first four whereas behavioral activation is reserved for
the last two. ACT varies considerably in its duration, which may range from very
brief therapy 1-day therapy to a long-term approach spread over weeks.
Effectiveness of ACT has been reported in patients of depression (Kanter et al.
2006), cancer (Feros et al. 2013), drug abuse (Lanza and Menéndez 2013) and
chronic pain (Johnston et al. 2010).
In a comparative study on psychological functioning of mindfulness meditators
and non-meditators, it was observed that meditators reported significantly higher
level of mindfulness, self-compassion, and overall sense of well-being and signifi-
cantly lower level of psychological symptoms, rumination, thought suppression,
difficulties in emotional regulations (Lykins and Baer 2009). Furthermore, Shonin
et al. (2014) stated that mindfulness-based interventions are efficacious treatments
for a variety of psychosomatic conditions. However concerns have been raised with
respect to the operationalization in mindfulness-based interventions and whether a
spiritual essence and full potential treatment efficacy have remained intact. Through
a qualitative study, the interpretative phenomenological analysis was conducted to
examine the participant’s experiences regarding the acceptability and effectiveness
of meditation awareness training that followed the traditional Buddhist approach to
meditation. The results indicated that participants with issues of stress and low mood
reported experiencing improvements in psychological well-being due to receiving
meditation awareness training. Thus, mindfulness has been proved an effective
strategy in intervention programs and in combination with traditional therapies.
Existing Scales of Mindfulness
Employing psychological test to measure the construct is the standard approach,

some of the frequently used scales for measuring mindfulness as listed in Table 5.1.
The advantage of using psychometric scales is that they are convenient and quick
for application, well-established methodology, and empirical support (Baer et al.
2004; Chiesa and Serretti 2011; Mars and Abbey 2010).
The validation of mindfulness scales in different countries has been undertaken.
For example, the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (revised-13 item scale) demon-
strated acceptable internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and two-factor model
yielded better model than one-factor solution for Chinese college students. The
scale also demonstrated significant negative correlation with trait anxiety and
Existing Scales of Mindfulness 105
Table 5.1 Brief information of existing measures of mindfulness

S. No. Name/author No. of items, dimensions/factors and reliability
1 Mindfulness/mindlessness scale, Bodner Total items: 21; 4 factors-flexibility, novelty
and Langer (2001) seeking, novelty producing, and engagement. a
range = 0.28–0.69
2 Mindfulness attention awareness scale, Total items: 15; unidimensional, adults:
(MAAS) Brown and Ryan (2003) a = 0.69; students: a = 0.70
3 Kentucky inventory of mindfulness Total items:39;4 factors-observe a = 0.91,
scale, (KIMS) Baer et al. (2004) describe a = 0.84, act with awareness a = 0.76,
accept without judgement a = 0.87
4 The cognitive and affective mindfulness Total items: 12; 4 factors-attention, acceptance,
scale-R (CAMS-R), Feldman et al. awareness, present focus; total scale a = 0.80
(2007)
5 Toronto mindfulness scale, (TMS) Lau Total items: 13; 2 factors-curiosity, decentering;
et al. (2006) overall a = 0.91
6 Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI), Total items: 30; four-factors-mindfulness
Walach et al. (2006) presence, nonjudgemental, acceptance,
Openness to experiences and Insight; overall
a = 0.86
7 The Philadelphia Total items: 20; 2 factors-awareness a = 0.86,
Mindfulness scale (PHLMS), Acceptance a = 0.91
Cardaciotto et al. (2008)
8 Southampton mindfulness scale Total items: 16; unifactor scale; a = 0.85
(SMQ), Chadwick et al. (2008)
9 Five-Factors-mindfulness questionnaire Total items: 39; 5 factors: observe items
(FFMQ), Baer et al. (2006) Describe items, act with awareness items
Non judge items and non react items (a
range = 0.77–0.86)
depression and positive correlation with self-esteem (Chen and Zhou 2013). This
scale has been validated in different population and demonstrated to possess good
psychometric qualities (Heidenreich et al. 2006; Leigh et al. 2005; Trousselard et al.
2010). Another mindfulness scale that has been extensively validated is Mindful
Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). It has demonstrated acceptable reliability and
model fit in various cultures, such as Polish (Radon 2014), Spanish (Inchausti et al.
2014; León et al. 2013) and Swedish (Hansen et al. 2009). The Kentucky Inventory
of mindfulness skills (KIMS) too demonstrated acceptable properties in different
cultures such as German (Höfling et al. 2011; Ströhle et al. 2010; Christopher et al.
2009), Swedish (Hansen et al. 2009). However, there was lack evidence for Indian
validation of the existing mindfulness scales.
The convergent and concurrent validity of the existing mindfulness scales has
been demonstrated in the literature by correlating it with other scales of well-being.
The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS, Brown and Ryan 2003) was
correlated with various measures of personality and well-being, such as NEO-PI
and NEO-FFI (Costa and McCrae 1992), Center for Epidemiological Studies-
Depression (CES-D) scale (Radloff 1977), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS; Watson et al. 1988), Hopkins Symptom Checklist Somatization scale
(Derogatis et al. 1974), Temporal Life Satisfaction Scale (Pavot et al. 1998), etc.
Similarly, during the validation of the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS, Lau et al.
2006), the authors had established its validity with the help of tests namely-The
Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein and Putnam 1986), The Situational
Self-Awareness Scale (SSAS; Govern and Marsch 2001), The Psychological
Mindedness Scale (PMS; Conte et al. 1996), The Rumination-Reflection
Questionnaire (RRQ; Trapnell and Campbell 1999), etc.
Need for the Study
Indian researchers are actively exploring the field of mindfulness research. Menon
et al. (2014) explored personality correlated of mindfulness for Indians. Through
their study they reported that a mindful person is emotionally stable and disciplined
in approach toward life. Mindfulness-based cognitive behavior therapy is an effec-
tive intervention in management of anxiety disorders (Sharma et al. 2012). Since, the
research is at its nascent stages, there is a lack of documentation for validation of
mindfulness scales and intervention programs. As discussed earlier, the mindfulness
scales differ with respect to the factors. However, there is lack of clarity as to which
factors will best work for Indians. Hence, the current chapter attempted to address
and explore mindfulness from different perspectives. The main objective of this
chapter is (i) present an exhaustive literature review, (ii) review various psycho-
metric scales and their properties, and (iii) to construct and validate mindfulness
scale for Indian population. It was observed that Indian researchers are conducting
research on mindfulness often without validation of scales and thus, validity of the
results remains unknown. To address this limitation an attempt is made to develop a
measure of mindfulness and to find out the factors that constitute mindfulness in the
Indian cultural context. It was hypothesized that the new measure of mindfulness
would correlate well with standardized measures of mental health continuum and its
dimensions. The new scale construction followed rigorous test construction and
validation norms. For acquiring concurrent validity, correlations with already vali-
dated scales on Indian population in English and Hindi, such as Keyes’s (2009)
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (Singh et al. 2015, Singh 2014) were used.
The new mindfulness scale was developed in different phases and studies. Two
separate studies were conducted for scale construction and validation. The study 1
was further divided into three phases and five stages namely; (i) item generation,
(ii) item refinement and modification, (iii) expert panel review, (iv) factor structure
analysis and item selection, and (v) factor structure validation. The first four stages
were conducted in phase 1. The fourth stage was re-conducted in phase 2. The
stages four and five were examined in phase 3. Factor analysis was conducted three
times in the current study with an objective of reducing the test items. The study 2
was one phase study in which the final scale of study 1 was translated into Hindi
and validation of the Hindi scale was undertaken.
Study 1
In this study all steps of test construction as discussed in Chap. 2 were followed.
The current study was divided into three phases. The phase 1 focused on item
generation, item refinement, and preliminary factor structure. The phase 2 focused
on item refinement and final phase 3, the scale was finalized and validation of new
mindfulness scale was undertaken (English version).
Phase 1
The various aspects of mindfulness, as defined by different measures of mindfulness

were reviewed namely—Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS, Brown
and Ryan 2003), Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale (CAMS, Feldman
et al. 2007), Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS, Lau et al. 2006), The Freiburg
Mindfulness Inventory (FMI, Walach et al. 2006), The Freiburg Mindfulness
Inventory—SF, Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Scale (KIMS, Baer et al.
2004), The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (Cardaciotto et al. 2008), the Five Facet
Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; 2006) etc. By reviewing various mindfulness
scales, a pool of 94 items (13 negative and 81 positive) was generated. A response
format of 5-point Likert scale with 1 indicating Never and 5 indicating Always was
Stage 2 and 3: Item refinement, modification and expert review
As discussed in Chap. 2, content validity of the scale was established. The content
validation process results in a pool of 96 item scale (14 negative and 82 positive
items) after revision, deletion, and addition of some more items.
Pilot Study:
The pool of 96 items was administered on 100 participants (36 % males and 64 %
females) who participated voluntarily. Age ranged from 17 to 33 years with a mean
age of 21.12 years (SD = 2.57). The informed-consent was obtained from the
participants. Majority of the sample (74 %) were students, nearly 7 % were

working, 9 % were students working part time, and 11 % was nonworking.
A booklet with demographic performa and new mindfulness scale was handed to
the participants. They were requested to return it the following day.
The data were subjected to preliminary analysis with intention of retaining and
rejecting items. The data were analyzed using SPSS 15.0. The missing value
analysis revealed that the range of missing values was 1–5.2 % for 96 items. The
missing values were substituted by the mid-value (3) of the 5 point likert scale.
The item selection criteria mentioned in Chap. 2 was adhered to delete items. On
the basis of the discussed criteria, no item was deleted on basis of mean (mean
range 2.54–3.72), 16 items were deleted due to less than 1 SD (retained items SD
range 1.00–1.21) and 29 items were deleted on basis of item-total correlation. The
retained items showed adequate reliability (a = 0.89). The skewness and kurtosis
for these items ranged from 0.01 to 0.59 and 0.04 to 0.95, respectively. The factor
analysis was employed because the KMO-MSA value (0.60) was above the rec-
ommended norms for acceptance of KMO-MSA as discussed in Chap. 2.
A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was applied on
retained items. The eigen value for six factors was greater than 2.00 whereas for 11
factors it was greater than 1.00. Items with factor loading >0.40 were retained
whereas those with factor loading <0.40 were suppressed. Seven items with factor
loadings less than 0.40 were discarded. Three items were found to be having
secondary loadings. However, it was decided to retain these items considering the
highly correlated factors of the construct. The dimension reduction and factor
analysis resulted in a pool of 44 items. These 44 items were retested in phase 2.
However, no conclusive factor solution was decided at end of this stage.
Phase 2
Data Collection Procedure, Participants and Results

The 44 items of the new mindfulness scale that were derived in phase 1 were
administered on 186 participants (males = 36 %, females = 64 %) in phase 2. The
participants were in the age group of 17–34 years (M = 23.13 years, SD = 2.63).
The range of missing values was 1–3 (2.3–6.8 %). Based on the criteria discussed
in Chap. 2, no item was deleted on the basis of means and standard deviation. Only
one item was deleted on the basis of item-total correlation <0.25. Two items had
similar meaning, so to avoid repetition, one item was deleted. On the remaining 42
items, factor analysis with alternative factor solutions was run. The KMO Measure
of Sampling Adequacy for this data set was 0.89 and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity
was also found to be highly significant (p < 0.01). However, in this phase no item
was deleted based on its redundant status in factor analysis. The final scale resulted
in 42 items that were test in the final phase 3 of the study.
Phase 3
Participants
The pool of 42 items generated in phase 2 was administered on 800 participants.

There were five participants who did not return the forms. During data-cleaning
process it was further observed that 53 participants either did not provide demo-
graphic details or more than 50 % of the questionnaire was unfilled. Thus, the final
pool of 742 participants (males = 42 % and females = 58 %) was employed for
data analysis. The participants age range was 17–34 years (M = 21.87 years;
SD = 3.25).
Out of these, 498 participants of which 198 were males (39.76 %) and 300 were
females (60.24 %) were administered validity scale. The mean age of the partici-
pants was 21.73 years and SD was 3.18. The Mental Health Continuum-Short Form
(Keyes 2009) was administered for validity.
Measure
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (Keyes 2009) measures psychological

well-being, social well-being, and emotional well-being. It comprises of 14 items
that are measured on 7-point Likert scale. Internal reliability is high for the total
MHC-SF (a = 0.89), as well as for the subscales of EWB (a = 0.83) PWB
(a = 0.83), and SWB (a = 0.74), (Lamers et al. 2011). In the present study the
reliability was EWB a = 0.86; PWB a = 0.87, and for SWB a = 0.84 and total
scale a = 0.91.
Procedure
new mindfulness scale and MHC-SF. Data were collected online and offline both.
Results
The data were coded using SPSS 15.0 and LISREL 8.8 versions. The data were
screened for minimum and maximum values for new mindfulness scale and mental
health continuum. Frequency analysis for each item indicated that responses for
each item had scores within the range. The SPSS preliminary frequency output was
analyzed for missing values. The percentage for all items on MHC-SF and for 42
items of new mindfulness scale were under 5 % and random in nature. The missing
values were replaced with series means. The skewness (−0.10 to −0.73) kurtosis
(0.01 to −0.21), mean (2.89–3.66) and SD (0.96–1.15) were within acceptable
parameters as discussed in Chap. 2. However, one item was deleted on the basis of
item-total correlation. Thus, 41 items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis.
The data (n = 742) was split into one-third (one subsample) and two-third
(second subsample) parts for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as dis-
cussed in Chap. 2. The two parts were counterbalanced for gender and age. A t-test
was conducted to confirm that both the subsamples were balanced. The results of
the t-test were not significant hence, indicating that both the subsamples were equal.
The one-third of the sample consisted of 250 participants (Males = 105; females =
145, Mean age = 21.91 years; SD = 3.18) and two-third of the sample consisted of
492 participants (Males = 208; Females = 284; Mean = 21.79 years; SD = 3.11).

The skewness and kurtosis demonstrated modest normality patterns and hence
maximum likelihood (ML) for estimation was employed in factor solution (Russell
2002; West et al. 1995). The factor analysis with varimax rotation was applied on
41 items. The value of KMO-MSA was 0.85, v2 (378) = 2624.81, p < 0.01, thus
indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The significant Chi-square
for Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and KMO value greater than 0.8 is considered good
since it indicates that component or factor analysis would be appropriate (Cerny and
Kaiser 1977; Kaiser 1970). The communalities values ranged from 0.29 to 0.69.
However, no item was deleted. Since the Eigen value till seven-factor solution was
1.03, factor solution with varimax rotation for 4, 5, 6, and 7 was evaluated. The
seven-factor solution that was obtained in phase 1 was not replicated in phase 3.
The five-factor solution was deemed fit since it could be theoretically interpreted
and it was reconfirmed by promax rotation. The five-factor solution shared 53.13 %
of variance and it consisted of 28 items with factor loadings greater than 0.40. The
factor loadings ranged 0.41–0.86. Table 5.2 indicates the items and factor loadings.
The total a = 0.87 for 28 items.
F1-Observe Items: The seven items in the first factor are related to an indi-
vidual’s experiencing of observing. This is evident from statements like “I observe
how my thoughts come and go,” “I notice when my moods begin to change,”
“I notice how my emotions express themselves through my body,” etc.
F2-Conscious Effort: The second factor has seven items which correspond to an
individual making a conscious effort on his part to deal with life situations. For
example, “I tell myself that I shouldn’t have certain thoughts,” “I tell myself that I
shouldn’t feel sad,” “I try to put my problems out of mind,” “I try to sense my body
whether eating, cooking, cleaning, or talking,” etc.
Table 5.2 Varimax rotation with kaiser normalization for new mindfulness scale
S. No. Item Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
No.
1 3 I observe how my thoughts come and go 0.80
2 4 I observe how feelings arise and fade away 0.78
3 5 I make judgments about whether my thoughts 0.67
are good or bad
4 7 I notice when my moods begin to change 0.58
5 2 I watch my feelings without getting lost in 0.58
them
6 6 I notice most of my bodily changes such as 0.56
change in breath, body movements etc.
7 1 I notice how my emotions express themselves 0.55
through my body
8 36 I tell myself that I shouldn’t have certain 0.75
thoughts
9 41 I criticize myself for having irrational or 0.71
inappropriate emotions
10 37 I tell myself that I shouldn’t feel sad 0.64
11 39 When I have a bad memory, I try to distract 0.58
myself to make it go away
12 40 I am impatient with myself and with others 0.58
13 38 I try to put my problems out of mind 0.48
14 35 I try to sense my body whether eating, 0.41
cooking, cleaning or talking
15 23 I watch my thoughts without identifying with 0.72
them
16 21 I try to notice my thoughts without judging 0.57
them
17 12 I try to notice whether my muscles are tense 0.53
or relaxed
18 25 When I have distressing thoughts or images, I 0.50
“step back” and am re of the thought or image
without getting taken over by it
19 18 When I’m walking, I try to notice the 0.45
sensations of my body moving
20 24 When I do things, I get totally wrapped up in 0.44
them and don’t think about anything else
21 10 When I take a shower or take a bath, I stay 0.41
alert to the sensations of water on my body
22 31 I get completely absorbed in what I’m doing, 0.86
so that all my attention is focused on it
23 30 It is easy for me to concentrate on what I am 0.79
doing
24 32 I notice the smells and aromas of things 0.47
25 33 I am able to smile when I notice how I 0.41
sometimes make life difficult
(continued)

S. No. Item Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
No.
26 14 I’m good at using words to express my 0.67
perceptions, such as how things taste, smell,
or sound
27 15 I examine unpleasant as well as pleasant, 0.61
sensations and perceptions
28 16 My natural tendency is to put my experiences 0.58
into words
Eigen value 6.82 3.62 1.73 1.64 1.18
Variance 24.35 12.93 6.18 5.84 4.21
Cronbach’s alpha 0.85 0.80 0.78 0.76 0.76
Note F1-Observe items, F2-Concious Items, F3- Awareness, F4-Attention, F5-Describe Items
F3-Awareness: This factor with seven items deals with awareness in one’s
thoughts as well as physical body. For e.g., “When I have distressing thoughts or
images, I “step back” and am aware of the thought or image without getting taken
over by it,” “When I’m walking, I try to notice the sensations of my body moving,”
“I try to notice whether my muscles are tense or relaxed,” etc.
F4-Attention: The “attention” factor deals with attention to task in hand,
attention to one’s surroundings and attention to oneself. A total of four statements in
this factor are present that deal with attention. These are “I get completely absorbed
in what I’m doing, so that all my attention is focused on it,” “It is easy for me to
concentrate on what I am doing,” “I notice the smells and aromas of things,” “I am
able to smile when I notice how I sometimes make life difficult.”
F5-Describe Items: This factor has three items which talks of an individual’s
capacity to describe his experiences and observations. For e.g., “I’m good at using
words to express my perceptions, such as how things taste, smell, or sound,” “My
natural tendency is to put my experiences into words,” etc.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the two-third data
(n = 492) using LISREL 8.08. The goodness of fit index (GFI) was reported to be
0.89, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) was 0.87, Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) was 0.95 and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) was 0.06.
The GFI and AGFI range between 0 and 1 that indicated acceptable model fit
(Baumgartner and Homburg 1996). CFI values range from 0 to 1 and RMSEA
ranges from 0 to 1, with smaller values indicates better model fit (Hu and Bentler
1999). However, the current model is a fair fit since RSMEA values of 0.00, 0.03,
and 0.06, respectively correspond to perfect, good, and fair model fit (Preacher and
MacCallum 2002). Table 5.3 indicates a moderate model fit for new mindfulness
scale. Further Fig. 5.1 indicates the domain factor loadings for CFA.
Table 5.3 Goodness of fit statistics for tests of factorial validity for new mindfulness scale
Measures Chi-square df df/chi-square NNFI CFI RMSEA GFI
Mindfulness 873.54 340 2.57 0.94 0.95 0.06 0.89
Note df Degrees of freedom; NNFI Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA
Root Mean Square Error Approximation; GFI Goodness of Fit Index
Fig. 5.1 Factor loadings for new mindfulness scale

Table 5.4 Pearson’s correlation between new mindfulness scale and mental health
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Factor 1 0.84
2. Factor 2 0.42** 0.76
3. Factor 3 0.54** 0.45** 0.75
4. Factor 4 0.55** 0.38** 0.58** 0.73
5. Factor 5 0.60** 0.34** 0.53** 0.57** 0.72
6. Tot. 0.83** 0.71** 0.81** 0.76** 0.73** 0.91
mindfulness
7. EWB 0.27** 0.10* 0.20** 0.30** 0.24** 0.26** 0.86
** *
8. SWB 0.19 0.10 0.21** 0.24** 0.20** 0.24** 0.61** 0.84
** **
9. PWB 0.31 0.17 0.29** 0.46** 0.41** 0.40** 0.59** 0.55** 0.87
** **
10. MHC 0.30 0.15 0.28** 0.40** 0.35** 0.36** 0.81** 0.86** 0.87** 0.91
Note **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. N = 498. Numbers in bold are cronbach’s alpha for the factors. Factor 1
observe items, Factor 2 conscious effort, Factor 3 awareness, Factor 4 attention, Factor 5 describe
items, EWB emotional well-being, SWB social well-being, PWB psychological well-being and MHC total
mental health continuum
Concurrent Validity
The concurrent validity of the new mindfulness scale was established by correlating
the factors of the mindfulness scale with mental health continuum and its factors
(ranging from r = 0.10 to 0.46). Table 5.4 indicates the significant correlation
between new Mindfulness scale and the well-being measures.
Study 2
phase was to collect data on the new mindfulness scale as well as the validity scale,
i.e., Mental Health Continuum (Keyes 2009) Hindi translated version (Singh 2014)
Participants
of participants were undergraduates, 44 % were graduates and 36 % were post
were divorced, and 0.2 % was widow but 7.7 % of participants did not report their
marital status.
Procedure
newly developed mindfulness scale and MHC-SF—Hindi version. The items that
were confirmed in the phase 2 of the study were translated into Hindi. The bilingual
experts back translated the scales into English. This was done to verify the content
similarity to the original scale and to ensure that translated tests were true copy of
the original tests. The discrepancies were resolved and the test was once again
verified by the author and bilingual experts. All the scales were administered in
Hindi to the participants.
Measures
scale’s validity.
Newly Developed Mindfulness Scale Has 28 items representing five factors
namely; observe items (a = 0.67), conscious effort (a = 0.59), awareness
(a = 0.68), attention (a = 0.54), and describe items (a = 0.53). The total Cronbach
alpha was 0.78 in the current study.
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF Keyes 2009) MHC-SF—Hindi
translated version has confirmed its original factor solution and has acceptable
psychometric properties (Singh 2014) In the present study the reliability values
were for EWB a = 0.82; for PWB a = 0.77 and for SWB a = 0.76 and for total
MHC-SF a = 0.81.
Results
The data were analyzed similarly as phase 2. The mean and SD ranged from 3.59–
3.99 to 0.72–1.14, respectively. The skewness (−0.89 to 1.89) and kurtosis (−0.18
to 1.29) were within acceptable range.
The CFA fit indices were goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.87, Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.84, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.93, root
mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07 and v2/d.f. = 3.43. The current
model is a fair fit as per the cut-off criterion discussed in Chap. 2. Further Fig. 5.2
Fig. 5.2 Construct Validity

of New Mindfulness Scale
Table 5.5 Pearson’s Correlational Analysis between the Five Factors of Mindfulness and
MHC-SF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Factor 1 1
2. Factor 2 0.65** 1
3. Factor 3 0.73** 0.68** 1
4. Factor 4 0.54** 0.45** 0.51** 1
5. Factor 5 0.65** 0.56** 0.66** 0.58** 1
6. Tot. 0.88** 0.83** 0.89** 0.70** 0.80** 1
mindfulness
7. EWB 0.21** 0.19** 0.18** 0.20** 0.22** 0.24** 1
8. SWB 0.26** 0.26** 0.31** 0.20** 0.22** 0.31** 0.39** 1
9. PWB 0.27** 0.26** 0.31** 0.28** 0.34** 0.35** 0.44** 0.52** 1
10. 0.32** 0.30** 0.35** 0.29** 0.33** 0.38** 0.70** 0.82** 0.85** 1
MHCTOT.
Note **p < 0.01 N = 548. Factor 1 observe items, Factor 2 conscious effort, Factor 3 awareness, Factor
4 attention, Factor 5 describe items, Tot Mindfulness: total mindfulness score EWB emotional
well-being, SWB social well-being, PWB psychological well-being, MHC TOT. Mental health continuum
total score
Concurrent Validity
The concurrent validity of the resilience scale was established just like phase 2. The
results indicated significant correlations ranging from r = 0.18 to 0.38. Table 5.5
indicates the correlation between new mindfulness scale and the MHC measure.
Norms for the New Mindfulness Scale
set. Gender differences were observed for factor 2 (t(1036) = 3.03, p < 0.01), factor
3 (t(1036) = 5.06, p < 0.01), and total score (t(1036) = 3.04, p < 0.01). Males
possessed higher mean score on factor 2 (M = 24.29), factor 3 (M = 24.78) and
total score (M = 99.88) as compared to females (factor 2—M = 23.43, factor 3—
M = 23.27, total score—M = 96.89). When the data were split for English and
Hindi, it was noted that gender differences were present with respect to factor 3 (t
(488) = 1.98, p < 0.05) in English data and factor 2 (t(546) = 2.59, p < 0.01),
factor 3 (t(546) = 2.77, p < 0.01), and total score (t(546) = 2.04, p < 0.05) for
Hindi data. Male (M = 23.17) participants who responded in English scored a
higher mean score as compared to the female (22.33) participants. Similar trend was
observed in Hindi participants. The male (factor 2—M = 24.83, factor 3—
M = 25.71, total score—M = 102.06) participants scored higher mean as compared
to the female (factor 2—M = 23.86, factor 3—M = 24.58, total score M = 99.58)
participants.
difference of age group on mindfulness. In the Hindi data there was no difference of
age group on mindfulness score and it factors whereas in English data, age-group
differed significantly for factor 3 (t(496) = 2.31, p < 0.05). In English data it was
observed the participants in <30 years group (M = 22.74) scored a higher mean as
compared to >30 years (M = 20.80). However, when the English and Hindi data
was combined for age-group, it was observed that factor 3 (t(1044) = −2.69,
p < 0.01) and total score (t(1044) = −1.96, p < 0.05) differed significantly for both
the groups. In the combined data it was observed that >30 years possessed (factor
3-M = 24.87, total score—M = 100.38) higher mean as compared to the <30 years
(factor 3-M = 23.82, total score M = 97.86).
gender, and age too. Age and gender can be counterbalanced in future studies to
establish age and gender norms for the scales.
Discussion
The current study was undertaken with an objective of developing and validating a
new measure of mindfulness. The authors have proposed a 28 items scale with a
five-factor solution (explaining 53.13 % variance). The factors which were found to
define mindfulness in the Indian context are observe, conscious effort, awareness,
attention, and describe. The psychometric evidence further suggested that the new
measure is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing mindfulness. The overall
reliability of the scale was 0.87, whereas for its five subscales, reliability ranged from
0.72 to 0.84. The factors that were found to constitute mindfulness in the current study
are in line with factors reported previously by fellow researchers. For instance, Baer
et al. (2004) after an extensive review of the literature specified four components of
mindfulness-observing, describing, acting with awareness, and accepting (or
allowing) without judgement. The authors of Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness
Scale-Revised (CAMS-R, Feldman et al. 2007) reported mindfulness as combination
of attention, present focus, awareness and acceptance. “Conscious Effort” one of the
factors in the current study has not been found to constitute mindfulness directly.
However, it must not be forgotten that mindfulness is one of the attributes of con-
sciousness and consciousness encompasses both awareness and attention (Brown and
Ryan 2003). In the current study, though certain items were corresponded directly to
conscious effort being put in by individual in dealing with life situations and hence
they were grouped under “conscious effort,” for e.g., “I try to put my problems out of
mind,” “When I have a bad memory, I try to distract myself to make it go away,” etc.
The new measure of mindfulness also correlated well with the measure of
well-being and its three dimensions (emotional, social, and psychological).
Significant correlation between mindfulness and well-being has been reported by
Bränström et al. (2011). Mindfulness was also reported as one of the predictors of
Discussion 119
psychological well-being in a study by Baer et al. (2012). Mindfulness (and

self-control) were positively correlated with well-being and negatively correlated
with general distress, Bowlin and Baer (2012). After reviewing correlational
researches, Keng et al. (2011) concluded mindfulness to be positively associated with
a variety of indicators of psychological health, such as higher levels of positive affect,
life satisfaction, vitality, and adaptive emotion regulation, and lower levels of neg-
ative affect and psychopathological symptoms. Mindfulness also predicted lower
psychological distress, Walach et al. (2006). Several studies conducted on different
sets of population have reported significant correlation between mindfulness and
psychological health (Chadwick et al. 2008; Baer et al. 2006; Schoormans and
Nyklíček 2011 etc.). Significant positive correlation was also observed for all the five
factors with scores of well-being. This is in line with recent findings (Hohaus and
Spark 2013) wherein it was observed that each facet of mindfulness was a significant
predictor of psychological well-being. Mindfulness effects have also been studied on
emotional and social well-being. It has been observed that mindfulness reduces stress
and increases the life satisfaction, relaxation, and decreases burn-out symptoms and
negative emotions in the clinical population (Mackenzie et al. 2006). The benefits of
mindfulness spills on other domains too as is evident from researches which report
how mindfulness contributes to the subjective well-being of the social workers (Shier
and Graham 2011a, b) and influences several dimensions of well-being (Cherie and
Dianne 2010). Association between mindfulness and higher positive emotional
experience was also reported in an Indian study (Mandal et al. 2011).
Conclusion
The preceding discussion lends clarity to the fact that the new measure is a reliable
and holistic measure for assessing mindfulness. However, further researches are
required to strengthen the findings and establish psychometric properties of the
scale on other segments of population.
References
Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2010). Laboratory stressors in clinically anxious and non-anxious
individuals: The moderating role of mindfulness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(6),
495–505.
Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L., & Peters, J. R. (2012). Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors
of psychological wellbeing in long-term meditators and matched nonmeditators. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 7(3), 230–238.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report the
Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modelling in

marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
13(2), 139–161.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New
York: Guilford Press.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004).
Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 11
(3), 230–241.
Bodner, T. E., & Langer, E. J. (2001, June). Individual differences in mindfulness: the
mindfulness/mindlessness scale. In Poster presented at the 13th annual American
Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bowlin, S. L., & Baer, R. A. (2012). Relationships between mindfulness, self-control, and
psychological functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 411–415.
Bränström, R., Duncan, L. G., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2011). The association between dispositional
mindfulness, psychological well-being, and perceived health in a Swedish population-based
sample. British journal of health psychology, 16(2), 300–316.
Breslin, F. C., Zack, M., & McMain, S. (2002). An information-processing analysis of
mindfulness: Implications for relapse prevention in the treatment of substance abuse. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(3), 275–299.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(4), 822.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and
evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological inquiry, 18(4), 211–237.
Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The assessment of
present-moment awareness and acceptance the Philadelphia mindfulness scale. Assessment, 15
(2), 204–223.
Cash, M., & Whittingham, K. (2010). What facets of mindfulness contribute to psychological
well-being and depressive, anxious, and stress-related symptomatology? Mindfulness, 1(3),
177–182.
Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for
factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47.
Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Symes, J., Peters, E., Kuipers, E., & Dagnan, D. (2008). Responding
mindfully to unpleasant thoughts and images: reliability and validity of the Southampton
mindfulness questionnaire (SMQ). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(4), 451–455.
Chen, S. –Y., & Zhou, R. –L. (2013). Validation of a Chinese version of the freiburg mindfulness
inventory-short version. Mindfulness, 5(5) 529–535.
Cherie, L., & Dianne, V. B. (2010). Savouring and mindfulness as predictors of subjective
well-being. School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Monash
University.
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2011). Mindfulness based cognitive therapy for psychiatric disorders: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry research, 187(3), 441–453.
Christopher, M. S., Charoensuk, S., Gilbert, B. D., Neary, T. J., & Pearce, K. L. (2009).
Mindfulness in Thailand and the United States: A case of apples versus oranges? Journal of
clinical psychology, 65(6), 590–612.
Coffey, K. A., Hartman, M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Deconstructing mindfulness and
constructing mental health: Understanding mindfulness and its mechanisms of action.
Mindfulness, 1(4), 235–253.
Conte, H. R., Ratto, R., & Karasu, T. B. (1996). The psychological mindedness scale: Factor
structure and relationship to outcome of psychotherapy. The Journal of psychotherapy practice
and research, 5(3), 250.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and individual
differences, 13(6), 653–665.
References 121
Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008). Mindfulness skills and
interpersonal behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1235–1245.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins
Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral science, 19(1), 1–
15.
Erisman, S. M., Salters-Pedneault, K., & Roemer, L. (2005). Emotion regulation and mindfulness.
In Poster presented at the annual convention of the association for advancement of behavior
therapy. Washington, DC (November 17–20, 2005).
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and
emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective
Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 29(3), 177–190.
Feros, D. L., Lane, L., Ciarrochi, J., & Blackledge, J. T. (2013). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy (ACT) for improving the lives of cancer patients: A preliminary study.
Psycho-Oncology, 22(2), 459–464.
Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, big five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis. Personality and
Individual Differences, 47(8), 805–811.
Giluk, T. L. (2010). Mindfulness-based stress reduction: Facilitating work outcomes through
experienced affect and high-quality relationships.
Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) on
emotion regulation in social anxiety disorder. Emotion, 10(1), 83.
Govern, J. M., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Development and validation of the situational
self-awareness scale. Consciousness and cognition, 10(3), 366–378.
Grégoire, S., Bouffard, T., & Vezeau, C. (2012). Personal goal setting as a mediator of the
relationship between mindfulness and wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3).
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction
and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of psychosomatic research, 57(1), 35–43.
Guardiola-Wanden-Berghe, R., Gil-Pérez, J. D., Sanz-Valero, J., & Wanden-Berghe, C. (2011).
Evaluating the quality of websites relating to diet and eating disorders. Health Information &
Libraries Journal, 28(4), 294–301.
Hansen, E., Lundh, L. G., Homman, A., & Wångby-Lundh, M. (2009). Measuring mindfulness:
pilot studies with the Swedish versions of the mindful attention awareness scale and the
Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 38(1), 2–15.
Hayes, A. M., & Feldman, G. (2004). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the context of
emotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical Psychology: science and
practice, 11(3), 255–262.
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and
commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour research and therapy, 44(1),
1–25.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An
experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.
Heidenreich, T., Tuin, I., Pflug, B., Michal, M., & Michalak, J. (2006). Mindfulness-based
cognitive therapy for persistent insomnia: A pilot study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,
75(3), 188–189.
Herndon, F. (2008). Testing mindfulness with perceptual and cognitive factors: External vs.
internal encoding, and the cognitive failures questionnaire. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44(1), 32–41.
Höfling, V., Ströhle, G., Michalak, J., & Heidenreich, T. (2011). A short version of the Kentucky
inventory of mindfulness skills. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 639–645.
Hohaus, L. C., & Spark, J. (2013). 2672–Getting better with age: do mindfulness & psychological
well-being improve in old age? European Psychiatry, 28, 1.
Hu & Bentler. (1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Hunter, J., & McCormick, D. W. (2008). Mindfulness in the workplace: An exploratory study.
In SE Newell (Facilitator), Weickian Ideas. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Inchausti, F., Prieto, G., & Delgado, A. R. (2014). Rasch Analysis of the Spanish version of the
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) in a clinical sample. Revista de Psiquiatría y
Salud Mental (English Edition), 7(1), 32–41.
Irving, J. A., Dobkin, P. L., & Park, J. (2009). Cultivating mindfulness in health care professionals:
A review of empirical studies of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Complementary
therapies in clinical practice, 15(2), 61–66.
Iverson, K. M., Shenk, C., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2009). Dialectical behavior therapy for women
victims of domestic abuse: A pilot study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40
(3), 242.
Jimenez, S. S., Niles, B. L., & Park, C. L. (2010). A mindfulness model of affect regulation and
depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance as
regulatory mechanisms. Personality and individual differences, 49(6), 645–650.
Johnston, M., Foster, M., Shennan, J., Starkey, N. J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The effectiveness of
an acceptance and commitment therapy self-help intervention for chronic pain. The Clinical
journal of pain, 26(5), 393–402.
Jones, L., Hastings, R. P., Totsika, V., Keane, L., & Rhule, N. (2014). Child behavior problems
and parental well-being in families of children with autism: The mediating role of mindfulness
and acceptance. American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 119(2), 171–
185.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients
based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary
results. General hospital psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: The program of the stress reduction clinic at the
University of Massachusetts Medical Center. New York: Delta.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2006). Mindfulness for beginners [UNABRIDGED](Audio CD). Sounds True.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.
Kanter, J. W., Baruch, D. E., & Gaynor, S. T. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy and
behavioral activation for the treatment of depression: Description and comparison. The
Behavior Analyst, 29(2), 161.
Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological
health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical psychology review, 31(6), 1041–1056.
Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V., … & Hofmann, S. G.
(2013). Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology
Review, 33(6), 763–771.
Kiken, L. G., & Shook, N. J. (2014). Does mindfulness attenuate thoughts emphasizing negativity,
but not positivity? Journal of research in personality, 53, 22–30.
Kim, B., Cho, S. J., Lee, K. S., Lee, J. Y., Choe, A. Y., Lee, J. E., … & Lee, S. H. (2013). Factors
associated with treatment outcomes in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for panic disorder.
Yonsei medical journal, 54(6), 1454-1462.
Kim, Y. W., Lee, S. H., Choi, T. K., Suh, S. Y., Kim, B., Kim, C. M., … & Song, S. K. (2009).
Effectiveness of mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy as an adjuvant to pharmacotherapy in
patients with panic disorder or generalized anxiety disorder. Depression and anxiety, 26(7),
601–606.
Kingsbury, E. (2009). The relationship between empathy and mindfulness: Understanding the role
of self-compassion. ProQuest Information & Learning.
Kuan, T. (2008). Mindfulness in early Buddhism: New approaches through psychology and
analysis of Pali. Routledge, Madison, New York: Chinese and Sanskrity Sources.
References 123
Kuyken, W., Byford, S., Taylor, R. S., Watkins, E., Holden, E., White, K., et al. (2008).
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy to prevent relapse in recurrent depression. Journal of
consulting and clinical psychology, 76(6), 966.
Lamers, S., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011).
Journal of clinical psychology, 67(1), 99–110.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness–mindfulness. Advances
in experimental social psychology, 22, 137–173.
Lanza, P. V., & Menéndez, A. G. (2013). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for drug abuse in
incarcerated women. Psicothema, 25(3), 307–312.
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., … & Devins, G.
(2006). The Toronto mindfulness scale: Development and validation. Journal of clinical
psychology, 62(12), 1445–1468.
Leigh, J., Bowen, S., & Marlatt, G. A. (2005). Spirituality, mindfulness and substance abuse.
Addictive behaviors, 30(7), 1335–1341.
León, J., Fernández, C., Grijalvo, F., & Núñez, J. (2013). Assessing mindfulness: The Spanish
version of the mindfulness attention awareness scale. Evaluando el mindfulness: la versión en
castellano del instrumento Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale. Estudios De Psicología, 34
(2), 175–184.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Dialectical behavior therapy for treatment of borderline personality
disorder: Implications for the treatment of substance abuse. NIDA research monograph, 137,
201.
Lykins, E. L., & Baer, R. A. (2009). Psychological functioning in a sample of long-term
practitioners of mindfulness meditation. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 226–241.
Lynch, T. R., Morse, J. Q., Mendelson, T., & Robins, C. J. (2003). Dialectical behavior therapy for
depressed older adults: A randomized pilot study. The American Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 11(1), 33–45.
Ma, S. H., & Teasdale, J. D. (2004). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression:
Replication and exploration of differential relapse prevention effects. Journal of consulting and
clinical psychology, 72(1), 31.
Mackenzie, C. S., Poulin, P. A., & Seidman-Carlson, R. (2006). A brief mindfulness-based stress
reduction intervention for nurses and nurse aides. Applied Nursing Research, 19(2), 105–109.
Mandal, S. P., Arya, Y. K., & Pandey, R. (2011). Mindfulness, emotion regulation and subjective
wellbeing: An overview of pathways to positive mental health. Indian Journal of Social
Science Research, 8(1–2), 159–167.
Marlatt, G. A. (2002). Buddhist psychology and the treatment of addictive behavior. Cognitive and
Behavioral Practice, 9, 44–49.
Mars, T. S., & Abbey, H. (2010). Mindfulness meditation practise as a healthcare intervention: A
systematic review. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 13(2), 56–66.
Menon, P., Doddoli, S., Singh, S., & Bhogal, R. S. (2014). Personality correlates of mindfulness:
A study in an Indian setting. Yoga Mimamsa, 46(1), 29.
Milani, A., Nikmanesh, Z., & Farnam, A. (2013). Effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive
therapy (MBCT) in reducing aggression of individuals at the Juvenile correction and
rehabilitation center. International journal of high risk behaviors & addiction, 2(3), 126.
Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility.
Consciousness and cognition, 18(1), 176–186.
Niazi, A. K., & Niazi, S. K. (2011). Mindfulness-based stress reduction: a non-pharmacological
approach for chronic illnesses. North American journal of medical sciences, 3(1), 20.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1998). The temporal satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 70(2), 340–354.
Piet, J., Hougaard, E., Hecksher, M. S., & Rosenberg, N. K. (2010). A randomized pilot study of
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and group cognitive-behavioral therapy for young adults
with social phobia. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(5), 403–410.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied psychological measurement, 1(3), 385–401.
Radoń, S. (2014). Pięciowymiarowy Kwestionariusz Uważności: Polska adaptacja. Roczniki
Psychologiczne, 17(4), 711–758.
Raes, F., Dewulf, D., Van Heeringen, C., & Williams, J. M. G. (2009). Mindfulness and reduced
cognitive reactivity to sad mood: Evidence from a correlational study and a non-randomized
waiting list controlled study. Behaviour research and therapy, 47(7), 623–627.
Ramel, W., Goldin, P. R., Carmona, P. E., & McQuaid, J. R. (2004). The effects of mindfulness
meditation on cognitive processes and affect in patients with past depression. Cognitive therapy
and research, 28(4), 433–455.
Rasmussen, M. K., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2011). The direct and indirect benefits of dispositional
mindfulness on self-esteem and social anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(2), 227–233.
Robins, C. J., Keng, S. L., Ekblad, A. G., & Brantley, J. G. (2012). Effects of mindfulness-based
stress reduction on emotional experience and expression: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of clinical psychology, 68(1), 117–131.
Roemer, L., Lee, J. K., Salters-Pedneault, K., Erisman, S. M., Orsillo, S. M., & Mennin, D. S.
(2009). Mindfulness and emotion regulation difficulties in generalized anxiety disorder:
Preliminary evidence for independent and overlapping contributions. Behavior Therapy, 40(2),
142–154.
Roth, B., & Creaser, T. (1997). Mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction: Experience with a
bilingual inner-city program. The nurse practitioner, 22(3), 150–178.
Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis
in PSPB. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.
Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing, A., et al. (2013).
Assessment of mindfulness: Review on state of the art. Mindfulness, 4(1), 3–17.
Schmidt, S. (2011). Mindfulness in east and west–is it the same? In Neuroscience, consciousness
and spirituality, pp. 23–38. Springer Netherlands.
Schoormans, D., & Nyklíček, I. (2011). Mindfulness and psychologic well-being: Are they related
to type of meditation technique practiced? The journal of alternative and complementary
medicine, 17(7), 629–634.
Sears, S., & Kraus, S. (2009). I think therefore I om: Cognitive distortions and coping style as
mediators for the effects of mindfulness meditation on anxiety, positive and negative affect, and
hope. Journal of clinical psychology, 65(6), 561–573.
Segal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D., Williams, J. M., & Gemar, M. C. (2002). The mindfulness-based
cognitive therapy adherence scale: inter-rater reliability, adherence to protocol and treatment
distinctiveness. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 9(2), 131–138.
Sepp, H. R., & Embree, L. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of phenomenological aesthetics, vol. 59.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Shapiro, S. L., & Izett, C. D. (2008). Meditation: A universal tool for cultivating empathy.
Mindfulness and the therapeutic relationship, 161-175.
Shapiro, S. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Bonner, G. (1998). Effects of mindfulness-based stress
reduction on medical and premedical students. Journal of behavioral medicine, 21(6), 581–
599.
Sharma, M. P., Mao, A., & Sudhir, P. M. (2012). Mindfulness-based cognitive behavior therapy in
patients with anxiety disorders: A case series. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 34(3),
263.
Shier, M. L., & Graham, J. R. (2011a). Mindfulness, subjective well-being, and social work:
Insight into their interconnection from social work practitioners. Social Work Education, 30(1),
29–44.
Shier, M. L., & Graham, J. R. (2011b). Work-related factors that impact social work practitioners’
subjective well-being: Well-being in the workplace. Journal of Social Work, 11(4), 402–421.
References 125
Shonin, E., Van Gordon, W., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Meditation Awareness Training
(MAT) for improved psychological well-being: A qualitative examination of participant
experiences. Journal of religion and health, 53(3), 849–863.
Singh, K. (2014). Relationship of demographic variables, socio-cultural issues and selected
Project Report.
Singh, K., Bassi, M., Junnarkar, M., & Negri, L. (2015). Mental health and psychosocial
functioning in adolescence: an investigation among indian students from delhi. Journal of
adolescence, 39, 59–69.
Slade, M. (2010). Mental illness and well-being: The central importance of positive psychology
and recovery approaches. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 26.
Ströhle, G., Nachtigall, C.; Michalak, J. & Heidenreich, T. (2010). Die Erfassung von Achtsamkeit
als mehrdimensionales Konstrukt: Die deutsche Version des Kentucky Inventory of
Mindfulness Skills (KIMS). Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 39,
1–12. [IF: 0,449]
Thompson, B. L., & Waltz, J. (2007). Everyday mindfulness and mindfulness meditation:
Overlapping constructs or not? Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1875–1885.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of
personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 76(2), 284.
Trousselard, M., Steiler, D., Raphel, C., Cian, C., Duymedjian, R., Claverie, D., et al. (2010).
Validation of a French version of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory-short version:
Relationships between mindfulness and stress in an adult population. BioPsychoSocial
medicine, 4(8), 1–11.
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness and emotion
repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of Marital and Family therapy, 33(4), 464–481.
Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring
mindfulness—The Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual
Differences, 40(8), 1543–1555.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology,
54(6), 1063.
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method examination of the effects of
mindfulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-being. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43(3), 374–385.
variables: Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts,
issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2007). Developing management skills (7th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wolfsdorf, B. A., & Zlotnick, C. (2001). Affect management in group therapy for women with
posttraumatic stress disorder and histories of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 57(2), 169–181.
Wongtongkam, N., Ward, P. R., Day, A., & Winefield, H. (2013). Reliability and vailidity of
self-reported questionnaires related to adolescent violence and consequences, Thailand.
International journal of social science studies, 1(2), 82–92.
Chapter 6
Spirituality and Its Assessment
Abstract This chapter introduces the concept of spirituality and its various facets
which are highly correlated with other positive psychology constructs. It then
focuses on various factors which are significantly correlated with spirituality.
Various researches related to already existing scales on spirituality are documented.
The procedure of development and validation of a new spirituality measure has
been developed on Indian population. The Scale development is explained in detail
with tune to the guidelines mentioned in Chap. 2. This chapter concludes with
discussion centering on the newly developed scale and its elucidations.
Keywords Spirituality Flourishing Sattva Rajas Tamas
Introduction
Spirituality is an important aspect of life across the globe. Over the last several
decades, increasing attention has been given to the role of spirituality and religion in
both mental and physical health. From 1965 to 2000, there was a 72 % rise in the
average number of health-related research articles published per year dealing with
spirituality (Weaver et al. 2006). Thus it is evident that spirituality as a construct
under study goes back many decades. Many researchers and different global
agencies working in the field of research have defined spirituality. The California
State Psychological Association (CSPA) Task Force defined spirituality as the
“courage to look within and to trust what is seen and what is trusted appears to be a
deep sense of belonging, of wholeness, of connectedness, and of openness to the
infinite” (p. 233) (cited in Shafranske and Gorsuch 1984). Spirituality was also
viewed as a multidimensional construct. Burkhardt (1989) described three charac-
teristics of spirituality: inner strength, unfolding mystery (meaning and purpose),
and harmonious interconnectedness. In rural women, spirituality was based on inner
strength and was relational (Burkhardt 1993). Spilka (1993) believed spirituality as

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_6
128 6 Spirituality and Its Assessment
composed of three dimensions—God-oriented, world-oriented, and people-oriented.

Coyle (2002) later described three different attributes of spirituality—transcendent
(belief in God or higher power), structuralist behaviorist (religious practices), and
value guidance (personal values). Peterson and Seligman (2004) observed that
spirituality is universal: “Although the specific content of spiritual beliefs varies, all
cultures have a concept of an ultimate, transcendent, sacred, and divine force”
(p. 601), whereas Del Rio and White (2012) considered spirituality as intrinsic
to human nature and important to people’s lives. Hence, it can be observed that
spirituality primarily consists of interconnectedness, transcendent, and inner
strength.
In India, spiritual revolution owes its origin to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
(1917–2008), who in the late 1950s introduced transcendental meditation (TM) in
India. In TM, the mind is freed of distracting thoughts “transcends” where the
conscious mind becomes aware of its unlimited potentialities. Thereafter, several
other Indian researchers started showing interest in studying spirituality. Kumar
(2006) identified two aspects of spirituality firstly experiencing paranormal or
supernatural (also stated as altered states of consciousness and considered spiritual,
i.e., transcendence) and secondly, leading a value-based or “Dharmic” lifestyle. The
Indian philosophical tradition has repeatedly put forward that our existence is more
than our body. Spirituality in India can also be understood in terms of Vedic
ideology which conceptualizes that everything from physical universe to human
mind is made up of three gunas—sattva, rajas, and tamas (Chakraborty 1987). It
was further suggested that in a person, traces of all the three gunas exist but one’s
personality is defined by one of the most predominant guna. Chakraborty (1987)
summarized sattva as superior to rajas, and rajas to tamas in terms of their aid to
the mind for a true understanding of facts and events. Sattva guna is characterized
by qualities such as truthfulness, discipline, sense of control, sharp intelligence, and
mental equilibrium to name a few. Rajas guna is characterized by intense activity,
materialistic mentality, envy of others, dissatisfaction with one’s position and little
interest in spiritual elevation. Tamas guna is associated with mental imbalance,
anger, arrogance, depression, laziness, procrastination and a feeling of helplessness
(Dasa 1999).
Nature of Spirituality
Spiritual well-being, spiritual transcendence, and spiritual health are constructs

synonymous with spirituality. Maslow defined spiritual transcendence (1971) as
“going beyond commonly understood boundaries” (cited in Avila, p. 42). Elkins
et al. (1988) proposed spirituality model with nine dimensions—transcendent,
meaning and purpose in life, mission in life, sacredness of life, material values,
altruism, idealism, and awareness of the tragic and the fruits of spirituality the tragic.
Nature of Spirituality 129
Seven dimension model was consequently proposed by Ingersoll (1994)—meaning,

concept of divinity, relationship, mystery, play, experience, and an integrative
dimension. Westgate’s model of spirituality (1996) identified four components
namely; continuously searching for meaning and purpose in life, espousing intrinsic
values that inform one’s understanding of the world, maintaining a transcendent
perspective of oneself in relation to another, and belonging to a supportive spiritual
community that has a shared belief system having its application in the field of
counselling psychology. Fry (2003) stated that spirituality is essentially composed
of two factors—(a) transcendence of self, manifesting in a sense of calling or
destiny, and (b) belief that one’s activities have meaning and value beyond eco-
nomic benefits or self-gratification. A sense of calling and higher meaning fosters
the development of certain values, including vision (i.e., defining the destination,
reflecting high ideals, and encouraging hope/faith), altruistic love (i.e., forgiveness,
kindness, integrity, empathy, honesty, patience, courage, trust, and humility), and
hope/faith (i.e., endurance, perseverance, and expectation of reward/victory).
Delaney (2003) stated that spirituality constitutes three factors—self-discovery,
relationships, and eco-awareness (including Higher Power/Universal Awareness).
Cook et al. (2000) proposed a model that focused on internal processes, encom-
passing the inner world of the individual, mostly ignoring external aspects related to
the outer world and social relations. Wright (2004) inclusive model of spirituality
consists of “religion,” “self,” “others,” and “cosmos.” MacDonald (2005) identi-
fied five dimensions of spirituality—cognitive orientation toward spirituality,
experiential/phenomenological dimension, existential well-being, paranormal
beliefs, and religiousness. In a bid to understand the nature of spirituality, Oana and
Anca (2009) explored in their study how youth define spirituality. Five themes
constituting spirituality emerged, which were spirituality as personal development,
spirituality as inner personal world, spirituality as a relationship between the indi-
vidual and the divine, spirituality as an unseen world beyond our world and the
intrinsic interdependence between spirituality and religiosity. Parsian and Dunning
(2009) proposed a 4-factor model for spirituality—self-awareness, importance of
spiritual beliefs in life, spiritual practices, and spiritual needs. Fisher (2011) in his
work mentioned five types of spirituality existing in the United States (by Koeing
2008). The first is the “humanistic spirituality” with prime focus on human spirit
with no claim to a higher power, the second is “unmoored spirituality” focusing on
energy, connection, and nature; and lastly “moored spirituality,” which is of three
types and is based on Eastern religions, Western religions with evangelical, or
conservative bases. Four domains of spiritual well-being, according to Fisher (2011)
are personal, communal, environmental, and transcendental. The personal domain
corresponds to meaning, purpose and values. The communal domain corresponds to
morality, culture (and religion), environmental domain corresponds to care, nurture,
and stewardship of the physical, eco-political and social environment, while tran-
scendental is the “ultimate concern.” The multidimensional nature of spirituality
clearly comes across from the various perspectives of spirituality presented above.
Correlates and Predictors of Spirituality
The association of spirituality with various other constructs is well documented in

literature. The following section reviews some of the literature surrounding the
association of spirituality with other positive psychological constructs.
Spirituality and Well-Being–Psychologists have shown an interest in the rela-
tionships among religious belonging, believing, and religious and spiritual prac-
tices, such as prayer, meditation, and worship, to psychological well-being.
Religious and spiritual involvements are associated with self-esteem and well-being
across cultures (Francis and Kaldor 2002), mental and physical well-being
(McIntosh and Spilka 1990). Several studies have reported spirituality correlation
with several positive indicators of well-being such as better health (Koenig et al.
2001; Mueller et al. 2001), meaning in life, self-esteem and positive affect (Kashdan
and Nezlek 2012). Spiritual well-being mediated the relation between
culture-specific coping and quality of life in African Americans (Utsey et al. 2007).
A positive relationship between the strength of people’s spiritual beliefs and psy-
chological well-being was reported (Pargament and Mahoney 2009). In Indian
college students, the researchers (Khan et al. 2011) reported a positive correlation
between spirituality and life satisfaction. Joshanloo (2011) reported positive cor-
relation between aspects of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being with all aspects of
spirituality and religiousness in Iranian youth. It was further noticed that more than
religiousness, spirituality was a stronger predictor of well-being. Kashdan and
Nezlek (2012) explored how people experience spirituality on daily basis and how
it affects their well-being. Spirituality in daily life showed positive association with
meaning in life, self-esteem, and positive affect. Krause and Hayward (2013)
investigated the effects of three types of social support which offset the effects of
functional disability on change in personal control over time in older adults.
Spiritual support from the Church members appeared most prominent as compared
to emotional support from people at church, and emotional support from individuals
in secular social networks.
Spirituality and Health Care–Spirituality has been included in the treatment of
addictions and several kinds of mental and physical ailments for the last few years.
For example, several studies have reported on relevance of spirituality in treating
addictions, (Flynn et al. 2003; Piedmont 2004; Zemore and Kaskutas 2004). Role of
spirituality in alleviating the symptoms of depression was proven in a study on
college students where religion and spirituality were seen as protective factors for
depression (Berry and York 2011). In a study of coping styles and spirituality in
tumor patients, Vespa et al. (2011) reported significant correlation among inner
spirituality, spiritual coping and spiritual well-being. The authors reported better
coping mechanisms in patients high on spirituality while ineffective coping with
higher risk of depression was reported for those with low intrinsic spirituality and
spiritual coping. Kuo et al. (2014) explored the link between spirituality-coping and
psychological well-being in a culturally diverse sample of undergraduate students in
Correlates and Predictors of Spirituality 131
Canada. Findings highlighted the importance of intrinsic spirituality in the sense

that intrinsic spirituality leads to reduced psychological distress which in turn
promotes use of collective coping and reduces the use of avoidance coping.
Offenbächer et al. (2013) reported on the spiritual needs of patients with
fibromyalgia syndrome. While the needs for inner peace and giving/generativity
scored the highest, while existential needs and religious needs scored lowest.
Spirituality and positive psychology constructs–Role of spirituality in aiding
forgiveness, altruism, empathy, promoting compassion, etc., has been highlighted
by several studies. Spiritual individuals were found to be more hopeful and
experienced more meaning or purpose in life in comparison to the nonspiritual
individuals (Mahoney et al. 1999). The authors of this study further highlighted
some themes that were found to resonate strongly with spirituality. These were
charity, community, compassion, forgiveness, hope, meaning, and morality. Huber
and Donald (2012) found both altruism and empathy to be significantly positively
related to spirituality. In a meta-analytic review on religion/spirituality and for-
giveness, the authors (Davis et al. 2013) reported that religion/spirituality was
positively related to forgiveness (across relationships) and self-forgiveness. Similar
results were demonstrated in another study that revealed the levels of forgiveness
positively correlated with general well-being as well as with spiritual well-being
(Hwang et al. 2013). Spirituality was also found to be promoting greater com-
passion and altruism toward strangers (Saslow et al. 2013). In a study on older
adults, spirituality was found to promote resilience (Manning 2013). Furthermore,
Wolf and Abell (2003) tested the efficacy of spiritual approach on stress, depres-
sion, and the three gunas—sattva, rajas, and tamas. The spiritual approach
involved chanting of a maha-mantra. The experimental group showed significant
improvement not only in stress and depression, but also exhibited increased sattva
and decreased tamas as compared to the control group.
Spirituality and Demographic Variables
Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2006) in their study on spirituality at workplace reported

one’s occupation and marital status as predictors of spirituality, spirituality was
higher among management and professional staff in comparison to those at
administrative, clerical, technical, and trade level. Higher spirituality at work was
also reported for separated, divorced, or widowed staff as compared to those who
were still single. Several studies have reported higher spirituality scores for females
as compared to males (Daaleman et al. 2002b; Dennis et al. 2008; Knox et al. 1998;
Khan et al. 2011). Given the amount of interest that spirituality has generated across
the globe in the last few decades, studies on its relationship with demographic
variables are relatively few. As noticed in this review of literature, demographic
variables may be a deciding factor in one’s pursuit of spirituality and, hence wider
research in this area is warranted.
Spirituality and Religion
The association between spirituality and religion has often been a subject of debate.
While some believe spirituality is a part of religion and vice versa, many others
uphold that spirituality and religion are independent entities. Religion is defined as
“an organized set of beliefs and practices of a faith community” (Furman and
Chandy 1994, p.21), whereas spirituality is defined as “a complex, intrapsychic
dimension of human development” (Derezotes 1995, p.1). In an attempt to
understand the association between spirituality and religiousness, a study
(Zinnbauer et al. 1997) was conducted on 364 participants belonging to 11 different
religious backgrounds. The participant’s beliefs regarding the relationship between
spirituality and religion were examined and they were further asked to define
spirituality and religiousness. While the participants’ defined religion and spiritu-
ality in different terms, and associated the two with different variables, yet both
concepts were believed to be relating to a higher power. Scott (1997) reviewed a
number of definitions of both spirituality and religion and found out that the def-
initions were distributed over nine content categories—experiences of connected-
ness or relationship; processes leading to greater connectedness; behavioral
responses to something (either sacred or secular); systems of thought or beliefs;
traditional institutional structures; pleasurable states of being; beliefs in the sacred,
transcendent, and so forth; and existential questions In the next few years, research
on spirituality and religion continued to pour in. Astro et al. (2001) defined spiri-
tuality as “the search for transcendent meaning”—can be expressed in religious
practice or …expressed “exclusively in their relationship to nature, music, the arts,
a set of philosophical beliefs, or relationships with friends and family” while reli-
gion was viewed as “set of beliefs, practices, and language that characterizes a
community that is searching for transcendent meaning in a particular way, generally
based upon belief in a deity” (p. 286). Hodge and McGrew (2005) reported on the
connections and distinctions between spirituality and religion in students of social
work. Qualitative analysis of responses revealed that for most of the participants;
spirituality was seen as connection with a higher power, whereas religion was
viewed as an organized set of beliefs. Mohr (2006) defined spirituality as “a per-
son’s experience of, or a belief in, a power apart from his or her own existence,”
while religion was defined as “an organized system of practices and beliefs in which
people engage … a platform for the expression of spirituality…” (p. 175). Hodge
and Derezotes (2008) viewed spirituality as something individualistic, whereas
religion was believed to be more collectivistic. Shek (2012) in his review article on
spirituality presented findings from the project on the role of spirituality in higher
education by Austin and his associates (2005). The authors clearly identified the
spiritual and religious attributes. While spiritual attributes were synonymous with
spiritual quest, ethics of care, etc., religious attributes included religious commit-
ment, conservatism, etc. It seems like much more research in the area of spirituality
and religion is needed to clarify the status of these two constructs, both being
multidimensional constructs and the range of association shared between the two.
Spirituality Based Interventions 133
Spirituality Based Interventions
In many health care settings, spirituality has come to be viewed as a means of

supporting patients. Gallup (1992) conducted a poll survey of 1,000 American men
and women in which 66 % of respondents revealed that they would prefer to
receive counseling from a person who shares their spiritual values. Post et al. (2000)
observed that 45 % of clients in addition to standard medical care and treatment
desired integrated practices that simultaneously address religious concerns. In a
study on use of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) by patients undergoing
treatment for cancer, Richardson et al. (2000) found that spiritual practices topped
in the list of CAM. In a survey of patients, 81 % indicated a wish for their religious
values to be respected and integrated into the counseling process (Sperry 2001). In a
study on the spiritual needs of psychiatric patients, D’Souza (2002) highlighted the
importance of spirituality in managing the illness of these patients. While 79 % of
the patients rated spirituality as important to them, 69 % were of the opinion that
patients’ spiritual needs be taken into consideration during treatment. When clients
were asked about their choice of a counselor, seven out of ten clients preferred a
professional counselor or therapist who had a religious affiliation (Weaver et al.
2004). Pargarment (2007) observed that a good proportion of potential clients prefer
spiritually integrated treatment.
Spiritually integrated interventions include a set of behaviors utilized by a
mental health practitioner that are designed to address those aspects of a client’s
clinical concerns that the client identifies—perhaps with the assistance of the
therapist as related to his or her own spiritual or religious practices and/or beliefs
(M. Penn, personal communication, 2010). Spiritually modified cognitive behavior
therapy was hailed as an effective tool in treatment of alcoholism (Hodge 2011).
Guia (2011) in her dissertation work on mental health practitioners of Baha’i faith,
also highlighted the integration of spiritually integrated interventions in their private
practice. Efficacy of the same was also explored in a cross-cultural study, wherein
the authors (Safara et al. 2012) compared the effects of cognitive therapy and
spiritual therapy on females suffering from depressive disorders in Iran and India.
Findings revealed spiritual therapy to be more effective than cognitive therapy in
Iranian female students residing in India and Iran. The effect of spiritually oriented
cognitive therapy was studied in addressing depression in mothers of children
suffering from cancer (Dehkhoda et al. 2013). Overtime a decrease in depression
scores was noticed thereby suggesting the usefulness of spiritually oriented cog-
nitive therapy in reducing depression. Rye et al. (2013) explored the compatibility
of religion/spirituality interventions with certain positive psychology constructs
(hope, gratitude, self-compassion, and forgiveness) and their respective interven-
tions. While the authors shared several reasons as to why incorporating
religious/spiritual techniques with positive psychology interventions may prove to
be a viable option, they also raised certain doubts regarding the efficacy of the same
such as when dealing with children or in a group with people holding different
religious identities.
Existing Scales of Spirituality
Different measures of spirituality exist, each scale measuring different dimensions

of the construct. Information regarding spirituality measures along with their factors
and psychometric properties are presented in a tabular form. Most of the spirituality
scales have come from the west, while to our knowledge only three scales have
been validated in India, (See Table 6.1).
Table 6.1 Some of the existing scales of spirituality

S. No. Name and authors No. of items and dimensions/factors with
reliability
1 The spiritual well-being scale Items: 20; 2 Dimensions-vertical (religious
(SWBS), Paloutzian and Ellison well-being, a = 0.87) and horizontal
(1982) (existential well-being a = 0.78); overall
a = 0.89
2 Spiritual perspective scale, Reed Items: 10, overall a = > 0.90
(1986)
3 Spiritual assessment inventory (SAI), Items: 49; 5 factors-awareness a = 0.95,
Hall and Edwards (2002) disappointment a = 0.90, realistic
acceptance a = 0.83, grandiosity a = 0.73,
and instability a = 0.84.
4 The spiritual transcendence index, Items: 8; unifactor overall a = 0.90 to 0.97
Seidlitz et al. (2002) (in four separate samples)
5 The daily spiritual experience scale, Items: 16 unifactor a = 0.95
Underwood and Teresi (2002)
6 The spirituality scale (SS), Delaney Items: 23; 3 factors-self-discovery (SD,
(2003) a = 0.81), relationships (RL, a = 0.84), and
eco-awareness-(EA, a = 0.94), overall
a = 0.95
7 Spiritual meaning scale (SMS), Items: 14; unifactor a = 0.89
Mascaro et al. (2004)
8 Spirituality index of well-being, Items: 12; overall a = 0.91; 2 factors-self
Daaleman et al. (2004) efficacy a = 0.86 and life scheme a = 0.89
9 Belief and values scale, King et al. Items: 20; overall a = 0.94
(2006)
10 Spirit at work place, Kinjerski and Items: 18; 4 factors-engaging work, sense of
Skrypnek (2006) community, spiritual connection and
mystical experience. subscales a’s
range = 0.86–0.91 Overall a = 0.93
11 Spiritual competence scale, Singh and Items: 19; 6 factors-service toward
Premarajan (2009) humankind, feeling of inner peace and calm;
Being vision and value led; Inter
connectedness; Respect for others;
Self-awareness. For 5 dimensions of the
scale a = > 0.60. The self-awareness
dimension a = 0.50
(continued)
Need and Objectives for the Present Study 135

S. No. Name and authors No. of items and dimensions/factors with
reliability
12 Spiritual intelligence self-report Items: 24; 4 factors-critical existential
inventory (SISRI-24), King and a = 0.78; thinking, personal, a = 0.78,
DeCicco (2009) meaning making a = 0.87, transcendental
awareness conscious state expansion
a = 0.91, Overall a = 0.92
13 Spiritual health scale (SHS), Dhar Items: 114; 3 dimensions (self-evolution,
et al. (2011) self-actualization, and transcendence)
14 Marital spirituality scale, Items: 31; 6 factors-relationship with god,
Agustin-Perez (2012) existential, traditional/ritual, intimacy,
forgiveness and partnership. For 6 subscales
a range = 0.79–0.87
15 Multidimensional measure of Islamic Items: 75; 8 factors-self-discipline, quest and
spirituality (MMS), Dasti and Sitwat search for divinity, anger and expansive
(2014) behavior, self-aggrandizement, feeling of
connectedness with allah, meanness–
generosity, tolerance–intolerance, and
islamic practices. For 8 subscales a
range = 0.68–0.84
16 Measurement of spirituality, Singh and Items: 36; 5 factors-self-awareness,
Makkar (2015) importance of spiritual beliefs in life,
spiritual practices, spiritual needs, spirit at
work. For 5 subscales a range = 0.80–0.91
Need and Objectives for the Present Study
From the information presented in the preceding Table 6.1, it is visible that most of
the existing measures of spirituality were developed and validated in west, while
only three have been developed in India (Singh and Premarajan 2007; Dhar et al.
2011). Even though India is considered the cradle of spiritualism, it seems little
attention has been paid to its measures. To address this gap, the need to develop and
validate a new tool for spirituality in India was felt. It was further hypothesized that
the new scale of spirituality would correlate positively with the three gunas-sattva,
rajas, and tamas and flourishing. Studies have shown significant correlations
between the subscales (sattva, rajas and tamas) of Vedic Personality Inventory
(VPI; Wolf 1998) and measures of spirituality (Stempel et al. 2006). Plethora of
evidence exist highlighting the beneficial effects of flourishing individually
(Huppert 2009; Keyes 2005) as well as overall on work productivity and lower
health care costs (Huppert and So 2009).
It is evident that spirituality is a construct which has been defined in various
ways. The purpose of the present study was to develop a new measure of spirituality
and to find out the elements that constitute the construct in the Indian youth. It was
hypothesized that the new measure would correlate well with Vedic Personality
Inventory (Wolf 1998) and Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010) as studies have
shown significant correlation between measures of spirituality and VPI (Stempel

et al. 2006) as well as with flourishing scale (Diener et al. 2010). Thus, the second
aim was to validate this new measure with VPI and Flourishing Scale.
The new spirituality scale was constructed and validated in two studies. The study
one consisted of two phases and five stages namely; (i) item generation, (ii) item
refinement and modification, (iii) expert panel review, (iv) factor structure analysis
and item selection, and (v) factor structure validation. The first four stages were
conducted in Phase 1. The fourth and fifth stages were examined in Phase 2. Factor
analysis was conducted two times in the current study with an objective of reducing
the test items and ascertaining most suitable factor solution. In study two, the
English version of the scale was translated into Hindi and validated.
Study 1
Phase 1
The first step involved generating a pool of 144 items (11 negatively worded and
133 positively worded). Various scales of spirituality were reviewed like
Spirituality Scale (Delaney 2003), The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale
(Underwood and Teresi 2002), Spiritual Assessment Inventory (Hall and Edwards
1996), Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Paloutzian and Ellison 1982), Belief and Values
Scale (King et al. 2006), Spiritual Meaning Scale (Mascaro et al. 2004), Spiritual
Perspective Scale (Reed 1986), The Spiritual Transcendence Index (Seidlitz et al.
2002), and so forth to pool the items.
Stage 2 and 3: Item Refinement, Modification, and Expert Review
Content validity was established as discussed in Chap. 2. On the basis of their

feedback, 11 items were rejected and the remaining pool consisted of 133 items of
which 8 were negatively and 125 were positively worded.
Pilot Study
Participants and Procedure

Data were collected from 100 participants (34 % males and 67 % females). The age
of the participants ranged from 16 to 36 years with a mean age of 20.75 years
(SD = 2.84). The participants who voluntary consented were recruited. Prior
assurance regarding confidentiality of responses was given. Majority of the par-
ticipants (81 %) were students, nearly 14 % were working, 2 % were students
working part time, and 4 % were nonworking. A booklet consisted of demographic
performa sheet and spirituality questionnaire. The participants were asked to fill it
within a day and return.
Analysis
The data were subjected to preliminary frequency and missing value analysis on
SPSS (version 15.0). The number of missing values ranged from 1 to 7 (0.8–5.3 %)
for 133 items. The missing values were substituted by the mid-value (3) of the 5
point Likert scale. As discussed in Chap. 2, the norms based on criterion of mean,
standard deviation, and item-total correlation were applied to retain suitable items.
On the basis of this, 42 items were deleted; the remaining had SD in the range of
1.00–1.17. The corrected item-total correlation was then examined for the remaining
items, of which 19 were discarded following the correlation <0.25 (Likert 1932).
The remaining items 72 were subjected to further analysis. A principal component
factor analysis with varimax rotation was applied on the retained items.
An exploratory factor analysis with extraction technique of principal component
analysis and varimax rotation was applied. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy (KMO-MSA) was 0.82. As discussed in Chap. 2, the cut-off
for KMO-MSA and eigenvalues was acceptable, therefore the factor solution was
acceptable. Eigen values were observed to be greater than 2 for 6 factors whereas
they were greater than 1 for 9 factors. Items with factor loadings less than 0.40 were
suppressed, whereas those with factor loadings greater than 0.40 were retained.
Four items were deleted at this stage as they had no factor loadings and were thus,
considered redundant. Twenty items were found to be having secondary loadings.
However, it was decided to retain these items considering the highly correlated
factors of the construct. The dimension reduction and factor analysis resulted in a
pool of 68 items. Two items had similar meaning, so to avoid repetition, one item
was deleted. Thus, the scale consisted of 67 items. These 67 items were retested in
Phase 2.
Phase 2
Participants
The data were recollected on the final pool of 67 items generated in phase 1. There
were 755 participants. However, data of 21 participants was deleted since they did
not provide demographic details as well as missing values was higher. Analysis was
employed on a sample of 734 participants (Males = 317; Females = 417) with age
range 17–30 years (Mean = 21.82 years; SD = 3.09 years).
pants was 21.76 years (SD = 3.20). Vedic Personality Inventory (Wolf 1998) and
The Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010) was administered for validity.
Procedure
All the participants were given a booklet that contained a consent form, demo-
graphic information sheet (age, sex, educational qualification, occupation and
marital status), new spirituality scale, vedic personality scale, and the flourishing
scale. The data were collected online and offline both.
Measures for Validity
1. Vedic Personality Inventory (Wolf 1998) consists of 56 items that are measured
on a 7-point Likert-type rating scale. There are 15 Sattva items, 19 Rajas items,
and 22 Tamas items; with higher scores indicating a greater predominance of the
guna. Dasa (1999) found the original measure to have an alpha reliability as
follows: Sattva: a = 0.93, Rajas: a = 0.94, Tamas: a = 0.94, whereas in the
current study Sattva a = 0.89, Rajas a = 0.85, and Tamas a = 0.92.
2. Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010)—This is an 8-item scale that provides a
single measure of the positive human functioning. The scale measures how an
individual views himself in areas pertaining to relationships, self-esteem, pur-
pose, and optimism. The answers are made on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores can range from 8 (strong dis-
agreement with all items) to 56 (Strong agreement with all items). A high score
on the scale may show that respondents have a positive self-image in important
areas of functioning. The scale was found to have good psychometric properties,
with Cronbach’s a higher than 0.80 (Diener et al. 2010). In a recent research
Silva and Caetano (2013) confirmed high reliability 0.78 on university students
and present study obtained a = 0.93.
The data were coded and analyzed using the SPSS 15.0 version and LISREL 8.8
version. The data were screened for minimum and maximum values for each of the
psychometric scales and the new spirituality scale. The SPSS preliminary frequency
output was analyzed for missing values. Frequency analysis for each item indicated
that responses for each item had scores within the range. The percentage for all
items on psychometric test and for 67 items of spirituality scale were under 5 % and
random in nature. One item in VPI scale had missing values more than 5 % and
hence the item was deleted from the scale for further analysis. Remaining missing
values were replaced with series means. The exploratory factor analysis and con-
firmatory factor analysis was conducted for the new Spirituality scale.
Results
The criterion for item retention discussed in Chap. 2 for mean, SD, skeweness,
kurtosis, and item-total correlation were calculated. The mean (2.72–3.96), SD
(1.22–1.25), skeweness (−0.93 to 0.15), and kurtosis (−0.85 to 0.23) were within
acceptable range, hence no item was deleted on this basis. Thus, all 67 items were
subjected to exploratory factor analysis.
The data were split into one-third (one subsample) and two-third (Second sub-
sample) parts for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The two parts were
counterbalanced for gender and age. A t-test was conducted to confirm that both the
subsamples were balanced. The results of the t-test (Age: t = −0.10, p = 0.89;
Gender: t = −0.05, p = 0.92) were not significant hence indicating that both the
parts were equal. The one-third of the sample consisted of 245 participants
(Males = 105, Females = 140, Mean = 21.81, SD = 3.07), whereas two-thirds
consisted of 489 (Males = 211, Females = 278, Mean = 21.83, SD = 3.10) par-
ticipants. On one-third of the sample exploratory factor analysis was employed and
on two third of the sample, confirmatory factor analysis was performed (Engelberg
et al. 2013; Gudagnoli and Velicer 1988; MacCallum et al. 1996).
The skeweness and kurtosis demonstrated modest normality patterns and hence
maximum likelihood (ML) for estimation was employed in factor analysis (Russell
indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Different factor solutions
with 6, 5, 4, and 3 factors were evaluated. The 4-factor solution was deemed fit
because it would be theoretically interpreted. The 4-factor solution shared 66.33 %
factor loadings ranged from 0.51 to 0.75. The 4 factor solution was also confirmed
through promax rotation. The communalities values ranged from 0.42 to 0.73.
However, no item was deleted. Since the Eigen value till 4-factor solution was
above 1.19. The Table 6.2 indicates the items and factor loadings. The total
Cronbach’s alpha for the 29 items was 0.96.
Factor 1-Connection with Transcendent: This 13 items factor broadly looks at
relationship with transcendent, i.e., something beyond the human plane, connection
with a higher power. It includes items dealing with one’s connection with a higher
power, seeking guidance, and deriving inner strength. The items that come under
this construct are “I get personal strength and support from a Higher Power,” “I
have a personally meaningful relationship with a higher Power,” “I feel like I have
inner spiritual strength,” “I seek spiritual guidance in making decisions in my
everyday life,” etc.
Table 6.2 Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization for new spirituality scale
Sr. No. Original Statements Connection Meaningful Faith Practicing
item no. with life spirituality
transcendent
1. 57 I have a personally 0.72
meaningful
relationship with a
higher power
2. 59 I belief that my 0.72
connection to a
spiritual being helps
me to get through
hard times
3. 58 I feel like I have inner 0.69
spiritual strength.
4. 62 Spirituality helps me 0.69
discover a sense of
identity
5. 64 Spirituality helps me 0.67
discover the joys in
life
6. 63 I experience a 0.65
spiritual dimension
that gives me strength
and love
(continued)

transcendent
7. 60 I belief that my 0.64
connection to a
spiritual being helps
me to tolerate stress
8. 66 I seek spiritual 0.61
guidance in making
decisions in my
everyday life
9. 67 My spiritual beliefs 0.60
continue to evolve
10. 61 I am a spiritual person 0.60
11. 56 At times, I feel at one 0.60
with the universe
12. 65 I often mention 0.58
spiritual matters in
my discussion with
my family or friends
13. 55 I use silence to get in 0.51
touch with myself
14. 1 I find meaning in my 0.75
life experiences
15. 2 I have a sense of 0.74
purpose
16. 5 I have feelings of 0.73
inspiration in my life
17. 3 I am happy about the 0.72
person I have become
18. 6 I have a reason for 0.72
living
19. 7 I feel a sense of 0.69
purpose in my life
20. 45 My faith in a Higher 0.64
Power helps me cope
during challenges in
my life
21. 44 My spirituality gives 0.58
me inner strength
22. 29 I believe in a Higher 0.57
Power/Universal
intelligence
23. 48 I feel thankful for my 0.54
blessings
(continued)

transcendent
24. 40 I feel prayers really 0.51
change what happens
25. 14 I prefer to attend 0.63
various programs on
spirituality
26. 10 Meditation helps me 0.63
feel more in touch
with my inner spirit
27. 12 Maintaining my 0.61
spirituality is a
priority for me
28. 11 My spirituality is 0.58
especially important
to me because it
answers many
questions about the
meaning of life
29. 8 Spirituality helps me 0.52 0.52
to develop my
connection with
nature
Eigen value 13.93 2.72 1.39 1.19
% of variance 48.04 9.39 4.81 4.10
a 0.95 0.89 0.87 0.87
Factor 2-Meaningful Life: The second factor that emerged during factor analysis
was of meaningful life. A total of 5 items, this construct indicates how spirituality
lends meaning to one’s life. This was evident from items present under this con-
struct “I find meaning in my life experiences,” “I have a reason for living,” “I feel a
sense of purpose in my life,” etc.
Factor 3-Faith: The third dimension that emerged was faith. This factor has total
of 5 factors which look at how one’s believes and faith is affected by spirituality.
Some of the items that define this dimension are “My beliefs help me to feel that I
am not alone,” “My faith guides my whole approach to life,” “My faith enables me
to experience forgiveness when I act against my moral conscience,” “My faith is
often a deeply emotional experience,” etc.
Factor 4-Practicing Spirituality: This 5 items construct looks at the sense of
comfort an individual derives from spirituality. It includes statements such as “I find
comfort in my faith or spiritual beliefs,” “I prefer to attend various programs on
spirituality,” “Prayer is an integral part of my spiritual nature,” “Frequently med-

itating or praying gives a sense of inner peace,” “My spirituality is a significant part
of my life,” etc.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on the two-third data

(n = 489) using LISREL 8.8. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) was reported to be
(CFI) was 0.98, and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) was 0.07.
Table 6.3 indicates a moderate model fit for new Spirituality scale. Further Fig. 6.1
indicates the domain factor loadings for CFA.
Concurrent Validity
The Concurrent validity of the spirituality scale was established by correlating the
factors on the spirituality scale with the other constructs of well-being, namely VPI
and Flourishing. There were 498 participants who filled the construct validity
questionnaires along with new spirituality scale. VPI, Sattva emerged to be posi-
tively correlated with spirituality (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), whereas Rajas was signifi-
cantly positively correlated with spirituality (r = 0.10, p < 0.05). The flourishing
scale showed significant positive correlations (p < 0.01) with all the four factors of
spirituality as well as with the overall spirituality (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) (Table 6.4).
Study 2
phase was to collect data on the new spirituality scale as well as the validity scale,
i.e., Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF Keyes 2009) and Flourishing
Scale (FS, Diener et al. 2010). All the scales were translated in Hindi. Both scales
Table 6.3 Goodness of fit statistics for tests of factorial validity for new spirituality scale
Measures df Chi-square NNFI CFI RMSEA GFI df/chi-square
Spirituality 371 1246.19 0.98 0.98 0.07 0.85 3.36
Note df Degrees of freedom; NNFI Non-Normed fit index; CFI Comparative fit index; RMSEA
Root mean square error approximation; GFI Goodness of fit index
Fig. 6.1 Factor loadings for new spirituality scale

Table 6.4 Pearson’s correlational analysis between the four factors of spirituality, VPI and
flourishing scale
Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Connection 1
with
transcendent
2. Meaningful 0.87** 1
life
3. Faith 0.55** 0.66** 1
4. Practicing 0.81** 0.84** 0.59** 1
spirituality
5. Total 0.93** 0.97** 0.72** 0.91** 1
spirituality
6. Sattva 0.32** 0.58** 0.38** 0.34** 0.46** 1
7. Rajas 0.15** −0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10* 0.23** 1
8. Tamas 0.03 −0.28** −0.11** −0.01 −0.07 −0.12** 0.74** 1
9. Flourishing 0.34** 0.58** 0.35** 0.33** 0.45** 0.70** 0.04 −0.21** 1
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
have been validated in Hindi in Indian setting (Singh 2014). It was hypothesized
that MHC-SF and FS would be positively correlated with spirituality and its factors.
Participants
of participants were undergraduates, 44 % were graduates, and 36 % were post
marital status.
Procedure
newly developed spirituality scale, Flourishing scale, and MHC-SF. The items that
were confirmed in the phase 2 of the study were translated into Hindi. The bilingual
experts back translated the scales into English. This was done to verify the content
similarity to the original scale and to ensure that translated tests were true copy of
the original tests. The discrepancies were resolved and the test was once again
verified by the author and bilingual experts. All the scales were administered in
Hindi to the participants.
Measures
The following instruments were used to evaluate the newly developed spirituality
scale’s validity.
Newly Developed Spirituality Scale has 29 items representing four factors
namely; Connection with Transcendence (a = 0.91), Meaningful Life (a = 0.63),
Faith (a = 0.64) and Practicing Spirituality (a = 0.80). The total Cronbach alpha
was 0.94.
Mental Health Continuum (MHC-SF; Keyes 2009) In the present study the
reliability values were acceptable for EWB (a = 0.82), PWB (a = 0.79), SWB
(a = 0.80) and total for MHC-SF (a = 0.81).
Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010) The scale has good psychometric prop-
erties, with Cronbach’s a higher than 0.80 (Diener et al. 2010). In the present study
Cronbach alpha obtained a = 0.91.
Results
The data were analyzed similarly as study 1, phase 2. The mean and SD ranged
from 2.29 to 3.79 and 0.52–1.04 respectively. The skewness (−1.29 to 1.69) and
kurtosis (−1.01 to 1.19) were within acceptable range. Even though SD was less, as
per criteria discussed in Chap. 2, all other parameters demonstrated acceptable
properties. The items were considered to be of theoretical importance in the scale as
well so scale was tested further.
mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.08 and v2/d.f. = 4.31. Further
Fig. 6.2 indicates the domain factor loadings.
Concurrent Validity
The overall scale reliability was 0.93. The criterion validity of the spirituality scale
was established just like phase 2. The results indicated significant correlations
ranging from r = 0.15 to r = 0.47. Table 6.5 indicates the correlation between new
spirituality scale and the well-being measures.
Norms for the New Spirituality Scale
set. Gender difference was observed for factor 2 (t(1035) = −7.36, p < 0.01), factor
3 (t(1035) = −5.07, p < 0.01), factor 4 (t(1035) = −6.24, p < 0.01) and total score
Norms for the New Spirituality Scale 147
Fig. 6.2 Factors loadings for

the Hindi spirituality scale
Table 6.5 Correlation between new spirituality scale and mental health and flourishing scale
Connection with Meaningful Faith Practicing Spirituality
transcendence life spirituality total
EWB 0.19** 0.27** 0.15** 0.18** 0.22**
SWB 0.41** 0.30** 0.33** 0.38** 0.41**
PWB 0.40** 0.44** 0.41** 0.40** 0.46**
MHC 0.44** 0.43** 0.39** 0.42** 0.47**
total
FS 0.32** 0.42** 0.33** 0.32** 0.38**
(t(1035) = −6.03, p < 0.01). The females possessed higher mean on factor 2
(M = 48.59), factor 3 (M = 26.97), factor 4 (M = 29.23) and total score
(M = 154.25) as compared to males (factor 2M = 37.58, factor 3M = 24.02, factor
4M = 24.53, total score M = 134.20).
When the data were split for English and Hindi, it was noted that gender dif-
ferences was present in English data and Hindi data. Hindi participants differed
significantly on factor 1 (t(545) = 3.09, p < 0.01), factor 3 (t(545) = 2.94,
p < 0.01), factor 4 (t(545) = 3.26, p < 0.01) and total score (t(545) = 2.97,
p < 0.01). Males (factor 1M = 46.30; factor 3M = 18.92; factor 4M = 18.01; total
score M = 105.83) possessed higher mean scores as compared to females (factor
1M = 43.40; factor 3M = 17.69; factor 4M = 16.79; total score M = 100.01). On
the other hand, English participants differed on factor 1 (t(488) = −2.04, p < 0.05),
factor 2 (t(488) = −2.80, p < 0.01), factor 4 (t(488) = −2.66, p < 0.01) and total
score (t(488) = −2.56, p < 0.01). It was observed that on the English data set,
females (factor 1 M = 53.84; factor 2M = 67.64; factor 4M = 38.21; total score
M = 193.36) possessed higher mean score as compared to the males (factor
1M = 51.13; factor 2M = 63.48; factor 4M = 35.81.; total score M = 183.28).
The participants were divided into two groups (< 30 and > 30) for exploring the
difference of age group on spirituality. Hindi speaking participants differed sig-
nificantly from each other on factor 1 (t(546) = −2.29, p < 0.05), factor 2
(t(546) = −2.22, p < 0.05), factor 3 (t(546) = −3.24, p < 0.01), factor 4
(t(546) = −2.52, p < 0.01) and total score (t(546) = −2.79, p < 0.01). Participants
in the age group of > 30 years (factor 1M = 46.62; factor 2M = 23.08; factor
3M = 19.34; factor 4M = 18.17; total score M = 107.21) possessed higher mean as
compared to the < 30 years (factor 1M = 44.41; factor 2M = 22.10; factor
3M = 17.96; factor 4M = 17.20; total score M = 101.67). No significant difference
was observed for English speaking participants. However, when data were com-
bined for Hindi and English participants on age group, it was observed that par-
ticipants differed significantly on factor 2 (t(1044) = 9.56, p < 0.01), factor 3
(t(1044) = 7.39, p < 0.01), factor 4 (t(1044) = 8.09, p < 0.01) and total score
(t(1044) = 7.80, p < 0.01). The participants who were in <30 years age group
possessed higher mean (factor 2M = 46.84; factor 3M = 26.65; factor 4M = 28.50;
total score M = 151.14) as compared to the >30 years age group (factor
2M = 29.82; factor 3M = 21.51; factor 4M = 21.22; total score M = 120.06).
Norms for the New Spirituality Scale 149
Discussion
The current study was undertaken with the purpose of developing and validating a
new measure of spirituality for the Indian youth. The new measure developed by
the authors underwent various stages of rigorous analysis, after which this 29 items
scale with adequate psychometric properties was developed. The reliability value of
the new measure is 0.98. The current study has further have defined spirituality as a
multidimensional construct, constituting of 4 factors, explaining 62.41 % variance.
The four factors that constitute spirituality in the Indian context were: Factor
1-Connection with transcendent, Factor 2-Meaningful Life, Factor 3-Faith, Factor
4-Practicing Spirituality. Fisher (2011) presented four domains of spiritual
well-being, of which one of them was the transcendental domain. Other researchers
have also reported transcendence as one of the domains of spirituality (Elkins et al.
1988; Dhar et al. 2011). In a review of literature on spirituality of the last 10 years,
Vachon et al. (2009) reported 11 dimensions for the concept of end-of-life spiri-
tuality namely: meaning and purpose, self-transcendence, transcendence with a
higher being, feelings of communion and mutuality, beliefs and faith, hope, attitude
toward death, appreciation of life, reflection upon fundamental values, the devel-
opmental nature of spirituality, and its conscious aspect. Among the many
dimensions of well-being relevant to spirituality, meaning in life was argued as one
of the most relevant (Graham and Haidt 2010; Ysseldyk et al. 2010). According to
Damon et al. (2003) the elements of “meaning in life” include the motivation to
search for meaning in one’s life, actively comprehending and making sense of prior
events and possible futures, and the intention to accomplish something that is at
once meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self.
Peterson and Seligman (2004) postulated that although there are many paths to
meaning in life, spirituality offers a seemingly explicit means for people to commit
to something larger than oneself. The fourth factor “practicing spirituality” finds
commonality with a 4-factor model suggested by Parsian and Dunning (2009), in
which one of the factors was spiritual practices.
The current study had also hypothesized a positive association between the new
measure of spirituality with Vedic Personality Inventory (VPI, Wolf 1998) and
Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010). A significant positive correlation was found
between the new measure of spirituality with the other two standardized tests. The
four factors of spirituality also showed significant correlation with each other as
well as with the overall spirituality score. Additionally Hindi version of spirituality
scale was found correlated with MHC-SF and its dimensions. Thus, the new
measure of spirituality is a reliable measure with adequate psychometric properties.
It is an easy to use and a valid instrument for assessing spirituality.
References
Agustin-Perez, J. (2012). The validation of the marital spirituality scale. International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity, 2(4), 296.
Astrow, A., Puchalski, C., & Sulmasy, D. (2001). Religion, spirituality, and health care: social,
ethical, and practical considerations. American Journal of Medicine, 110, 283–287.
Avila, F. M. (2014). Self-esteem, spirituality, and acculturation and their relationship with
depression in latinos (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from digitalcommons.du.edu
Berry, D. M., & York, K. (2011). Depression and religiosity and/or spirituality in college: A
longitudinal survey of students in the USA. Nursing & Health Sciences, 13(1), 76–83.
Burkhardt, M. A. (1989). Spirituality: An analysis of the concept. Holistic Nursing Practice, 3(3),
69–77.
Burkhardt, M. A. (1993). Characteristics of spirituality in the lives of women in a rural
Appalachian community. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 4(2), 12–18.
Chakraborty, S. K. (1987). Managerial effectiveness and quality of work life: Indian insights. New
Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.
Cook, S. W., Borman, P. D., Moore, M., & Kunkel, M. A. (2000). College students’ perceptions of
spiritual people and religious people. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 28, 125–137.
Coyle, J. (2002). Spirituality and health: towards a framework for exploring the relationship
between spirituality and health. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(6), 589–597.
Daaleman, T. P., Frey, B. B., Wallace, D., & Studenski, S. A. (2002b). The spirituality index of
wellbeing: Development and testing of a new measure (Unpublished).
Daaleman, T. P. & Frey, B. B. (2004). The Spirituality Index of Well-Being: A new instrument for
health-related quality of life research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2, 499–503.
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Cotton Bronk, K. (2003). The development of purpose during
adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128.
Dasa, D. G. (1999). The vedic personality inventory. An analysis of the gunas. Retrieved from
Bhaktivedantacollege.org
Dasti, R., & Sitwat, A. (2014). Development of a multidimensional measure of islamic spirituality
(MMS). Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 8(2), 47–67.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L, Jr., Hook, J. N., & Hill, P. C. (2013). Research on
religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, 5(4), 233.
Dehkhoda, A., Bahmani, B., Dadkhah, A., Naghiyaee, M., Alimohamadi, F., & Goudarzipour, K.
(2013). Spiritually-oriented cognitive therapy in reduction of depression symptoms in mothers
of children with cancer. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal, 11(17), 53–58.
Del Rio, C., & White, L. (2012). Separating spirituality from religiosity: A hylomorphic attitudinal
perspective. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 123–142.
Delaney, C. (2003). Spirituality: Development, refinement, and psychometric testing of an
instrument to assess the human spiritual dimension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
References 151
Dennis, J. M., Calvillo, E., & Gonzalez, A. (2008). The role of psychosocial variables in
understanding the achievement of retention of transfer students at an ethnically diverse urban
university. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 535–550.
Derezotes, D. S. (1995). Spiritual and religious factors in practice: Empirically based
recommendations for social work education. Arete, 20(1), 1–15.
Dhar, N., Chaturvedi, S., & Nandan, D. (2011). Spiritual health scale 2011: Defining and
measuring 4th dimension of health. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 36(4), 275–282.
D’Souza, R. (2002). Do patients expect psychiatrists to be interested in spiritual issues?
Australasian Psychiatry, 10(1), 44–47.
Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., & Saunders, C. (1988). Toward a
humanistic-phenomenological spirituality. Journal of Humanist Psychology, 28, 5–18.
Engelberg, P. M., Singer, S., Bhaskaran, K., Brähler, E., & Glaesmer, H. (2013). Validation of the
scale for the assessment of illness behavior (SAIB) in a community sample of elderly people.
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 56(1), 175–180.
Fisher, J. (2011). The four domains model: connecting spirituality, health and well-being.
Religions, 2, 17–28.
Flynn, P. M., Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Simpson, D. D., & Brown, B. S. (2003). Recovery from
opioid addiction in DATOS. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25, 177–186.
Francis, L. J., & Kaldor, P. (2002). The relationship between psychological well-being and
Christian faith and practice in an Australian population sample. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 41(1), 179–184.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,
693–727.
Furman, L. D., & Chandy, J. M. (1994). Religion and spirituality: A long-neglected cultural
component of rural social work practice. Human Services in the Rural Environment, 17(3/4),
21–26.
Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral
communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 140–150.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component
patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265–275.
Guia, C.-A. (2011). The use of spiritually integrated interventions among bahá’í mental health
practitioners. Doctorate in Social Work (DSW) Dissertations. Paper 31.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). The initial development and factor analysis of the Spiritual
Assessment Inventory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24, 233–246.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2002). The Spiritual Assessment Inventory: A theistic model and
measure for assessing spiritual development. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2),
341–357.
Hodge, D. R. (2011). Alcohol treatment and cognitive-behavioral therapy: enhancing effectiveness
by incorporating spirituality and religion. Social Work, 56(1), 21–31.
Hodge, D. R., & Derezotes, D. S. (2008). Postmodernism and spirituality: Some pedagogical
implications for teaching content on spirituality. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(1),
103–123.
Hodge, D. R., & McGrew, C. C. (2005). Clarifying the distinctions and connections between
spirituality and religion. Social Work & Christianity, 32(1), 1–21.
Huber, J. T., & MacDonald, D. A. (2012). An investigation of the relation between altruism,
empathy, and spirituality. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 52(2), 206–221.
Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences.
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 1, 137–164.
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. (2009). What percentage of people in Europe are flourishing and what
characterises them? Briefing document for the OECD/ISQOLS meeting “Measuring subjective
well-being: an opportunity for NSOs?” 23/24 July, 2009, Florence, Italy.
Hwang, C., Dietz, B. L., & Sly, H. (2013). Forgiveness and spirituality. The Research and
Scholarship Symposium. Dixon Ministry Center, Room 102. Retrieved from http://works.
bepress.com/chi-en_hwang/85
Ingersoll, R. E. (1994). Spirituality, religion, and counseling: Dimensions and relationships.

Counseling and Values, 38, 98–112.
Joshanloo, M. (2011). Investigation of the contribution of spirituality and religiousness to hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being in Iranian young adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(6),
915–930.
Kashdan, T. B., & Nezlek, J. B. (2012). Questionnaires to understanding daily process whether,
when, and how is spirituality related to well-being? Moving beyond single occasion.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(11), 1523–1535.
Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 207–222.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete
state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.
Khan, M. A., Shirazi, M., & Ahmad, M. (2011). Spirituality and life satisfaction among
adolescents in india. Journal of Sub Continent Researches, 3(7), 71–84.
King, D. B., & DeCicco, T. L. (2009). A viable model and self-report measure of spiritual
intelligence. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28(1), 68–85.
King, M., Jones, L., Barnes, K., Low, J., Walker, C., Wilkinson, S., ... & Tookman, A. (2006).
Measuring spiritual belief: development and standardization of a Beliefs and Values Scale.
Psychological medicine, 36(03), 417–425.
Kinjerski, V., & Skrypnek, B. J. (2006, August). Measuring the intangible: development of the
spirit at work scale. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2006, No. 1, pp. A1-A6).
Academy of Management.
Knox, D., Langehough, S. O., Walters, C., & Rowley, M. (1998). Religiosity and spirituality
among college students. College Student Journal, 32(2), 430–432.
Koenig, H. G. (2008). Religion and mental health: what should psychiatrists do? Psychiatric
Bulletin, 32, 201–203.
Koenig Harold, G., McCullough Michael, E., & Larson David, B. (2001). Handbook of religion
and health (Vol. 1, pp. 276–291). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Krause, N., & Hayward, R. D. (2013). Trust-Based prayer expectancies and health among older
mexican Americans. Journal of Religion and Health, 53(2), 591–603.
Kuo, B. C., Arnold, R., & Rodriguez-Rubio, B. (2014). Mediating effects of coping in the link
between spirituality and psychological distress in a culturally diverse undergraduate sample.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 17(2), 173–184.
Kumar, K. (2006). Spirituality and well-being: Hindu perspectives. Centre for spirituality and
health, University of Florida. http://www.spiritualityandhealth.ufl.edu/events/details_past_
event.asp?id=1071
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
MacDonald, M. (2005). Spirituality. The Encyclopedia of Religion, 8718–8712.
of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
Mahoney, J., Gina, M., & Graci, M. (1999). The meanings and correlates of spirituality:
Suggestions from an exploratory survey of experts. Death Studies, 23(6), 521–528.
Manning, L. K. (2013). Navigating hardships in old age exploring the relationship between
spirituality and resilience in later life. Qualitative Health Research, 1049732312471730.
Mascaro, N., Rosen, D. H., & Morey, L. C. (2004). The development, construct validity, and
clinical utility of the spiritual meaning scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
845–860.
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.
McIntosh, D., & Spilka, B. (1990). Religion and physical health. Research in the Social Scientific
Study of Religion, 2, 167–194.
Mohr, W. (2006). Spiritual issues in psychiatric care. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 42(3),
174–183.
References 153
Mueller, P. S., Plevak, D. J., & Rummans, T. A. (2001, December). Religious involvement,
spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice. In Mayo clinic proceedings (Vol.
76, No. 12, pp. 1225–1235). Elsevier.
Oana, N., & Anca, M. (2009). Understanding spirituality an exploratory study on romanian youth
and new methodological directions. European Journal of Science and Theology, 5(4), 53–66.
Offenbächer, M., Kohls, N., Toussaint, L. L., Sigl, C., Winkelmann, A., Hieblinger, R., &
Büssing, A. (2013). Spiritual needs in patients suffering from fibromyalgia. Evidence-based
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being, and the quality of life.
In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research,
and therapy (pp. 224–237). New York: John Wiley.
Pargament, K. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the
sacred. New York, NY: Guilford.
Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2009). Spirituality: The search for the sacred. In S. J. Lopez &
C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 611–619). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Parsian, N., & Dunning, A. M. (2009). Developing and validating a questionnaire to measure
spirituality: A psychometric process. Burwood Highway: Deakin University, Victoria
Australia.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: a handbook of
classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Piedmont, R. L. (2004). Spiritual transcendence as a predictor of psychosocial outcome from an
outpatient substance abuse program. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 213–222.
Post, S. G., Puchalski, C. M., & Larson, D. B. (2000). Physicians and patient spirituality:
professional boundaries, competency, and ethics. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132(7),
578–583.
Reed, P. G. (1986). Religiousness among terminally ill and healthy adults. Research in Nursing &
Health, 9(1), 35–41.
Richardson, M. A., Sanders, T., Palmer, J. L., Greisinger, A., & Singletary, S. E. (2000).
Complementary/alternative medicine use in a comprehensive cancer center and the implica-
tions for oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18(13), 2505–2514.
Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis
in PSPB. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.
Rye, M. S., Wade, N. G., Fleri, A. M., & Kidwell, J. E. (2013). The role of religion and spirituality
in positive psychology interventions. In K. Pargament (Ed.-in-Chief), A. Mahoney, & E.
Shafranske (Assoc. Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology: APA handbook of psychology,
religion, and spirituality (Vol 2, pp. 481–508). Washington D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Safara, M., Bhatia, M. S., Singh, T. B., & Dezhkam, M. (2012). Comparing the effect of cognitive
therapy and spiritual therapy on depression between iranian students residing in Iran and India.
Delhi Psychiatry Journal, 15(1), 85–98.
Saslow, L. R., John, O. P., Piff, P. K., Willer, R., Wong, E., Impett, E. A., et al. (2013). The social
significance of spirituality: New perspectives on the compassion–altruism
relationship. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3), 201.
Scott, A. B. (1997). Categorizing definitions of religion and spirituality in the psychological
literature: A content analytic approach. Unpublished manuscript.
Seidlitz, L., Abernethy, A. D., Duberstein, P. R., Evinger, J. S., Chang, T. H., & Lewis, B. (2002).
Development of the spiritual transcendence index. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
41, 39–453.
Shafranske, E. P., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Factors associated with the perception of spirituality in
psychotherapy. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(2), 231.
Shek, D. T. L. (2012). Spirituality as a positive youth development construct: A conceptual review.
Scientific World Journal, 1–8.
Silva, A. J., & Caetano, A. (2013). Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of positive and
negative experience in Portugal. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 469–478.
Singh, A. K., & Makkar, S. (2015). Measurement of spirituality: development and validation of a
questionaire. XVI Annual Conference Proceedings January, 2015. http://www.
Internationalconference.in/XVI_AIC/INDEX.HTM
Singh, T., & Premarajan, R. K. (2007). Individual spiritual orientation at work: a conceptualization
and measure. IIM Bangalore Research Paper, (264).
Project Report.
Sperry, L. (2001). Spirituality in clinical practice: Incorporating the spiritual dimension in
psychotherapy and counseling. New York: Brunner/Routledge.
Spilka, B. (1993, August). Spirituality: Problems and directions in operationalizing a fuzzy
concept. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association. Toronto,
Ontario.
Stempel, H. S., Cheston, S. E., Greer, J. M., & Gillespie, C. K. (2006). Further exploration of the
vedic personality inventory: validity, reliability, and generalizability. Psychological Reports,
98(1), 261–273.
The Gallup poll monthly (1992 Dec.) No. 327, pp. 32–39.
Underwood, L. G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The daily spiritual experience scale: development,
theoretical description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct
validity using health-related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 22–33.
Utsey, S. O., Bolden, M. A., Williams, O., Lee, A., Lanier, Y., & Newsome, C. (2007). Spiritual
well-being as a mediator of the relation between culture-specific coping and quality of life in a
community sample of African Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 123–136.
Vachon, M., Fillion, L., & Achille, M. (2009). A conceptual analysis of spirituality at the end of
life. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 12(1), 53–59.
Vespa, A., Jacobsen, P. B., Spazzafumo, L., & Balducci, L. (2011). Evaluation of intrapsychic
factors, coping styles, and spirituality of patients affected by tumors. Psycho-Oncology, 20(1),
5–11.
Weaver, A. J., P., Flannelly, K. J., Case, D. B., & Costa, K. G. (2004). Religion and spirituality in
three major general medical journals from 1998 to 2000. Religion, 97(12).
Weaver, A. J., Pargament, K. I., Flannelly, K. J., & Oppenheimer, J. E. (2006). Trends in the
scientific study of religion, spirituality, and health: 1965–2000. Journal of Religion and Health,
45(2), 208–214.
Westgate, C. E. (1996). Spiritual wellness and depression. Journal of Counseling & Development,
75, 26–35.
variables: Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts,
issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolf, D. B. (1998). The vedic personality inventory: a study of the Gunas. Journal of Indian
Wolf, D. B., & Abell, N. (2003). Examining the effects of meditation techniques on psychosocial
functioning. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(1), 27–42.
Wright, M. (2004). Hospice care and models of spirituality. European Journal of Palliative Care,
11(2), 75–78.
Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an
understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 14(1), 60–71.
Zemore, S. E., & Kaskutas, L. A. (2004). Helping, spirituality, and alcoholics anonymous in
recovery. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(3), 383–391.
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G., et al.
(1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 36, 549–564.
Chapter 7
Well-Being and Its Assessment
Abstract The chapter begins with a brief outline on well-being and its various
facets which are highly correlated with other positive psychology constructs. It then
focuses on various factors which are significantly correlated with well-being.
Various researches related to already existing scales on well-being are documented.
Next it mentions the procedure of development and validation of a new well-being
measure that has been developed by the authors on Indian population. Each phase
has been explained in detail. The chapter concludes with discussion centring on the
newly developed scale and its explanations.
Keywords Well-being
Mental health Psychological well-being Social

well-being Emotional well-being
Introduction
The theoretical and practical implications of well-being need to be investigated

because it influences our practices of governance, teaching, therapy, parenting and
preaching as well as all those endeavors that aim to change humans for the better.
Well-being is a multifaceted construct that concerns with optimal experience and
functioning. Empirical research on well-being is derived from two general per-
spectives: the hedonic approach (focuses on happiness and defines well-being in
terms of pleasure attainment and pain avoidance) and eudaimonic approach (fo-
cuses on meaning and self-realization and measures the degrees to which a person is
fully functioning) (Ryan and Deci 2001).
In the field of positive psychology research, understanding and exploring
well-being (psychological, social, and emotional) of different sections of society has
become a central focus with an aim to enhance people’s quality of life (Diener et al.
1999; Kahneman et al. 1999; Linley et al. 2009). Well-being represents broader
bio-psycho-social construct that includes physical, mental, and social well-being,
and it is more than mere avoidance of becoming physically sick (Tehrani,

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_7
156 7 Well-Being and Its Assessment
Humpage, Willmott and Haslam 2011). Well-being has been defined in several
ways such as “ability to fulfil goals” (Foresight Mental Capital and Well-being
Project 2008), “as happiness” (Pollard and Lee 2003), “as life satisfaction” (Diener
and Suh 1998; Seligman 2002) and “state of being comfortable, healthy or happy”
(Shah and Marks 2004). Well-being entails feeling satisfied and happy so that
individuals would effectively contribute toward the community.
As discussed earlier, well-being is based on two traditions namely; hedonic
tradition (deals with the feelings of happiness) and eudemonic (refers to optimal
functioning in individual and social life). The hedonic tradition is also known as
subjective well-being that comprises of emotions or affect (a balance between
positive and negative affect) and cognitive components (judgements about one’s life
satisfaction) (Linely et al. 2009; Diener et al. 1999). On the other hand, the
eudemonic tradition is also known as psychological well-being that was initially
conceptualized by Ryff (1989) having six dimensions (self-acceptance, personal
growth, purpose in life, positive relations with others, autonomy, and environmental
mastery) based on the work of humanistic and lifespan psychologists such as Jung,
Maslow, Allport, Rogers, and Erikson (Lamers et al. 2011). Different researchers
have proposed different theoretical models, conceptual operationalization and body
of science supporting the hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being. For
example Keyes (2002) conceptualized well-being as positive affect, purpose in life,
self-acceptance, social contribution, social integration, social growth, social
acceptance, social coherence, environmental mastery, personal growth, autonomy,
and life satisfaction; Huppert and So (2013) stated that well-being comprised of
engagement, meaning, self-esteem, positive emotion, competence, optimism,
emotional stability, vitality, and resilience; Diener et al. (2010) conceptualized
well-being as engagement, purpose and meaning, self-acceptance and self-esteem,
competence, optimism and social contribution whereas Seligman et al.
(2011) proposed that well-being comprised of positive emotion, engagement,
relationships, meaning and purpose, and accomplishment/competence (PERMA).
All the models of well-being converge on two points; first that well-being refers to
high level of subjective well-being and second, well-being is a multidimensional
construct that cannot be adequately measured using single-item assessment (Hone
et al. 2014).
Several other researchers too have theoretically conceptualized or operational-
ized well-being as self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2002), quality of life
(QOL) or positive organizational behavior (POB) (Luthans 2002). Ryan and Deci
(2002) proposed a self-determination theory (SDT) that represents a broad frame-
work for the study of human motivation and personality. They also proposed that
the basic psychological needs theory is important from the perspective of under-
standing individual’s well-being since it postulates that psychological well-being
and optimal functioning is predicted on autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Similarly, quality of life is an individual’s perception of their position in life with
respect to culture and value systems in which they live, and in relation to their
Introduction 157
goals, expectations, standards, and concerns (WHO 1994). The WHOQOL

assessment tool measures an individual’s perception with respect to their overall life
satisfaction, physical health, environmental conditions, psychological well-being,
and social relationships (Skevington et al. 2004).
The recent application of positive psychology is observed in the field of orga-
nizational behavior and it is now known as positive organizational behavior (POB).
Luthans (2002) stated POB as “the study and application of positive human
resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed
and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace”
(p. 59). POB research aims at enhancing the knowledge and investigating the
intervention potentials of psychological resources such as hope (Snyder 2002),
resilience (Masten 2001), optimism (Seligman 1998), and self-efficacy (Bandura
1997; Luthans and Youssef 2007). Studies in POB research have allowed to
identify a higher order factor comprising of the four components mentioned above,
and labeled Psychological Capital (PsyCap; Larson, Norman, Hughes and Avey
2013). Luthans, Youssef and Avolio (Luthans and Youssef 2007) stated that
PsyCap is an individual’s positive state of development that is characterized by
self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience that enables one to attain success.
Well-Being in Indian Psychology
As mentioned in Chap. 1, Indian psychology and positive psychology are birds of

the same feather, (Kiran Kumar 2006) but Indian psychology and psychology in
India differ. Psychology in India focuses on the western psychology. Indian psy-
chology is more subjective, experiential, and addressed in first person approach
whereas western psychology is more objective, addressed in third person approach
and is quantitatively measurable. The western well-being models of hedonic and
eudaimonic (Ryan and Deci 2001) limit to bio-psycho-social aspects of human
nature whereas the spiritual or transcendent perspective of the Upanishads
approaches the subject matter in terms of the dimensions of consciousness and self
and encompass bio-psycho-social and spiritual aspects Kiran Kumar (2006); (Singh
et al. 2013).
For example WHO’s definition recognizes the various levels of human existence
and not as a merely physical body. This view goes hand in hand with the notion of
human existence in terms of five sheaths (koshas). In the text of Taittiriya
Upanishada, it states that happiness, joy, and well-being are the moments when there
is unobstructed manifestation of bliss (Ananda) which is an individual’s true nature. It
is the opaqueness of mental abilities that does not allow manifestation or experience
of Ananda. Tamas guna is the principle that governs inertia, dullness, darkness,
depression, and it is responsible for opaqueness. However, on the other hand Sattva
guna is the principle that is responsible for brightness, illumination, and transparency.
Therefore, greater the extent of Sattva guna, greater is the experience of Ananda
(Kiran Kumar 2003; Dalal and Misra 2006). Thus, as discussed in this section and
Chap. 1, Indian psychology too lays emphasis on well-being; hence making it more
essential to identify the different facets of well-being for Indian population.
Correlates and Predictors of Well-Being
Well-being has been correlated with various constructs, for instance a positive
correlation was reported between spiritual perspective and psychological well-being
(Gibson and Parker 2003); it was reported in a South African study that people who
engaged more frequently in physical exercise perceived themselves as having more
autonomy, personal growth, environmental mastery, purpose in life, positive rela-
tions with others, self-acceptance, sport competence, and conditioning than
non-exercisers (Edwards et al. 2005). Singh and Mansi (2009) reported positive
self-efficacy, optimistic attitude, and locus of control as predictors of well-being. In
a study on psychological well-being among Pakistani immigrants in Canada, Jibeen
and Khalid (2010) reported factors associated with higher positive functioning.
These were a lower level of acculturative stress, greater sense of coherence, use of
problem-focused strategies, a higher level of perceived social support and the
demographic variable like higher perceived income comfort level. On the other
hand, the authors reported higher level of acculturative stress, lower sense of
coherence, use of emotion-focused strategies, low perceived social support, and
demographic variables including low perceived income, comfort level, nonrelevant
jobs, and younger age of participants’ children to be associated with negative
mental health outcomes. Optimism has also been found as a predictor of well-being
in a study on older adults aged 65–94 years (Ferguson and Goodwin 2010).
Findings from a study on corporate professionals revealed the positive role of
optimism and life satisfaction in predicting psychological well-being even in times
of recession (Mittal and Mathur 2011). Meaning in life emerged as a significant
predictor of well-being (García-Alandete et al. 2013). In an Indian study on ado-
lescents, it was observed that positive mental health was predicted by flourishing,
positive affective, physical health, psychological well-being, social relationships,
and environmental health (Singh and Junnarkar 2015).
The World Happiness Report (2015) reported country’s GDP, social support
(having someone to count on in times of trouble), healthy life expectancy, freedom
to make life choices, generosity, perceptions of corruption, positive effect and
negative effect as important predictors of happiness and well-being. Furthermore,
the report mentioned six positive (happiness, smiling and laughter, enjoyment, well
rested, feeling safe at night, interest) and six negative experiences (anger, worry,
sadness, depression, stress, pain) with respect to gender, age, and region. Happiness
varies less as compared to life evaluations across regions and declines over the age
especially for women. Laughter, enjoyment, and finding something of interest
decline over age but were high in both genders. The report indicated that social
Correlates and Predictors of Well-Being 159
capital (extent of trust, social support networks, pro-sociality in a society) correlated

globally with interpersonal trust, social support systems, individual generosity,
honesty in governance, and societies with high social capital outperform those with
low social capital in terms of subjective well-being and economic development.
Several other studies have added more factors, therefore, it seems that well-being is
a part of a web which is interacting with various factors.
Demographic Variables and Well-Being
Well-being can be affected by various demographic variables. However, studies

have demonstrated mixed results on various demographic factors such as gender,
age, locality etc.
Gender Differences
Roothman et al. (2003a, b) reported gender differences with respect to various aspects
of well-being. Consistent with global trends (Ustun et al. 2004) studies in India tend
to find higher rates of depression and anxiety among young women compared to
young men (Bhatia and Dey 2011). Research suggests that these disparities are
explained by socialized, rather than biological, gender differences. Disproportionate
experience with depression and anxiety symptoms between adolescent girls and
young women in India may be reinforced by a higher burden of household stressors
coupled with fewer opportunities for recreation, socialization, and personal
achievement compared to adolescent boys and young men (Piccinelli and Wilkinson
2000; Bakhla et al. 2013). Similarly, Daalen, Sanders, and Williemsen (2005)
reported better health and higher levels of PWB in men in comparison to women.
Contrary to above findings, in two recent Indian studies, Singh et al. (2014) and Singh
and Junnarkar (2015) found that North Indian female adolescents possessed better
personal well-being and quality of life as compared with male adolescents. A similar
trend was also reported in a Spanish study (García-Alandete et al. 2013) in which
women scored higher in global psychological well-being, environmental mastery,
personal growth, and purpose in life as compared to men. Perez (2012a, b) explored
gender differences among Filipino college students, in various aspects of well-being.
Gender differences were reported for daily spiritual experience, father relationship,
peer relationship, autonomy, positive relations with others, and purpose in life. The
study did not report gender difference for positive affect, negative affect, mother
relationship, teacher relationship, environmental mastery, personal growth, and
self-acceptance. No significant gender differences in religiosity and psychological
well-being were found in a study on Muslim Asians by Hafeez and Rafique (2013).
Hence, it seems that gender is a significant variable to understand well-being but with
no decisive trend and studies have revealed diversified results.
Age
Age has been revealed as a significant factor for well-being in various researches.
For instance, Heidrich (1993) revealed that older age was related to lower levels of
purpose in life, personal growth, and positive relationships. In an Australian study
(Lee 2010) health habits of women from three different age groups were studied
with regard to their well-being. Women in the youngest age group had highest
levels of psychological distress as compared to the middle aged and older women
who reported vasomotor symptoms and difficulties with memory and concentration;
and the difficulty in sleeping, respectively. An Indian study (Dhara and Jogsan
2013) looked at the well-being of the adults (age range of 20–59 years) and the
aged (aged 60 years and above). Results revealed a significantly higher level of
psychological well-being in the adults as compared to the aged. In Indian adoles-
cents it was observed as age increased their quality of life (Singh and Junnarkar
2014), personal well-being (Singh et al. 2014), and mental health declined (Singh
et al. 2015) whereas depression and stress increased with age among adolescents
(Singh et al. 2015). Hence, studies indicate that as age increases well-being and its
associated positive dimensions score decreases whereas the score on negative
dimension increases. In future, a study across developmental age group can be
undertaken to investigate the relationship between age and well-being.
Work Status
Unemployed individuals reportedly had lower levels of psychological and physical

well-being in comparison to their employed counterparts (Ryan et al. 2005).
Further, the authors of this study also reported that among the unemployed sample,
more than human capital or demographic variables, it was work-role centrality,
coping resources (personal, social, financial, and time structure), cognitive
appraisals, and coping strategies that displayed stronger relationships with mental
health. However, (Singh et al. 2014) reported that there was no significant effect of
work status (whether working or housewife) on well-being of rural women but age
and level of education were observed as significant factors for well-being.
Marital Status
Martial status such as single, divorced, widowed, or quality of marriage is observed

to affect psychological well-being. For instance, Kim and McKenry (2002) in their
longitudinal study reported a positive association between marital status and psy-
chological well-being. Pappa (2013) demonstrated that marital status of parents
affected adolescents’ well-being. It was reported that adolescents of divorced
Demographic Variables and Well-Being 161
parents showed a higher rate of internalizing and externalizing problems as well as

poor academic performance.
Apart from the above-mentioned demographic factors, other factors such as
rural-urban place of residence too can affect well-being. In a recently concluded
project on mental health of Indian adolescents, it was observed that rural adoles-
cents have better personal well-being, quality of life, social relationships, and
mental health as compared to their urban counterparts. Urban adolescents were
found to be stressed with high prevalence of depression as compare to rural
counterparts (Singh 2014). Singh et al. (2014) reported that for rural women
residing in Haryana (India), perceived factors such as fulfillment of all basic needs,
socialization, health, interpersonal relationships, and involvement in religious
activities (Satsang-singing religious songs in groups) were identified as facilitators
whereas little or no social support, ill-health, joblessness resultant no income in the
family, and an inactive lifestyle were identified as inhibitors of well-being. The
importance of recreation and its positive effect on physical, mental, psychological,
and social health of rural women has also been documented (Karadag and Akpinar
2003). Therefore, existing literature demonstrates the significance of demographic
variables but without consensus on their trend and need to reveal further.
Existing Scales of Well-Being
Numerous psychometric scales have been validated across age groups to measure
well-being. The early scales of well-being focused on assessing negative constructs
of well-being such as anxiety, depression, and irritability. As the focus of
well-being shifted from identifying what is wrong with people to what is right with
people, the nature of scales too changed. Over the past two decades, the newly
constructed scales measures different dimensions such as personal well-being, life
satisfaction, personal growth, environmental mastery, social well-being, emotional
well-being, psychological well-being, purpose in life, positive relationships with
other etc. The different scales that measure well-being are depicted in the following
Table 7.1 which too highlights the different operationalization and conceptualiza-
tion of well-being by different researchers.
Relevance of Well-Being Scale in Indian Context
For the past two decades, positive psychology research has gained momentum in
India. Several researchers are publishing researches on well-being topic; however,
the main drawback of these studies is lack of scales validation. There is not only
scarcity of well-being scales but also psychometric properties of being used in
Indian population is underreported. It is not necessary that selected scale would
show same psychometric properties in Indian scenario. For example, the most
Table 7.1 Some of the existing scales of well-being

Scale’s name Authors No. of items (scoring Factors and
format) psychometric properties
Psychological Dupuy (1984) 22 (6-point Likert scale) 6 factors––anxiety,
General Well-Being depressed mood,
Index (PGWBI) positive well-being,
self-control, general
health, and vitality
Adult Well-Being Snaith, 18 (4-point Likert scale) 4 factors––anxiety,
Scale Constantopoulos, depression, outward
Jardine and directed irritability, and
McGuffin (1978) inward-directed
irritability
Adolescent Birleson (1981) 18 items scale: ‘0’ It is unidimensional
Well-Being Scale relates to no concern, scale that measures
‘1’ relates to some well-being, however is
concern, and ‘2’ suggested to be
indicates cause for sensitive to diagnosis of
concern depression. The
Cronbach’s alpha 0.70.
(McGrath, Brennan,
Dolan and Barnett
2014)
Satisfaction With (Diener et al. 5 (7-point Likert scale) Unidimensional
Life Scale (SWLS) 1985) a = 0.87
The Positive and Watson, Clark 20 (5-point Likert scale) Two-dimensional scale:
Negative Affect and Tellegen Positive Affect
Schedule (PANAS) (1988) (a = 0.88) and
Negative Affect
(a = 0.87)
Ryff’s Psychological Ryff (1989) 54 (6-point scale) 6 factors––
Well-Being Scales self-acceptance
a = 0.77,
environmental mastery
a = 0.80, purpose in
life a = 0.77, positive
relations with others
a = 0.74, personal
growth a = 0.78 and
autonomy a = 0.87
Subjective Sell and Nagpal 40 items with 11 factors Test–retest reliability of
Well-Being (1992) describing various the SUBI inventory is
Inventory aspects of well-being 0.79 and the validity is
(3-point scale) 0.86 (Patil and Halyal
1999)
Psychological Bhogle and 28 (true and false 13 dimensions of
Well-Being Scale Prakash (1995) response) psychological
well-being (Overall
a = 0.84)
(continued)
Relevance of Well-Being Scale in Indian Context 163

Subjective Lyubomirsky and 4 (7-point Likert scale) One-dimensional
Happiness Scale Lepper (1997) a = ranged from 0.79
to 0.94 (M = 0.86)
Personal Meaning Wong (1998) 57 items (9-point Likert 7 factors (Overall
Profile (PMP) scale) a = 0.93)
–Achievement
a = 0.91, Religion
a = 0.89,
Self-Transcendence
a = 0.84, Relationship
a = 0.81, Intimacy
a = 0.78, Fairness
a = 0.54
and Self-Acceptance
a = 0.54,
WHOQoL-BREF World Health 26 (5-point scale) 4 domains–Physical
Organization health a = 0.82,
(1998) Psychological health
a = 0.81, Social
relations a = 0.68,
Environment a = 0.80
The Oxford (Hill and Argyle 29 (6-point Likert scale) Unidimensional scale
Happiness 2002) a = 0.91
Questionnaire
(OHQ)
Personal Well-Being International 8 (11-point Likert scale) covers a set of 8 quality
Index (PWI) Wellbeing Group of life domains:
(2006) – standard of living;
– personal health;
– achieving in life;
– personal
relationships;
– personal safety;
– community
connectedness;
– future security;
– spirituality/religion.
(a lies between 0.70
and 0.85 in Australia
and overseas)
The Tennat, Hiller, 14 (5-point scale) Unidimensional scale
Warwick-Edinburgh Fishwick, Platt, a = 0.89 (student
Mental Well-Being and Joseph et al. sample)
Scale (2007) a = 0.91(population
(WEMWBS) sample)
(continued)

Flourishing Scale Diener, Witz, 8 (7-point Likert scale) Unidimensional scale
Tov,Kim-Prieto, (a = 0.87)
and Choi et al.
(2010)
Scale Of Positive Diener, Witz, 12 items (5-point Likert Gives 3 scores–positive
And Negative Tov,Kim-Prieto, scale) score (SPANE P;
Experience (SPANE) and Choi et al. a = 0.87)
(2010) Negative score
(SPANE N; a = 0.81)
Balance between
positive and negative
score(SPANE B;
a = 0.89)
Mental Health Keyes (2009) 14 items (6-point likert 3 factors (psychological
Continuum Short scale) a = 0.57, emotional
Form (MHC-SF) a = 0.64, social
a = 0.71) (Robitschek
and Keyes 2006, 2009)
PERMA Kern, Waters, Adapted from various Only four of the
Adler and White scales, tested on PERMA factors
(2015) adolescents and appeared: Positive
children emotion (13 items,
a = 0.92), Engagement
(6 items, a = 0.70),
Relationships (9 items,
a = 0.82), and
Accomplishment (6
items, a = 0.84).
PERMA-profiler Butler and Kern 23 items (11-point Positive emotion (3
(2015) Likert rating scale with items, a = 0.89),
0 = Not at all and Engagement (3 items,
10 = Completely). a = 0.72), Relationship
A total of 15 items (3 (3 items, a = 0.84),
per PERMA domain) Meaning (3 items,
and 8 filler items that a = 0.91),
measure negative Accomplishment (3
emotion (3 items) items, a = 0.78),
loneliness (1 item), Overall well-being (2
health (3 items), and items, a = 0.94),
overall happiness (1 Negative emotion (3
item). items, a = 0.75) and
Physical Health (3
items, a = 0.92)
Relevance of Well-Being Scale in Indian Context 165
widely used instrument for measuring psychological well-being is the Ryff Scale of
Psychological Well-Being (Ryff 1989a). The scale has 3 forms––long form (84
questions), medium form (54 questions), and short form (18 questions) measuring 6
areas of psychological well-being: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal
growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. The
six-factor structure of the Ryff Scale of Psychological Well-Being has been repli-
cated and confirmed in several other researches (Kitamura et al. 2004; Lindfors
et al. 2006; Ruini et al. 2003). The authors report satisfactory validity with test–
retest reliability coefficient of 0.72 and internal consistency coefficient of 0.84.
Furthermore, Mehrotra et al. (2013) validated the Ryff’s scale for Indian popula-
tion. The results indicated that 20 items scale with 4-factor solution was deemed fit
for Indian population. Hence, the authors deemed it essential to construct a new
well-being scale for Indian population. The current study was undertaken after
taking into account the limited number of instruments developed and validated on
Indian population. Apart from, validation of Ryff scale, few scales were constructed
to study well-being in Indian population. For example Nagpal and Sell (1985)
developed a 40-items subjective well-being inventory (SUBI). SUBI comprised of
11 dimensions:—general well-being-positive affect, expectation-achievement con-
gruence, confidence in coping, transcendence, family group support, social support,
primary group support, inadequate mental mastery, perceived ill-health, deficiency
in social contacts, and general well-being-negative affect. Verma and Verma (1989)
developed a 20-items well-being measure (PGI General Well-Being Measure). With
a 4-point Likert response format, the scale comprises of 4 dimensions––physical,
mood, anxiety, and self/others. Bhogle and Prakash (1995) developed a 28-items
questionnaire for measuring psychological well-being. The authors reported an
internal consistency coefficient of 0.84 for this measure. However, the scale lacks
documentation of advanced psychometric properties like confirmatory factor
analysis.
The objective of this study was to find out the dimensions that constitute
well-being in India. For validating the newly developed scale, it was hypothesized
that the new measure of well-being would correlate with Mental Health Continuum
(Keyes 2009) an already established reliable and valid measure of mental health for
Indian population in English (Singh et al. 2014) and Hindi (Singh 2014) languages.
The new psychological well-being scale was constructed and validated in two
studies. The first study consisted of three phases and five stages namely; (i) item
generation, (ii) item refinement and modification, (iii) expert panel review,
The first four stages were conducted in phase 1. The fourth stage was re-conducted
in phase 2. The stages four and five were examined in phase 3. Factor analysis was
conducted three times in the current study with an objective of reducing the test
items and ascertaining most suitable factor solution. In the second study, the
English version of the scale was translated into Hindi and validated.
Study 1
Phase 1
A pool of 116 items (26 negatively worded and 90 positively worded) was gen-
erated. Various scales of well-being were reviewed to generate the initial items
pool. The scales included were; The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ, Hill
and Argyle 2002), Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS, Lyubomirsky and Lepper
1999), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al. 1985), General Well-Being
Schedule (Dupuy 1977), Personal Well-Being Index (PWI-A, International
Well-being Group 2006), Personal Meaning Profile (PMP, Wong 1998),
Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI, Dupuy 1984), General Health
Questionnaire (GHQ, Goldberg and William 1988), Ryff’s Psychological
Well-being scales (Ryff 1989a), Quality of Life Scale (Flanagan 1978), and World
Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF 1996) etc. The
response format employed was 5-point Likert scale (from 1 as “very rarely true” to
5 as “always true”).
Stage 2 and 3: Item refinement, modification, and expert review
Content validity was established as discussed in Chap. 2. At the end of this stage 19
items were rejected and 30 new items were added as per experts’ suggestions. The
new pool consisted of 127 items (19 negatively worded and 108 positively worded
items).
Pilot Study
Participants and procedure
There were 100 participants (34 % males and 66 % females) who voluntarily
consented for the survey. The age ranged 16–33 years with a mean age of
21.05 years (SD = 2.79). The participants were students (49 %), working profes-
sionals (12 %), and nonworking professionals (11 %) and remaining participants
did not report their status. A booklet consisted of consent form, demographic profile
and well-being questionnaire were filled-up by the participants. The participants
were assured of confidentiality of personal information.
Analysis
The 127 items were subjected to preliminary analysis with intention of retaining
and rejecting items. The data were analyzed using SPSS 15.0. The missing value
analysis revealed a range of 0.8–4.8 %. The missing values were substituted by the
mid-value (3) of the 5-point Likert scale. As discussed in Chap. 2, the norms based
on criterion of mean, standard deviation, and item-total correlation were applied to
retain suitable items only. In this case no item was deleted on the basis of mean as it
ranged from 2.25–3.95. On the basis of SD, 40 items were deleted and the retained
87 items had SD within the range of 1.00–1.09. A total of 32 items were further
discarded following the item-total correlation criteria (<0.25). No item was deleted
on the basis of low level of if item deleted reliability as it was substantially above to
expected range. Thus, 55 items were retained and subjected to exploratory factor
analysis.
An exploratory factor analysis with extraction technique of principal component
analysis and varimax rotation was applied. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy (KMO-MSA) was 0.71. As discussed in Chap. 2, the cut-off
for KMO-MSA and eigenvalues were acceptable, therefore the factor solution was
acceptable. Eigenvalues were observed to be greater than 2 for factors 1–4, whereas
they were greater than 1 for factors 5–17.
A 6-factor solution was found to be theoretically most suitable after evaluating
different factor solutions, however, it was not considered as final model on this stage.
Six items were found to be having factor loadings less than 0.40 and hence were
discarded. Four items had secondary loadings, however these items were retained
since factors were observed highly correlated. The item reduction and factor analysis
resulted in a pool of 49 items. These 49 items were retested in phase 2.
Phase 2
The 49 items of the new WB scale that were derived from pilot study and 2
additional items to strengthen a factor from pilot study were added and the total
items were 51. Data were collected from 180 participants (males = 42 %,
females = 58 %) with a mean age of 23.12 years (SD = 2.69). The missing values
ranged from 1–3 (2–5.9 %). Based on the criteria followed in phase 1 and also
discussed in Chap. 2, no item was deleted on the basis of means and standard
deviation. However, 5 items were deleted on the basis of corrected item-total
correlation. The KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy for this data set was 0.89
and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was also found to be highly significant (p < 0.
001). Factor analysis was employed on the remaining 46 items, all items had
acceptable factor loading (>0.40) resultant no item was deleted based on its
redundant status in factor analysis. However, final factor structure for the test was
not decided yet.
Phase 3
Participants

There were 7 participants who did not return the forms. During data-cleaning
pool of 593 participants (males = 44.52 % and females = 55.48 %) was employed
for data analysis. The participants age range was 17–33 years (M = 21.70 years;
SD = 3.29).
pants was 21.76 years (SD = 3.20). The Mental Health Continuum-Short Form
(Keyes 2009) was administered for validity.
Procedure
All the participants were given a booklet that contained a consent form, demo-
graphic information sheet (age, sex, educational qualification, occupation, and
marital status), new well-being scale and mental health continuum scale. The data
were collected both online and offline.
Measures

well-being, social well-being, and emotional well-being. It comprises of 14 items
that are measured on 6 (0–5)-point Likert scale. Internal reliability is high for the
total MHC-SF (a = 0.89), as well as for the subscales of EWB (a = 0.83) and PWB
(a = 0.83), and adequate for the subscale SWB (a = 0.74) (Lamers et al. 2011).
The scale is valid and reliable on Indian population (Singh et al. 2014). In the
present study the reliability was EWB a = 0.87; PWB a = 0.87 and for SWB
a = 0.85 and total scale a = 0.91.
screened for minimum and maximum values for new WB scale and MHC-SF.
Frequency analysis for each item indicated that response scores were within range.
The SPSS preliminary frequency output was analyzed for missing values. The
percentage of missing values for all items of MHC-SF and new WB scale were
under 5 % and random in nature. The missing values were replaced with series
means.
Results
The criterion for item retention discussed in Chap. 2 for mean, SD, skeweness,
kurtosis, and corrected item-total correlation were adhered to. The mean (2.72–3.
96), SD (0.92–1.25), skeweness (−0.93 to 0.15), and kurtosis (−0.85 to 0.23) were
within acceptable range hence no item was deleted on this basis. Even though SD
was lower for two items, it was decided to retain the items since they were con-
sidered to be important for scale development and other parameters such as mean,
skeweness, and kurtosis were within range. However, two items were deleted on the
basis of low correction item-total correlation (<0.25) at this stage. Thus, 44 items
were subjected to exploratory factor analysis.
The total data (n = 593) was split into one-third (one subsample) and two-third
(second subsample) parts for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The two
parts were counter balanced for gender and age. A t-test was conducted to confirm
that both the subsamples were balanced. The results of the t-test were not significant
hence, indicating that both the parts were equal. The one-third of the sample
consisted of 197 participants (Males = 88; females = 109, Mean age = 21.64
years; SD = 3.29) and two-third of the sample consisted of 396 participants
(Males = 176; Females = 220; Mean = 21.73 years; SD = 3.30). On one-third of
the sample, exploratory factor analysis was employed and on two-third of the
sample, confirmatory factor analysis was performed (Engelberg et al. 2012;
Guadagnoli and Velicer 1988; MacCallum et al. 1996).
maximum likelihood (ML) for estimation was employed in factor solution (Russell
indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Since the eigenvalue till
six-factor solution was 1.07, factor solution with varimax rotation for 4, 5, and 6
was evaluated.
The four-factor solution was deemed fit since it could be theoretically interpreted
and it was also established with promax rotation. The four-factor solution shared
53.55 % of variance and it consisted of 28 items with factor loadings greater than
0.40. The factor loadings ranged 0.44–0.79. Two items had secondary loadings
indicating high correlation between the factors. Table 7.2 indicated the items and
factor loadings. The reliability of total items was high (a = 0.93) for finally retained
28 items.
Table 7.2 Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization for new WB scale
S. No Items Psychological Positive Goal setting Positive
well-being perception and time relationships
scale about self management
and life
1 I share a warm 0.64
relationship with my
close friends in my life.
2 I strive toward personal 0.63
growth
3 I value my work 0.61
4 I contribute to the 0.60
well-being of others.
5 I have very warm 0.58
feelings toward almost
everyone
6 I have the sense that I 0.55
have developed a lot as a
person over time.
7 I enjoy personal and 0.53
mutual conversations
with family members
and friends.
8 I am able to make full 0.53
use of my abilities
9 I usually know what I 0.49
should do because some
actions just feel right to
me.
10 When I think of my life 0.68
and personal
circumstances, I am
satisfied on the whole.
11 The conditions of my 0.66
life are excellent.
12 In general I perceive 0.60
myself to be a happy
person.
13 I am well satisfied about 0.60
everything in my life
14 I have a good family life 0.53
15 In general, I feel 0.47
confident and positive
about myself.
16 I am at peace with my 0.44
past
(continued)

S. No Items Psychological Positive Goal setting Positive
well-being perception and time relationships
scale about self management
and life
17 I enjoy making plans for 0.67
the future and working
to make them a reality.
18 Some people wander 0.54
aimlessly through life
but I am not one of
them.
19 I am always involved. 0.53
20 I generally do a good job 0.52
of taking care of my
personal finances and
affairs.
21 I often feel overwhelmed 0.49
by my responsibilities.
22 I am good at managing 0.48
my time so that I can fit
everything that needs to
get done.
23 I pursue worthwhile 0.46 0.43
objectives
24 I have a mutually 0.79
satisfying relationship
25 Most people see me as a 0.48 0.59
loving person.
26 I have a good social life 0.43 0.49
27 Most people see me as 0.48
affectionate person.
28 I have someone to share 0.46
my intimate feelings
with.
Eigenvalue 9.93 1.99 1.62 1.46
% age variance 35.46 7.09 5.79 5.22
Cronbach’s alpha 0.88 0.84 0.80 0.83
The four factors of the Well-Being Scale are namely:

Factor 1:Psychological Well-being-This is the factor one of the scale which has
nine items defining it. The items pertain to how well an individual balances his
work as well as his personal life. For example, “I strive toward personal growth,” “I
am able to make full use of my abilities,” “I have the sense that I have developed a
lot as a person over time,” “I value my work,” etc.
Factor 2:Positive perception about self and life-The second factor with seven
items relates to how an individual perceives himself and his life, keeping in mind
his past, his present, and overall life situations. Some of the items that define this
factor are: “When I think of my life and personal circumstances, I am satisfied on
the whole,” “I am at peace with my past,” “I am well satisfied about everything in
my life,” etc.
Factor 3:Goal Setting and Time Management-The third factor relates to future
planning by an individual and how effectively he manages his time and other tasks.
This factor has eight items, some of which are “I enjoy making plans for the future
and working to make them a reality,” “I generally do a good job of taking care of
my personal finances and affairs,” “I am good at managing my time so that I can fit
everything that needs to get done,” etc.
Factor 4:Positive Relationships-The fourth factor with five items is related to
quality of interpersonal relationships an individual shares with people around him.
For example, “I have a mutually satisfying relationship,” “Most people see me as
loving and affectionate,” “I have someone to share my intimate feelings with,” etc.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on the two-third data

(n = 396) using LISREL 8.8. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) was reported to be
(CFI) was 0.97, and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) was 0.07.
Table 7.3 indicates a good model fit for new WB scale. Further Fig. 7.1 indicates
the domain factor loadings for CFA.
Concurrent Validity
The concurrent validity of the new well-being scale was established by correlating
the factors of the WB scale with mental health continuum (MHC-SF). The results
indicated significant correlations ranging from r = 0.26 to r = 0.61. Table 7.4
indicates the correlation between new WB scale and the MHC-SF and its factors.
Table 7.3 Goodness of fit statistics for tests of factorial validity for new WB scale
Measures Df Chi-Square NNFI CFI RMSEA GFI df/chi-square
WB 344 945.30 0.97 0.97 0.07 0.85 2.75
Note df––Degrees of freedom; NNFI––Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI––Comparative Fit Index;
RMSEA––Root Mean Square Error Approximation; GFI––Goodness of Fit Index
Fig. 7.1 Factor loadings for new WB scale
Newly developed scale and its dimensions were significantly positively corre-
lated with MHC and its factors supporting its validation and hypothesis have been
proved (see Table 7.4).
Study 2
In this phase, the validated WB scale in English was translated into Hindi language.
The translation into Hindi language was deemed essential since 41.03 % of the total
phase was to collect data on the new WB scale to validate it in Hindi as well.
Table 7.4 Pearson’s correlation between factors of new WB scale and mental health continuum
Factor/No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Factor 1 0.88
2. Factor 2 0.64** 0.84
3. Factor 3 0.70** 0.58** 0.80
4. Factor 4 0.75** 0.63** 0.66** 0.83
5. Total 0.91** 0.83** 0.84** 0.87** 0.94
WB
6. EWB 0.46** 0.54** 0.37** 0.44** 0.53** 0.87
7. SWB 0.26** 0.38** 0.28** 0.28** 0.35** 0.61** 0.85
8. PWB 0.53** 0.56** 0.49** 0.51** 0.61** 0.60** 0.55** 0.87
9. Total 0.48** 0.57** 0.45** 0.48** 0.57** 0.81** 0.86** 0.87** 0.91
MHC
Note **p < 0.01, (N = 495). Factor 1 = Psychological well-being, Factor 2 = Positive
perception about self and life, Factor 3 = Goal Setting and Time Management, Factor
4 = Positive Relationships, EWB = emotional well-being, SWB = social well-being,
PWB = psychological well-being and Total MHC = total mental health continuum score.
Numbers in bold are Cronbach’s alpha for the factors
Mental Health Continuum Short Form (Keyes 2009) Hindi validated version (Singh
2014) was used to study newly developed WB scale’s concurrent validity.
Participants
of participants were undergraduates, 44 % were graduates and 36 % were post
graduates. The 48.4 % of participants were married, 43.2 % were single, 0.5 % was
divorced, and 0.2 % was widow but 7.7 % of participants did not report their
marital status.
Procedure
newly developed well-being scale and MHC-SF. Newly developed well-being scale
was translated into Hindi. The bilingual experts back translated the scales into
English. This was done to verify the content similarity to the original scale and to
ensure that translated tests were true copy of the original tests. The discrepancies
were resolved and the test was once again verified by the author and bilingual
experts. Therefore, the Hindi data collection booklet was administered in this phase.
Measures
scale’s validity.
Newly Developed Well-being Scale: It has 28 items representing four factors
namely; Psychological well-being (a = 0.84), Positive perception about self and
life(a = 0.78), Goal Setting and Time Management (a = 0.69), Positive
Relationships(a = 0.60) and total WB (a = 0.82) with acceptable Cronbach’s alpha
reliabilities in the current studies.
Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF Keyes 2009)-Hindi version
(Singh 2014): In the present study the reliability was; EWB a = 0.82; for PWB
a = 0.77 and for SWB a = 0.76 and for total MHC-SF scale a = 0.81.
Results
The data were analyzed similarly as study 1-phase 3. The range of mean (3.59–
3.99), SD (0.72–1.14), skeweness (−0.89 to 1.89), and kurtosis (−0.18 to 1.29).
Even though SD was less, as per criteria discussed in Chap. 2, all other parameters
demonstrated acceptable properties. The items were considered to be of theoretical
importance in the scale as well so scale was tested further.
mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06 and v2/df = 3.09. The current
model is acceptable. Further Fig. 7.2 indicates the domain factor loadings. In
Fig. 7.2 it can be observed that standard coefficient has exceeded than the 1.00
benchmark. However, it is acceptable because standardized coefficient of above 1
and it does not imply that something is wrong, although it seems so, it however
suggest that there is a high degree of multicollinearity in the data. This also suggests
that factors are correlated (oblique), the factor loadings are regression coefficients
and not correlations hence they can be larger than one in magnitude (Joreskog
1999).
Concurrent Validity
The overall scale reliability was 0.82. The results indicated significant correlations
ranging from r = 0.11 to r = 0.92. Table 7.5 indicates the correlation between new
WB scale and the MHC-SF.
Fig. 7.2 Factor loadings for

new WB scale in Hindi
Norms for the New Well-Being Scale 177
Table 7.5 Correlation between new well-being scale and mental health
F1 F2 F3 F4 WB EWB SWB PWB MHC
total total
F1 0.84
F2 0.71** 0.78
F3 0.16** 0.18** 0.69
F4 0.68** 0.70** 0.13** 0.60
WB total 0.51** 0.51** 0.92** 0.46** 0.82
EWB 0.30** 0.39** 0.11** 0.30** 0.24** 0.82
SWB 0.20** 0.35** 0.07 0.29** 0.18** 0.39** 0.77
** ** **
PWB 0.47 0.50 0.15 0.44** 0.34** 0.44** 0.52** 0.76
** ** **
MHC total 0.41 0.52 0.14 0.44** 0.32** 0.70** 0.82** 0.85** 0.81
Note **p < 0.01, N = 548. F 1 = Psychological well-being F 2 = Positive perception about self
and life, F 3 = Goal Setting and Time Management, F 4 = Positive Relationships,
EWB = emotional well-being, SWB = social well-being, PWB = psychological well-being, and
Total MHC = total mental health continuum score. Numbers in bold are Cronbach alpha for the
factors
Norms for the New Well-Being Scale
set. Gender difference was observed for factor 4 (t(1033) = −2.38, p < 0.05).
Females (19.33) possessed higher mean score on factor 4 as compared to males
(18.73). When the data were split for English and Hindi, it was noted that gender
differences was present with respect to factor 4 (t(485) = −3.63, p < 0.01) in
English data and no significant difference was noted for Hindi data on any of the
factors or total score. Female participants (19.28) who responded in English pos-
sessed higher mean score than male (17.88) participants. The participants were
divided into two groups (<30 and >30) for exploring the difference of age group on
mindfulness. In the Hindi data as well as in English data there was no difference of
age group on well-being score and it factors. However, when the English and Hindi
data were combined for age group, it was observed that factor 1 (t(1041) = −2.95,
p < 0.01) and factor 2 (t(1041) = −3.59, p < 0.01) differed significantly for both
the groups. The results indicated that participants >30 possessed higher mean scores
for factor 1 (35.46) and factor 2 (27.03) as compared to <30 for factor 1 (34.03) and
factor 2 (25.63).
Discussion
The factor analyses revealed a multidimensional four-factor model for well-being.

Previous studies too have reported well-being as a multidimensional construct
(Keyes 2002; Diener et al. 2010; Mehrotra et al. 2013). The findings suggest a
psychometrically sound instrument consisting of 28 items, with an overall relia-
bility of 0.93. A four-factor solution explaining 53.55 % of variance was deemed fit
and the four factors that define the 28 items scale are: psychological well-being,
Positive perception about self and life, goal setting and time management and
positive relationships. The four factors show a positive significant relationship with
the total well-being score. The first factor: psychological well-being is associated
with various aspects of well-being such as autonomy, personal growth relationships
with others etc. (Munir et al. 2012). Researches (Burke 2000; Frone 2000) have
demonstrated that self-control, life satisfaction, depression, mood disorders, prob-
lematic behavior, interpersonal struggles, and anxiety are affected psychological
well-being. In the current study a positive significant relationship was seen between
psychological well-being and total well-being score.
The second factor that is positive perception about self and life, shared a sig-
nificant positive correlation with well-being in the current study. Well-being is
greatly susceptible to how an individual’s views self and his overall life in general.
Positive perceptions are likely to increase an individual’s belief about himself
thereby enhancing his well-being, whereas holding negative views about his own
self and being satisfied with life in general can come in way of one’s well-being.
The self-perception of healthy people, characterized by having positive feelings
about themselves, a feeling of self-control and an optimistic vision of the future,
provides reserves of and a driving force for resources not only to cope with
everyday difficulties but also with those which are especially stressful and even
threatening for one’s existence (Taylor et al. 2000).
The third factor goal setting and time management emerged as one of the factors
defining psychological well-being in the Indian context. The importance of goal
setting in predicting well-being has been highlighted in several researches
(Brunstein 1993; Emmons 1986). According to Emmons (1996) people who have
set important goals are happier than those who do not have such goals. Further,
studies (Eldeleklioglu et al. 2010) have also indicated positive relationship between
psychological well-being and time planning. The factor goal setting and time
management showed a positive significant relationship with total well-being score.
The fourth factor, positive relationships showed a significant positive relation-
ship with well-being. According to Argyle (2001) ‘‘social relationships have a
powerful effect on happiness and other aspects of well-being, and are perhaps its
greatest single cause”. Plethoras of evidence exist that shows relationship between
psychological well-being and interpersonal relationships (Diener and Seligman
2002; Lyubomirsky et al. 2005; Pinquart and Sorensen 2000).
A further investigation for gender and age norms revealed that females possessed
higher score on positive relationships as compared to males. Earlier studies on
Discussion 179
well-being too indicated that Indian females were better than males on well-being
dimensions (Singh et al. 2015; Singh et al. 2014). With respect to age it was
observed that older adults (above 30) possessed better psychological well-being and
positive self as compared to those who were below 30 years of age. However, in a
future, more balanced representational sample can be included to investigate the
role of gender, age and language on well-being for Indians.
Conclusion
The new scale proposes a four-factor well-being structure in Indian settings. Overall
this scale is psychometrically sound and easy to use. It can also be validated across
different socioeconomic strata of the society and different groups (in terms of
occupation, marital status etc.). To increase its usability, it can be translated to other
regional languages.
References
Argyle, M. (2001). Social relations and work and unemployment. In M. Argyle (Ed.), The
Psychology of Happiness (pp. 14–31, 32–63). New York: Methuen and Co. Company.
Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L. B., & Peters, J. R. (2012). Mindfulness and self-compassion as
predictors of psychological wellbeing in long-term meditators and matched nonmeditators. The
Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good
practice, 7(3), 230–238.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bhogle, S., & Prakash, J. I. (1995). Development of the psychological well-being questionnaire.
Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 11(1–2), 5–9.
Birleson, P. (1981). The validity of Depressive Disorder in Childhood and the Development of a
Self-Rating Scale; a Research Report. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 22, 73–88.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1981.tb00533.x
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.
Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: psychological and physical well-being
consequences. Stress Medicine, 16(1), 11–16.
Butler, J., & Kern, M.L. (2015). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of
flourishing. Available from http://www.peggykern.org/questionnaires.html
Census of India. (2011).Retrieved from http://censusindia.gov.in/
Dalal, A. K., & Misra, G. (2006). Psychology of health and well-being: some emerging
perspectives. Psychological Studies, 2, 2–3.
Dhara, D. R., & Jogsan, Y. A. (2013). Depression and psychological well-being in old age Journal
of Psychology and Psychotherapy, (3), 3. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4172/2161-
0487.1000117
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. In K.
W. Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Focus on emotion and adult development (pp. 304–324).
New York: Springer.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being : Three decades
of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.
(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative
feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.
Dupuy, H. (1984). The Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWB). In N. Wenger, M.
Mattson, C. Furberg, & J. Elinson (Eds.), Assessment of quality life in clinical trials of
cardiovascular therapies (pp. 170–183). New York: LeJacq.
Dupuy, H. J. (1977). The General Well-being Schedule. In I. McDowell & C. Newell (Eds.),
Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaire (2nd ed., pp. 206–213). USA:
Oxford University Press.
Edwards, S. D., Ngcobo, H. S. B., Edwards, D. J., & Palavar, K. (2005). Exploring the relationship
between physical activity, psychological well-being and physical self-perceptionin different
exercise groups. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and
Recreation, 27(1), 75–90.
Eldeleklioglu, J., Yilmaz, A., & Gültekin, F. (2010). Investigation of teacher trainees’
psychological wellbeing in terms of time management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2, 342–348.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.
Emmons, R.A. (1996). Striving and feeling: Personal goals and subjective well-being. U: P.M.
Gollwitzer & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation
to Behavior (pp. 313–337). New York: Guilford Press.
Ferguson, S. J., & Goodwin, A. (2010). Optimism and well-being in older adults: The mediating
role of social support and perceived control. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 71(1), 43–68.
Flanagan, J. C. (1978). A research approach to improving our quality of life. American
Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project. (2008). Final Project report. London: The
Government Office for Science.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Work–family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national
comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 888–895. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.
85.6.888.
García-Alandete, J., Lozano, B. S., Nohales, P. S., & Martínez, E. (2013). Predictive role of
meaning in life on psychological well-being and gender-specific differences. Acta Colombiana
de Psicología, 16(1), 17–24.
Gibson, L. M. R., & Parker, V. (2003). Inner resources as predictors of psychological well-being in
middle-income African American breast cancer survivors. Cancer Control, 10(5), 52–59.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation to sample size to the stability of component
patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265.
Heidrich, S. M. (1993). The relationship between physical health and psychological well-being in
elderly women: A developmental perspective. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(2), 123–130.
Hill, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the
measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1073–
1082.
Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The
impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International
Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62–90.
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a New
Conceptual Framework for Defining Wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 110, 837–861.
International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index. Melbourne: Australian Centre
on Quality of Life, Deakin University.
References 181
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C. D. Spielberger

(Ed.), Current topics in Clinical and Community Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic
Press.
Jibeen, T., & Khalid, R. (2010). Predictors of psychological well- being of Pakistani immigrants in
Toronto, Cananda. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 452–464.
Joshi, S., Kumari, S., & Jain, M. (2008). Religious belief and its relation to psychological
well-being. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(2), 345–354.
Joreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved from August 3,
2014, http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An out-patient program in Behavioral Medicine for chronic pain patients
based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary
results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic
psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological
health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1041–1056.
Kern, M. L., Waters, L. E., Adler, A., & White, M. A. (2015). A multidimensional approach to
measuring well-being in students: Application of the PERMA framework. The journal of
positive psychology, 10(3), 262–271.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete
state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.
Keyes, C. L. M., Schmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical
encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 1007–1022.
Kim, H., & McKenry, M. (2002). The relationship between marriage and psychological
well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 885–911.
Kitamura, T., Kishida, Y., Gatayama, R., Matsuoka, T., Miura, S., & Yamabe, K. (2004). Ryff’s
psychological well-being inventory: factorial structure and life history correlates among
Japanese university students. Psychological Reports, 94, 83–103.
Karadag, A. A., & Akpinar, N. (2003). Determination and evaluation of Egirdir Town's recreation
resources. Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Turkey).
Kumar, S. K. K. (2003). An Indian conception of well-being. Paper presented at the European
Positive Psychology Proceedings 2002, Leicester, UK.
Kumar, S. K. K. (2006). Health and well being in Indian tradition. Psychological Studies, 51(2–3),
105–112.
Lamers, S. M. A., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. M.
(2011). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form
(MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 99–110.
Larson, M. D., Norman, S. M., Hughes, L. W., & Avey, J. B. (2013). Psychological capital: a new
lens for understanding employee fit and attitudes. International Journal of Leadership Studies,
8(1), 28–43.
Lee, C. (2010). Health habits and psychological well-being among young, middle-aged and older
Australian women. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4(4), 301–314.
Levi, L. (1987). Fitting work to human capacities and needs. In Katme et al. (Eds). Improvement in
contents and organisation of work: Psychological factors at work.
Levin, J. (2011). Religion and psychological well-being and distress in Israeli Jews: Findings from
the Gallup World Poll. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 48(4), 252–261.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 22, 55.
Lindfors, P., Berntsson, L., & Lundberg, U. (2006). Total workload as related to psychological
well-being and symptoms in full-time employed women and men. International Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 13, 131–137.
Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., & Hurling, R. (2009). Measuring happiness:
The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological wellbeing measures.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 878–884.
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological
strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33, 321–349.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary
reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.
Martínez, B. B., & Custódio, R. P. (2014). Relationship between mental health andspiritual
well-being among hemodialysis patients: a correlation study. Sao Paulo medical journal, 132
(1), 23–7.
Maslow, A. H. (1961). Comments on Skinner’s Attitude to Science (pp. 572–573). XC: Daedalus.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological and
physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 53–76.
McGrath, B., Brennan, M. A., Dolan, P., & Barnett, R. (2014). Adolescents and their networks of
social support: real connections in real lives?. Child & Family Social Work, 19(2), 237–248.
McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view
of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110.
Mehrotra, S., Tripathi, R., & Banu, H. (2013). Psychological well-being: Reflections on an elusive
construct and its assessment. The Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 39(2),
189–195.
Mittal, D., & Mathur, M. (2011). Positive Forces of Life and Psychological Well-being among
Corporate Professionals. Journal of Management and Public Policy, 3(1), 36–48.
Muller, J., Creed, P. & Francis, I. (2004). Does spirituality mediate the relationship between
environmental stressors and psychological wellbeing in distressed unemployed people?
Australian Journal of Career Development, 13(2).
Munir, F., Nielsen, K., Garde, A. H., Albertsen, K., & Carneiro, I. G. (2012). Mediating the effects
of work-life conflict between transformational leadership and health-care workers’ job
satisfaction and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Nursing Management, 20(4), 512–521.
Nagpal, R., & Sell, H. (1985). Subjective well-being, SEARO Regional Health Paper No.7, World
Health Organization, New Delhi.
Neugarten, B. L. (1973). Personality change in late life: A developmental perspective. In C.
Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The Psychology of Adult Development and Aging (pp. 311–
335). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pappa, V. S. (2013). Relationships between Parents’ Marital Status and the Psychological
Wellbeing of Adolescents in Greece. Journal of Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3(2).
Patil, M.S. and Halyal, P.S (1999). Retrieved from http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/
10603/8766/13/13_chapter%204.pdf dated 20th August 2010.
Perez, J. A. (2012a). Gender difference in psychological well-being among Filipino College
student. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(13), 84.
References 183
Perez, J. A. (2012b). Gender difference in psychological well-being among Filipino College

Student Samples. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(13), 84.
Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2000). Influences of Socioeconomic Status, Social Network, and
Competence on Subjective Well-Being in Later Life: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology and Aging,
15(2), 187–224.
Pollard, E., & Lee, P. (2003). Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Social
Indicators Research, 61(1), 9–78.
Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). Multidimensional well-being and social desirability.
Unpublished data.
Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). The structure of Keyes’ model of mental health and the
role of personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predictor. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 56, 321−329.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Roothman, B., Kristen, D. K., & Wissing, M. P. (2003a). Gender differences in aspects of
psychological well-being. South African Journal of Psychology, 33, 212–218.
Roothman, B., Kristen, D. K., & Wissing, M. P. (2003b). Gender differences in aspects of
psychological wellbeing. South African Journal of Psychology, 33(4), 212–218.
Roussos, P. (2007). The Greek computer attitudes scale: construction and assessment of
psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 578–590.
Ruini, C., Ottolini, F., Rafanelli, C., Ryff, C., et al. (2003). Italian validation of Psychological
well-being scales. Rivista di Psichiatria, 38(3), 117–130.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In R. M. Ryan & E. L. Deci (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination
research. Rochester, N.Y.: The University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001).On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudemonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol.52,
pp. 141–166). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Building human strength: Psychology’s forgotten mission. APA
Monitor, 29 (1).
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your
potential for lasting fulfilment. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Sell, H., & Nagpal, R. (1992). Assessment of subjective well-being. New Delhi: World Health
Organisation.
Shah, H., & Marks, N. (2004). A well-being manifesto for a flourishing society. London: The New
Economics Foundation.
Project Report.
Singh, K., Junnarkar, M., & Sharma, S. (2015). Anxiety, stress, depression and psycho-social
functioning of indian adolescents. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 57(4), 41–48.
Singh, K., Khari, C., Amonkar, R., Arya, N. K., & Kesav, S. K. (2013). Development and
Validation of a New Scale: Sat-Chit-Ananda Scale International Journal on Vedic Foundations
of Management, 1(2), 54–74.
Singh, S. & Mansi (2009). Psychological capital as predictor of psychological well-being. Journal
of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(2), 233–238.
Singh, K., & Junnarkar, M. (2014). Validation and effect of demographic variables on perceived
quality of life by adolescents. Asian journal of psychiatry, 12, 88-94.
Singh, K., & Junnarkar, M. (2015). Correlates and predictors of positive mental health for school
going children. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 82–87.
Singh, K., Kaur, J., Singh, D., & Junnarkar, M. (2014). Socio-demographic variables affecting
well-being: A study on Indian rural women. Psychological Studies, 59(2), 197–206.
Snaith, R.P., Constantopoulos, A.A., Jardine, M.Y., & McGuffin, P. (1978). A clinical scale for the
self-assment of irritability. British Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 163–171.
Skevington, S. M., Lofty, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organization’s
WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the
international field trials. A Report of the WHOQOL Group. Quality of Life Research, 13(2),
299–310.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows of the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275.
Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J., & Greunewald, T. L. (2000). Psychological
resources, positive illusions and health. American Psychologist, 55(1), 99–109.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., ... & Stewart-Brown, S.
(2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK
validation. Health and Quality of life Outcomes, 5(1), 1.
Thanakwang, K., Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Soonthorndhada, K. (2012). The relationships among
family, friends and psychological well-being for Thai elderly. Aging and Mental Health, 16(8),
993–1003.
The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) World Health Organization
2004.
Ustun, T. B., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Chatterji, S., Mathers, C., & Murray, C. J. (2004). Global
burden of depressive disorders in the year 2000. British Journal of Psychiatry, 184, 386–392.
van Daalen, G., Sanders, K., & Willemsen, T. M. (2005). Sources of social support as predictors of
health, psychological well-being and life satisfaction among Dutch male and female
dual-earners. Journal of Women and Health, 41(2).
Verma, S. K., & Verma, A. (1989). Manual for PGI general well-being measure. Lucknow: Ankur
Psychological Agency.
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. (2000). Survey research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–
691.
variables: Problems and Remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling:
Concepts. Issues and Applications: Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks CA.
WHOQOL Group.(1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF
quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.
Wolfsdorf, B. A., & Zlotnick, C. (2001). Affect management in group therapy for women with
posttraumatic stress disorder and histories of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 57(2), 169–181.
Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the Personal
Meaning Profile (PMP). In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A
handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 111–140). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Yasin, M. A. S. M. and Dzulkifli, M. A. (2009).The relationship between social support and
psychological problems among students. Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
Chapter 8
Development and Validation of New
Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Strength
Measures
Abstract The chapter explains the concept of interpersonal and intrapersonal

strengths which are important for a strong foundation of healthy relationships and
overall personality. The chapter beings with a brief outline on conceptual defini-
tions of interpersonal and intrapersonal character strengths. It then converges upon
different studies that have been conducted in Indian context. The different inter-
personal and intrapersonal scales constructed and validated by other researchers
have been reviewed. The chapter then unveils the procedure of development and
validation of new interpersonal and intrapersonal strength scales. Each phase of test
construction has been explained thoroughly in detail for both versions in English
and Hindi. The chapter concludes with discussion centring on the newly developed
scales and their explanation.
Keywords Interpersonal strengths Intrapersonal strengths Mental health

Flourishing SPANE
Introduction
The notion of well-being has been much emphasized by several researches done in
the field of positive psychology. The central concept of positive psychology has
been on what makes life worth living? In line with this, researchers extended their
capabilities and studied various positive constructs in great detail, one of these was
character strengths which are defined as “positive traits reflected in thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors, that exist in degrees. They can be measured as individual
differences,” (Park et al. 2004, p. 603). The most used measure of strengths (Values
in Action Inventory of Strengths–VIA-IS, Peterson and Seligman 2004) talks of 24
ubiquitous strengths organized under six broad virtues. Character strengths may be
present at interpersonal and/or intrapersonal level. An individual’s life choices are
greatly based on his interpersonal and intrapersonal strengths. For example,
closeness, co-orientation, and complementarity were identified as three interper-
sonal constructs in a coach–athlete relationship study (Philippe and Seiler 2005).

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3631-3_8
186 8 Development and Validation of New Interpersonal …
Hogan and Kaiser (2005) identified a four-domains model for achieving occupa-
tional competency, two of which were intrapersonal and interpersonal. They
associated intrapersonal competencies with self-control, self-esteem, and attitudes
toward rules and procedures, while interpersonal competencies were associated
with skills expectations, and tailoring one’s actions to achieve the desired effect at
predicting how others respond, and manage expectations, and tailoring their actions
to achieve the desired effect. In a study on measures of assessment in adolescents
(Barber 2005), interpersonal domain was assessed by social initiative, peer con-
nection, communication with mother and communication with father while
intrapersonal functioning was assessed by self-esteem, perspective taking, and
empathy. In a study on adolescents (Jones and Lavallee 2009), social skills, respect,
leadership, family interactions, and communication were described as the most
needed interpersonal skills. Busch and Valentine (2000) supporting the intraper-
sonal theory, stressed how it led to building of skills such as self-efficacy, personal
consciousness, decreasing self-blame, and assuming personality responsibility.
Aloha (1995) theorized that an athlete’s psychological functioning consists of four
intrapersonal factors (self-motivation, cognitive capacity and coping skills, affective
orientation, and mental training skills) and two interpersonal factors (social support
and the athlete–coach relationship).
Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Character Strengths
The importance of these strengths is fast being recognized in personal as well as in

professional setup and as a result, these have been studied in various groups. Most
of the studies that have focussed on these character strengths have done so in
unison. But since in this paper we have focussed on interpersonal and intrapersonal
as two separate entities, same trend was followed during the review of literature.
Findings from Interpersonal Character Strengths: Smoking behavior in ado-
lescents was found to be predicted by a number of interpersonal factors such as
having family members who smoke, friends who smoke, or being a member of
sports team predicted smoking behavior in adolescents (Karimy et al. 2014).
Perceived family support was found to act as a barrier to nonsuicidal self-injury
(NSSI), in a longitudinal study of adolescents, Tatnell et al. (2014). Netra and Das
(2013) explored the students’ perspective regarding the attributes of success and
failure. More than one-third of the participants felt that success or failure responded
to external factors such as task difficulty or luck. In a study on stress-inducing
factors in nursing students, Sharma and Kaur (2011) identified several variables at
play such as change in social activities, fight with close one, lack of cooperation
with friends, lack of close and intimate friends, and conflict with roommate. In a
study of peer victimization of immigrant youth in Finland (Strohmeier et al. 2011)
association of victimization with interpersonal strengths was reported. Functional
social support was found not to affect relapse of substance use disorders, outside of
treatment (Tuliao 2009). Future relationship outcomes were shown to be affected by
Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Character Strengths 187
gratitude, which also functions to promote relationship formation and maintenance

(Algoe et al. 2008). Certain interpersonal factors were listed as protective factors
during bereavement in a review article such as social support and cultural setting,
economic resources, and professional intervention, (Stroebe et al. 2007).
Findings from Intrapersonal Character Strengths: Karimy et al. (2014) high-
lighted certain factors which are believed to predict smoking behavior in adoles-
cents—these were self-efficacy, normative beliefs, and behavioral beliefs.
According to Tatnell et al. (2014) self-esteem and self-efficacy predicted the onset
of NSSI. One’s ability and effort were attributed as attributes of failure and success
in a study by Netra and Das (2013). Changes in eating pattern, engagement/
marriage, homesickness in hostel, change in sleep pattern, and new responsibilities
of life, personal preoccupations, and parents’ expectations were identified as factors
inducing stress in nursing students (Sharma and Kaur 2011). In a study on the
relapse of substance abuse, intrapersonal factors like self-efficacy, negative emo-
tions, motivation, coping, and craving were found to affect relapse (Tuliao 2009).
Close association was reported between creativity and improved performance
outcome in a study on employee creativity by Gong et al. (2009). The authors
further reported a positive relationship of learning orientation and transformational
leadership with employee creativity, and these relationships were mediated by
employee creative self-efficacy. An individual’s personality or attachment style,
predisposing factors or previous bereavements, religious beliefs and other meaning
systems, and socio-demographic variables were listed out as protective factors
during the process of bereavement (Stroebe et al. 2007). A positive association was
reported between an individual’s emotional intelligence and overall health in a
meta-analytic study of more than 7000 participants, (Schutte et al. 2007). Emotional
intelligence was also found to be positively associated with life satisfaction and
social network size in a study undertaken by Austin et al. (2005).
Correlation of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Character

Strengths with Well-Being
This section reviews literature on association of various kinds of interpersonal and

intrapersonal character strengths with well-being. In some studies (e.g., 24 character
strengths, Peterson and Seligman 2004) all potential intrapersonal and interpersonal
strengths have been explored as correlates of well-being. For example, Thoits and
Hewitt (2001) reported relationship between voluntary works in the community
with six aspects of well-being (happiness, life satisfaction, self-esteem, sense of
control over life, physical health, and depression). Voluntary work was found to
enhance all six aspects of well-being and notably, people with greater well-being
did more voluntary work. Helliwell and Putnam (2004) looked at the data from
World Values Survey, the US Benchmark Survey, and Canadian survey to explore
subjective well-being in the light of social capital. Social capital was measured by
the strength of family, friends, neighborhood, and community ties. Results revealed
social capital to be strongly linked to subjective well-being. Social skills were found
to be positively associated with all indicators of psychological well-being (Segrin
and Taylor 2007). The authors further reported that social skills were significantly
positively associated with positive relations with others. In a study of 143 Chinese
teachers, a significant correlation of forgiveness with meaningful life orientation
and subjective well-being was reported (Chan 2013).
Well-being has also been found to be significantly predicted by intrapersonal
character strengths. For example, perceived mastery and optimism were found to be
significantly contributing to subjective well-being of adolescents (Ben-Zur 2003).
Cha (2003) examined the association between subjective well-being and personality
constructs (self-esteem, collective self-esteem, and optimism) in a sample of 350
Korean students. Findings showed a significant correlation of subjective well-being
with self-esteem, collective self-esteem, and optimism. In another study on stu-
dents, Brdar and Kashdan (2010) reported the link between strengths and various
well-being indices. The authors reported that strengths such as zest, curiosity,
gratitude, and optimism/hope showed a strong association with elevated life sat-
isfaction, subjective vitality, satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence
needs, and a pleasurable, engaging, and meaningful existence. Froh et al. (2010) in
their study on adolescents, endorsed how being grateful could help individuals
move upward toward greater emotional and social well-being. In a study examining
the relationship between character strengths (as defined in Values in Action by
Peterson and Seligman 2004) and well-being, temperance, vitality, and transcen-
dence were reported to be independently associated with well-being and happiness
(Toner et al. 2012). Hence, It is evident that understanding of intra and interpersonal
factors are essential as these factors contribute to well-being immensely.
Indian Studies
This section presents the work done by Indian researchers on interpersonal and
intrapersonal character strengths. In a study on correlates of general well-being, Mitra
(2015) reported a significant correlation of well-being with defensive functioning,
positive cognitive emotion regulation, and presence of meaning in life. Singh et al.
(2014) explored the correlation of well-being with several interpersonal and intrap-
ersonal factors. A significant positive correlation of several interpersonal character
strengths such as altruism, forgiveness, and gratitude with well-being was reported. In
the light of intrapersonal character strengths, self-esteem, resilience, and
self-management showed significant positive correlation with well-being. Rajesh and
Chandrasekaran (2014) explored the interpersonal skills of 300 college going stu-
dents in the wake of their certain personal and demographic variables. Significant
difference in interpersonal skills of students was observed with respect to their gender,
degree studying, medium of instruction, residential locality, and type of family, while
Indian Studies 189
with respect to their stream of the study, type of college management, and number of
siblings, no significant difference was observed. Interpersonal and intrapersonal
attributes were studied in a sample of 85 infertile women, to determine the associates
of adjustment. Among the intrapersonal attributes, religiosity predicted better
adjustment, whereas perception of familial support and degree of sexual satisfaction
among interpersonal attributes predicted better adjustment (Mahajan et al. 2009).
Singh and Jha (2008) reported grit to be significantly positively correlated to life
satisfaction. Another study (Kulshrestha and Sen 2006) on 150 executives reported a
positive significant correlation of emotional intelligence and internal locus of control
with subjective well-being. There could be many more studies to show significance of
inter and intrapersonal strengths to understand human behavior.
Existing Measures of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal

Character Strengths
Some of the existing measures of interpersonal and intrapersonal character strengths

scales are presented in this section along with their psychometric properties. For
instance, the interpersonal character strengths scales are based on relationships such as
32 items Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier (1976) with a four-factor solution
(dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, dyadic cohesion, affectional expression) and
overall a = 0.96. Relationship Assessment Scale, unidimensional with only seven
items, developed by Hendrick (1988) reported a = 0.86. Busby et al. (1995) devel-
oped a 14 items, three-factor (dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, dyadic cohesion)
Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS), with an overall a = 0.90. Inventory of
Interpersonal Problems 32 (IIP-32) is an eight-factors (assertive, sociable, supportive,
dependent, caring, aggressive, involved and open) scale with 32 items, was conceived
by Barkham et al. (1996). The authors reported an overall a = 0.86.
Intrapersonal character strengths may range from several innate or acquired
capabilities and/or traits such as creative, organizational skills, self-esteem, honesty,
self-regulation, etc. Some of the intrapersonal character strengths measures that
exist are presented in this section. Brown et al. (1999) developed a 63-items scale,
the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) to measure self-regulation. With seven
rationally derived subscales, SRQ reports internal consistency = 0.91. Creative
Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) developed by Carson et al. (2005) measures
creative achievements across 10 domains-Visual Arts, Music, Dance, Architectural
Design, Creative Writing, Humor, Inventions, Scientific Discovery, Theater and
Film, and Culinary Arts. The authors reported a two-factor as well as a three-factor
model. Abikoff and Gallagher (2008) developed Children’s Organizational Skills
Scales (COSS) to effectively measure organizational skills in children. The COSS
has 3 subscales-task planning, organizational behavior, and memory and materials
management. The scale maybe administered in three formats with each having
adequate internal consistency-parent version (0.98), teacher version, (0.97) and
self-version (0.94).
While the previous section clearly distinguishes between some of the existing
measures of interpersonal and intrapersonal character strengths, there exists a
measure where both these strengths are listed, such as VIA Inventory of Strengths
(VIA-IS; Peterson and Seligman 2004), VIA-IS is a 240-items scale, measuring 24
strengths across six categories (wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice,
temperance, transcendence). On individual subscales, a > 0.70 (Park et al. 2004).
Indian researchers have explored interpersonal and intrapersonal attributes
among different sections of population. To the best of our knowledge, no measure
of interpersonal and/or intrapersonal character strengths has been developed in
India. However, VIA-IS (Peterson and Seligman 2004) has been validated in India
by Singh and Choubisa (2010). In the Indian setting, a five-factor structure was
deemed a better fit as compared to the original six-factor structure. The five factors
that emerged in the Indian setting were—civic strengths (a = 0.88), self-assurance
strengths (a = 0.86), interpersonal strengths (a = 0.86), intellectual strengths
(a = 0.86), and theological strengths (a = 0.86). Its Hindi version supported one
super factor encompassing all factors with high factor loadings (0.74–0.87), (Singh
and Choubisa 2009), which is supported by MacDonald et al. (2008) who also
found a single component solution and all VIA factors loaded strongly on one
master virtue except two factors—prudence and modesty.
Present Study
From the review of literature, it is clear that the role of interpersonal and intrap-
ersonal character strengths in achieving well-being can not be undermined. There
remains no doubt that interpersonal and intrapersonal character strengths are
important if one wants to achieve one’s potential both in personal as well as
professional sphere. The current study is a step in this direction as it deals with the
development and validation of character strengths’ scales-interpersonal and
intrapersonal. It was hypothesized that interpersonal and intrapersonal character
strengths would correlate with each other also with measures of well-being-Mental
Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF; Keyes 2009), Flourishing Scale: (FS;
Diener et al. 2010), and Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE; Diener
et al. 2010).
Test Construction and Validation
The interpersonal and intrapersonal scales were developed independently in dif-

ferent phases and studies. There were three phases and five stages namely; (i) item
generation, (ii) item refinement and modification, (iii) expert panel review,
The first three stages were conducted in phase 1 of the study and the next two in
Test Construction and Validation 191
phase 2 of the study. The first four stages were executed independently for inter-
personal and intrapersonal scale. Factor structure validation was employed for
interpersonal and intrapersonal scales independently. However, since both the
constructs are highly correlated, the factor structure validation for combined scales
too was employed. The participants for factor structure validation were same for
both the constructs.
Study 1
Scale 1: Interpersonal Scale
Phase 1

A review of various measures related to adjustment, relationships, and communi-
cation styles was done, for example, Interpersonal Relationship Rating Scale
(IRRS, Hipple 1972), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS Spanier 1976), Relationship
Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew and Horowitz 1991), Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems 32(IIP-32, SF, Barkham et al. 1996), Interpersonal Communication
Inventory (ICI; Bienvenu 1971), Value in Action (VIA; Peterson and Seligman
2004), etc. Based on scales’ review a pool of 133 items was prepared which
consisted of 11 negative items and 122 positive items. A response format of 5-point
Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree was chosen.

The guidelines listed in Chap. 2 were followed for item refinement, modification,
and expert review. Based on the expert feedback, 25 items were discarded and 16
new items were added as per their suggestion. Thus, the scale consisted of leaving
us with 124 items.
Pilot Study
Participants and procedure
The pool of 124 items was administered to 100 participants (males = 30 %,
females = 70 %) who voluntarily consented for the study. The age range of par-
ticipants was 16–33 years (mean = 21.05 years, SD = 2.97). Majority of the
sample (82 %) consisted of students, whereas 9 % were working, 3 % were non-
working, and 6 % were working part-time. All the participants were provided with
a small booklet containing a demographic information form and interpersonal
questionnaire.
Data Analysis
The collected data were subjected to preliminary analysis with the intention of
retaining and rejecting the items. Missing values analysis on SPSS version 15.0 was
run to calculate the range of missing values, which in this case was found to be between
1 and 6 (0.8–4.9 %). The missing values were substituted by the mid-value (3) of the
5-point Likert scale. The items were deleted as per the guidelines mentioned earlier in
Chap. 2. On the basis of mean 11 items were eliminated and the remaining items had
means in the range of 2.01–3.66. A total of 65 items with standard deviations less than
0.95 were also discarded. The remaining items had SDs in the range of 0.95–1.11.
Cronbach’s alpha and corrected item total correlation were also calculated. The value
of Cronbach’s alpha was found in acceptable range and therefore no item was deleted
on the basis of low reliability. However, 14 items with corrected item total correlation
<0.25 were deleted. The remaining 34 items were subjected to exploratory factor
analysis with varimax rotation. The factor analysis was considered appropriate after
observing the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy for this data set
(0.68). Items with factor loadings <0.40 were suppressed. The factor analysis yielded
four factors with eigenvalue greater than 2.00 and six factors with eigenvalue greater
than 1.00. Six items had factor loadings less than 0.40 and thus were deleted as
redundant items. Of the many factor solutions employed, the four-factor solution
emerged fit. The four-factor solution with 28 items explained 40.47 % of variance.
Phase 2
After a close scrutiny of the remaining 28 items from phase 1, it was felt that certain
items can be added to increase total percent of variance of the scale. So in con-
sultation with the subject expert, 18 carefully chosen items were added. The new
pool thus consisted of 46 items. These were then administered on a sample of 180
participants (47 % females and 53 % males) with a mean age of 22.94 years
(SD = 2.09). Analysis of missing data revealed the range of missing values between
1 and 4 (i.e., 2.1–8.4 %), which were substituted by the mid-value (3) of the 5-point
Likert scale. Further analysis led to deletion of two items on the basis of means and
two items on the basis of corrected item total correlation. No item was eliminated
on the basis of standard deviation since SD was greater than 0.95. The remaining 42
items were subjected to factor analysis with alternative factor solutions The Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.87 and the Bartlett’s test of
Sphericity was also highly significant (p < 0.001). However, in this phase no item
was deleted based on its redundant status in factor analysis.
Phase 3
Participants

There were four participants who did not return the forms. During data-cleaning
pool of 557 participants (males = 43.63 % and females = 56.36 %) was employed
for data analysis. The participants age range was 17–34 years (M = 21.64 years;
SD = 3.92).
Procedure
new interpersonal scale, new intrapersonal scale, and tests used for validation. They
were asked to fill it in a week time and return it.
Analysis and Results

screened for minimum and maximum values for new interpersonal scale. Frequency
analysis for each item indicated that responses for each item had scores within the
range. The SPSS preliminary frequency output was analyzed for missing values.
The percentage for all items on psychometric test and for 43 items of new inter-
personal scale were under 5 % and random in nature. The missing values were
replaced with series means. The mean (3.28–4.01), standard deviation (0.92–1.18),
skeweness (−1.18 to −0.09), kurtosis (−0.75 to 1.12), and item total correlation
were within acceptable range as discussed in Chap. 2. Thus, 42 items were sub-
jected to exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.
The data were split into two parts for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis
as mentioned in Chap. 2. The two parts were counter balanced for gender and age.
A t-test was conducted to confirm that both the subsamples were balanced. The results
of the t-test were not significant hence, indicating that both the parts were equal. The
exploratory factor analysis consisted of 191 participants (Males = 88; females =
108, Mean age = 21.32 years; SD = 3.71) and confirmatory consisted of 359 par-
ticipants (Males = 155; females = 204, Mean age = 21.62 years; SD = 3.11).

maximum likelihood (ML) for estimation was employed in factor solution as dis-
cussed in Chap. 2. The factor analysis with varimax rotation was applied on 41
items. The value of KMO-MSA was 0.92, v2 (276) = 2401.56, p < 0.01, thus
indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The significant Chi-square
for Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and KMO value greater than 0.8 is considered good
as discussed in Chap. 2. The communalities values ranged from 0.30 to 0.70.
However, no item was deleted. Since the eigenvalue till five-factor solution was
1.03, factor solution with varimax rotation for 4 and 5 was evaluated. The
four-factor solution that was obtained in phase 1 was replicated in phase 3.
The four-factor solution was deemed fit since it could be theoretically interpreted

and it was reconfirmed by promax rotation. The four-factor solution shared 59.62 %
factor loadings ranged 0.44–0.75. Table 8.1 indicated the items and factor loadings.
The total a = 0.87 for 24 items.
Table 8.1 Varimax rotation with kaiser normalization for 24 items new interpersonal scale
S. Item Sensitivity to Gratitude Social Connectedness
No. No. People and Intelligence
Environment
1 30 I experience deep emotions 0.75
when I see beautiful things
2 32 I really enjoy caring for other 0.70
people
3 31 I tend to get emotionally 0.67
involved with a friend’s
problems
4 29 I understand feelings of other 0.62
people
5 22 I get upset if I see people 0.61
suffering
6 26 I tend to help others 0.59
particularly when they are
emotionally distressed
7 23 Friends usually talk to me 0.59
about their problems as they
say that I am very
understanding
8 33 I see beauty that other people 0.57
pass by without noticing
9 27 It is important to me that I live 0.49
in a world of beauty
10 10 I always admit when I am 0.45
wrong
11 36 I have so much in life to be 0.72
thankful for
12 35 If I had to list everything that I 0.65
felt grateful for, it would be a
very long list
13 37 I feel deeply appreciative for 0.64
the things others have done for
me in my life
14 25 I have been richly blessed in 0.51
my life
15 38 I try to have fun in all kinds of 0.47
situations
16 41 In social situations, I’m usually 0.73
the one who makes the first
move
(continued)

S. Item Sensitivity to Gratitude Social Connectedness
No. No. People and Intelligence
Environment
17 40 I am good at making friends 0.71
18 39 People close to me say that I 0.66
can mix with others easily
19 42 I prefer jobs that involve active 0.55
social interaction to those that
involve
20 18 I am good at entering new 0.53
situations and meeting people
for the first time
21 1 I work at my very best when I 0.69
am a group member
22 5 I really enjoy being a part of a 0.66
group
23 3 If I see someone going through 0.43 0.53
a difficult time, I try to be
caring toward that person
24 2 I am always willing to take 0.44
risks to establish a relationship
Eigenvalue 9.83 1.83 1.49 1.16
Variance 40.95 7.64 6.22 4.82
Cronbach alpha 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.74
The four factors that were seen to constitute interpersonal scale were
1. Factor 1: Sensitivity to People and Environment-The first factor had Cronbach
alpha of 0.87, eigenvalue of 9.83, and variance 40.95 %. The first factor con-
sisted of 10 items describing an individual’s sensitive attitude toward people and
his environment. This was evident from the statements found under this con-
struct such as “I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s problems,”
“Friends usually talk to me about their problems as they say that I am very
understanding,” “I see beauty that other people pass by without noticing.”,
“I experience deep emotions when I see beautiful things,” etc.
2. Factor 2: Gratitude-The second factor had Cronbach alpha of 0.86, eigenvalue
of 1.83 and variance 7.64 % and five items which describe gratitude an indi-
vidual feels towards his life and the people around him. Some of the statements
that describe this factor are: “I have so much in life to be thankful for,” “I feel
deeply appreciative for the things others have done for me in my life,” “I have
been richly blessed in my life,” etc.
3. Factor 3: Social Intelligence-The third factor had Cronbach alpha of 0.84,
eigenvalue of 6.22 and variance 1.49 % and consists of five items, each
describing the social nature of an individual. For example “In social situations,
I’m usually the one who makes the first move,” “I prefer jobs that involve active
social interaction to those that involve,” “I am good at entering new situations

and meeting people for the first time,” etc.
4. Factor 4: Connectedness-The fourth factor had Cronbach alpha of 0.74,
eigenvalue of 1.16, and variance 4.82 % and has four items that captures how
well an individual connects with other people in group setting and otherwise.
For, e.g., “I work at my very best when I am a group member,” “I really enjoy
being a part of a group,.” “If I see someone going through a difficult time, I try
to be caring toward that person.”
Scale 2: Intrapersonal Scale
Phase 1

Scales pertaining to intrapersonal strengths were reviewed for item generation.
A total of 163 items (31 negatively worded and 132 positively worded) were
generated from various existing scales reviewed. A response format of 5-point
Likert scale with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 5 indicating strongly Agree was

The steps mentioned for item refinement, modification, and expert review in
Chap. 2 were followed. Based on their feedback, 17 items were rejected and 5 new
were added as per experts’ comments. This resulted in a pool of 151 items.
Pilot Study
This resulted in 151 items, which were administered on 100 participants
(Males = 21 %, Females = 79 %) who voluntarily consented. The participants
were in the age range of 16–26 years (mean age = 20.64, SD = 2.24). Majority of
the sample (80 %) were students, nearly 12 % were working, 3 % were students
working part-time, and 5 % was nonworking. A booklet with all the required
demographic information and intrapersonal questionnaire was handed to the par-
ticipants. They were asked to fill it within a week and return.
Analysis
The data were analyzed for missing values. The range of missing values was 0.7–
4.6 %. The missing values were substituted by the mid-value (3) of the 5-point Likert
scale. The item reduction techniques based on criterion of mean, standard deviation,
and item total correlation weres employed as mentioned in Chap. 2. On the basis of
mean scores eight items were deleted. Similarly on the basis of SD, 65 items were
deleted and no item was deleted on basis of corrected item total correlation.
The remaining 42 items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis. EFA with
extraction technique of principal component and varimax rotation was applied.
Items were subjected to multiple factor solutions of which the best fit to emerge was
six-factors solution, explaining 45.10 % of variance. The factor analysis was
considered appropriate after observing the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of
Sampling Adequacy for this data set (0.65). Kaiser (1974) recommended a cut-off
point of 0.6. Also Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was highly significant (p < 0.01).
Items with factor loadings less than 0.40 were suppressed. Three items were
declared redundant and deleted as they had low factor loading. However, seven
items on six-factor solution were found to be having secondary loadings. These
were retained considering the highly correlated nature of the construct. Dimension
reduction resulted in a final pool of 39 items.
Phase 2
After a careful scrutiny of the resultant 39 items of intrapersonal construct, the need
to add more items was felt. In consultation with experts, 17 new items were added,
thus making the total as 56. The new set of items was administered on 180 par-
ticipants (males = 48 %, females = 52 %) with a mean age of 22.90 years
(SD = 2.15). The range of missing values was 1.8–5.4 %. Based on the criteria
followed in phase 1, a total of eight items were deleted on the basis of means and
item total correlation. On the remaining 48 items, factor analysis with alternative
factor solutions was run. The KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy for this data
set was 0.71 and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was also found to be highly
significant (p < 0.01). However, in this phase no item was deleted based on its
redundant status in factor analysis.
Phase 3
Participants
The pool of 48 items generated in phase 2 was administered on 620 participants. There
were seven participants who did not return the forms. During data-cleaning process it
was further observed that 31 participants either did not provide demographic details or
more than 50 % of the questionnaire was unfilled. Thus, the final pool of 582 par-
ticipants (males = 44.33 % and females = 55.67 %) was employed for data analysis.
The participants age range was 17–33 years (M = 21.59 years; SD = 3.17).
Procedure
new intrapersonal scale, new interpersonal and tests for validation. They were asked
to fill it within a week and return it.
Analysis and Results

screened for minimum and maximum values for new intrapersonal scale. Frequency
analysis for each item indicated that responses for each item had scores within the
range. The SPSS preliminary frequency output was analyzed for missing values. The
percentage for all items on psychometric test and for 48 items of new intrapersonal
scale were under 5 % and random in nature. The missing values were replaced with
series means. The mean, standard deviation, skeweness, and kurtosis were within
acceptable range as discussed in Chap. 2. According to the corrected item total
correlation parameters mentioned in Chap. 2, one item from the intrapersonal scale
was deleted. Thus, 47 items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis.
The data were split into two parts for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis
as discussed in Chap. 2. The two parts were counter balanced for gender and age.
A t-test was conducted to confirm that both the subsamples were balanced. The results
of the t-test were not significant hence, indicating that both the parts were equal. The
exploratory factor analysis consisted of 223 participants (Males = 103; females =
120, Mean age = 21.12 years; SD = 3.75) and confirmatory consisted of 359
participants (Males = 155; females = 204, Mean age = 21.62 years; SD = 3.11).

maximum likelihood (ML) for estimation was employed in factor solution as dis-
cussed in Chap. 2. The factor analysis with varimax rotation was applied on 47
items. The value of KMO-MSA was 0.87, v2 (210) = 1904.43, p < 0.01, thus
indicating that the data was suitable for factor analysis as discussed in Chap. 2. The
communalities values ranged from 0.24 to 0.70. However, no item was deleted.
Since the eigenvalue till four-factor solution was 1.08, factor solution with varimax
rotation for 3 and 4 was evaluated. The six-factor solution that was obtained in
phase 1 was not replicated in phase 3.
The three-factor solution was deemed fit since it could be theoretically inter-
preted and it was reconfirmed by promax rotation. The three-factor solution shared
51.35 % of variance and it consisted of 21 items with factor loadings greater than
0.40. The factor loadings ranged 0.42–0.78. Table 8.2 indicates the items and factor
loadings. The total a = 0.89 for 21 items.
The three factors that were seen to constitute intrapersonal scale were:
Factor 1: Creativity and Desire to Learn—The first factor had Cronbach alpha
of 0.80, eigenvalue of 7.12 m variance 33.90 %, and has five items which corre-
spond to creativity and a desire to learn. The statements that describe this factor are
“My imagination stretches far beyond that of my friends.”, “I can find something of
interest in any situation,” “I am busy in exploring and discovering new things,” etc.
Factor 2: Organized and Self-Discipline—Second factor had Cronbach alpha of
0.78, eigenvalue of 2.31, variance 11.01 %, and has seven items which describe the
Table 8.2 Varimax rotation with kaiser normalization for the 21 items new intrapersonal scale
S. Item Item Creativity Organized Self-Regulation
No. No. and desire and
to learn Self-Discipline
1 2 People have often told me that I have 0.78
a good imagination
2 1 My imagination stretches far beyond 0.77
that of my friends
3 3 I can find something of interest in 0.62
any situation
4 5 I am busy in exploring and 0.50
discovering new things
5 10 My view of the world is an excellent 0.49
on
6 4 I think my life is extremely 0.47
interesting
7 40 I plan ahead and organize things, to 0.71
avoid scrambling at the last minute
8 39 I keep my personal places (office or 0.69
home)organized
9 42 People often call me a perfectionist. 0.66
10 41 I plan ahead and organize things, to 0.65
avoid scrambling at the last minute
11 29 I am a highly disciplined person 0.57
12 38 I exercise on a regular basis 0.48
13 31 I am able to depend on myself more 0.68
than anyone else
14 32 I value close relationships in my life 0.62
15 34 My belief in myself gets me through 0.60
hard times
16 9 Regardless of what is happening, I 0.54
keep in mind what is most important
17 36 I never want things that are bad for 0.45
me in the long run even if they make
me good in the short run
18 30 I generally manage my emotions 0.45
19 35 When I’m going through a very hard 0.44
time, I give myself the caring and
tenderness I need
20 8 I make decisions only when I have 0.42
all of the facts
21 28 I prefer to do whatever comes to my 0.42
mind, rather than stick to a plan
Eigenvalue 7.12 2.31 1.35
Variance 33.90 11.01 6.44
Cronbach alpha 0.80 0.78 0.82
self-discipline and organizational skills of an individual. For, e.g., “I plan ahead and
organize things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute,” “I am a highly disciplined
person,” “I exercise on a regular basis,” etc.
Factor 3: Self-Regulation—The third factor had Cronbach alpha of 0.82,
eigenvalue of 1.35, variance 6.44 % with eight items which describe the
Self-Regulation. This is evident from statements such as “My belief in myself gets
me through hard times,” “I value close relationships in my life.”, “I make decisions
only when I have all of the facts,” etc.
Stage 5: Validation
The validation for the newly developed interpersonal and intrapersonal scale was
established through confirmatory factor analysis and correlating the scales with
other existing scales such as flourishing scale (Diener et al. 2010), scale of positive
and negative experiences (Diener et al. 2010), and mental health continuum scale
(Keyes 2009).
Measures Used
The following scales were employed to evaluate the newly developed intrapersonal
and interpersonal scale’s validity.
Flourishing Scale (Diener, et al. 2010) This is an 8-item scale that provides a
acceptable reliability with Cronbach’s alpha a = 0.87 (Diener et al. 2010) and
a = 0.93 in the present study.
Scale of Positive and Negative Experience: (SPANE; Diener et al. 2010) It con-
tains 12 items that are divided into two subscales with six items each. SPANE P
always) to assess the respondent’s positive or negative experience over the past four
weeks. The positive and negative scales are scored separately because of their partial
independence (Diener et al. 2010). Scores on each subscale (SPANE P and SPANE
N) range from 6 to 30. The two scores are combined by subtracting the negative score
from the positive score, and the resulting SPANE B scores range from −24 to 24.
The SPANE showed good psychometric properties as SPANE P a = 0.87, SPANE N
a = 0.81, and SPANE B a = 0.89 (Diener et al. 2010) and in the present study
SPANE P a = 0.81, SPANE N a = 0.79, and SPANE B. a = 0.80 were obtained.
well-being, social well-being, and emotional well-being. It comprises of 14 items that
are measured on 7-point Likert scale. Internal reliability is high for the total MHC-SF
(a = 0.89), as well as for the subscales of EWB (a = 0.83) PWB (a = 0.83), and
SWB (a = 0.74), (Lamers et al. 2011). In the present study the reliability was EWB
a = 0.0.86; PWB a = 0.0.87 and for SWB a = 0.0.84 and total scale a = 0.91.
Measures Used 201
Confirmatory factor analysis for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal

The confirmatory factor analysis for Interpersonal scale and Intrapersonal scale was
employed independently to establish the construct validity of the scale. However,
since both the constructs are highly correlated, a combined construct validity for
both the scales was also established. A total 359 participants who filled up the
interpersonal and intrapersonal questionnaire were considered for confirmatory
factor analysis. Hence, in future studies, the interpersonal scale and intrapersonal
scale can be used independently or combined as per the need of study.
Construct validity of Interpersonal Scale

The CFA fit indices were Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.87, Adjusted Goodness
of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.85, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.97, root mean square
error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.071, and v2/d.f. = 3.40. However, the current
model is a fair fit (Preacher and MacCallum 2002) as per the guidelines mentioned
in Chap. 2. Further Fig. 8.1 indicates the domain factor loadings.
Fig. 8.1 CFA for interpersonal scale (English version)

Fig. 8.2 CFA for intrapersonal scale (English version)
Construct Validity of Intrapersonal Scale

The CFA fit indices were Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.86, Adjusted Goodness
of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.83, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.92, root mean square
error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.085, and v2/d.f. = 4.44. However, the current
model is a fair fit as per the guidelines mentioned in Chap. 2. Further Fig. 8.2
Construct validity of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Scale

Since both scales look like highly correlated, a combine model of both scales was
also tested. The CFA fit indices were Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.79, Adjusted
mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, and v2/d.f. = 2.35. Thus,
according to the guidelines mentioned in Chap. 2, the interpersonal—intrapersonal
model was moderate fit. The Fig. 8.3 indicates the item loadings.
Measures Used 203
Fig. 8.3 Factor loadings for new interpersonal and intrapersonal scale
Concurrent Validity for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal

The concurrent validity of the new interpersonal and intrapersonal scale was estab-
lished by correlating the factors with mental health continuum, flourishing, and affect
scales. The participants who filled all the psychometric scales and new scale for
interpersonal and intrapersonal were included in validity analysis. There were 547
participants who answered the validity scales as well, however 65 participants did not
fill either one of the scale or had left more than 50 % of items blank. These partici-
pants were excluded from analysis. Thus, analysis for validity was employed on 482
participants (Males = 188, females = 294, Mean = 21.78 years, SD = 3.21 years).
The results indicated significant correlations as per our hypotheses (see Table 8.3).
Table 8.3 indicates the correlation between new interpersonal and intrapersonal
scale and the well-being measures.
Study 2
phase was to collect data on the new interpersonal scale, intrapersonal scale, and the
validity scale, i.e., Hindi version of MHC-SF (Keyes 2009), Scale of Positive and
Negative Experiences and Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010).
Participants
of participants were undergraduates, 44 % were graduates, and 36 % were post
marital status.
Measures
The following instruments were used to evaluate the newly developed scales`
validity.
Newly Developed Interpersonal Scale has 24 items representing four factors.
The Cronbach alpha for the factors of Hindi version of the scale are: Sensitivity to
people and environment (a = 0.78), Gratitude (a = 0.78), Social Intelligence
(a = 0.69), and Connectedness (a = 0.58).
Measures Used
Table 8.3 Concurrent validity of new interpersonal-intrapersonal scale

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. IE1 0.87
2. IE2 0.68** 0.85
3. IE3 0.59** 0.60** 0.84
4. IE4 0.61** 0.47** 0.48** 0.74
** **
5. IETOTAL 0.92 0.84 0.80** 0.73** 0.93
6. IA1 0.56** 0.48** 0.51** 0.42** 0.60** 0.80
** ** ** **
7. IA2 0.42 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.45** 0.35** 0.78
8. IA3 0.65** 0.59** 0.51** 0.43** 0.68** 0.56** 0.52** 0.82
9. IATOTAL 0.68** 0.60** 0.57** 0.48** 0.72** 0.77** 0.76** 0.89** 0.88
** ** ** ** ** ** **
10. FS 0.31 0.30 0.27 0.22 0.34 0.26 0.22 0.36** 0.35** 0.93
11. SPANE P 0.16** 0.24** 0.23** 0.10* 0.22** 0.17** 0.13** 0.22** 0.22** 0.59** 0.80
* ** ** * ** ** ** ** **
12. SPANE N −0.11 −0.19 −0.21 −0.10 −0.18 −0.15 −0.15 −0.23 −0.23 −0.28** −0.34** 0.77
13. SPANE B 0.17** 0.26** 0.27** 0.12** 0.24** 0.20** 0.17** 0.28** 0.27** 0.52** 0.82** −0.82** 0.84
14. EWB 0.06 0.17** 0.11* 0.00 0.10* 0.09* 0.11* 0.19** 0.16** 0.50** 0.51** −0.43** 0.57** 0.87
15. SWB −0.01 0.08 0.13** −0.01 0.05 0.06 0.11* 0.05 0.09* 0.32** 0.35** −0.26** 0.37** 0.61** 0.84
16. PWB 0.18** 0.20** 0.23** 0.07 0.21** 0.23** 0.22** 0.28** 0.30** 0.58** 0.54** −0.31** 0.52** 0.59** 0.56** 0.88
* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
17. MHCTOTAL 0.09 0.174 0.20 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.55 0.54 −0.37 0.56 0.81 0.86** 0.87** 0.91
Note **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, IE1 Sensitivity to people and environment, IE2 Gratitude, IE3 Social intelligence, IE4 Connectedness, IETOTAL Interpersonal total, IA1 Creativity and a desire to learn, IA2
Self-discipline and organization, IA3 Self-Regulation, IATOTAL Intrapersonal total, FS flourishing scale, SPANE P positive, SPANE N Negative, SPANE B balance, EWB emotional well-being, SWB social
well-being, PWB psychological well-being and MHC tot Mental Health continuum total score
205
Newly Developed Intrapersonal Scale has 21 items representing three factors.

The Cronbach alpha for the factors of Hindi version of the scale are: creativity and
desire to learn (a = 0.76), self-discipline and organization (a = 0.79), and
self-regulation (a = 0.70).
Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (Diener et al. 2010) In an earlier
study (Singh 2014) the Hindi translated version of the scale was validated and its
reliability was found to be acceptable (SPANE P a = 0.69; SPANE N a = 0.69;
SPANE B a = 0.70). In the present study the reliability values were for SPANE P
a = 0.82; for SPANE N a = 0.77 and SPANE B a = 0.76.
Flourishing Scale (Diener et al. 2010) In an earlier study (Singh 2014) the Hindi
translated version of the scale was validated and its reliability was found to be
acceptable (FS a = 0.69). In the present study Cronbach alpha obtained a = 0.91.
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF Keyes 2009) In an earlier study
(Singh 2014), the Hindi translated version of the scale was validated and its relia-
bility was found to be acceptable (EWB a = 0.78; PWB a = 0.80; SWB a = 0.87;
Total MHC a = 0.89). In the present study the reliability values were for EWB
a = 0.82; for PWB a = 0.77 and for SWB a = 0.76 and for total MHC-SF a = 0.81.
Procedure
The scales which were developed and validated in the phase 2 of the study were
translated into Hindi.
The bilingual experts back translated the scales into English. This was done to
verify the content similarity to the original scale and to ensure that translated tests
were true copy of the original tests. The discrepancies were resolved and the test was
once again verified by the author and bilingual experts. All the participants were
given a booklet which contained a demographic information sheet (age, sex, edu-
cational qualification, occupation and marital status), newly developed interpersonal
and intrapersonal scales, Flourishing scale, SPANE and MHC-SF in Hindi language.
Results
The data were analyzed similarly as phase 2. The mean and SD ranged from 3.19–
3.99 and 1.52–1.94, respectively. The skeweness (−2.89 to 2.59) and kurtosis
(−2.01 to 2.29) were within acceptable range. The validation for the Hindi trans-
lated version of the scale was undertaken separately for interpersonal and intrap-
ersonal scale for construct validity. Since both the scales independently confirmed
and were established as highly correlated in earlier study, hence a combined factor
structure too for Hindi version was validated.
Interpersonal Scale (Hindi Version): The CFA fit indices were Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI) = 0.89, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.87, Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.063
and v2/d.f. = 3.15. However, the current model is a fair fit (Preacher and
MacCallum 2002) as per the guidelines mentioned in Chap. 2. Further Fig. 8.4
Measures Used 207
Fig. 8.4 CFA for interpersonal scale (Hindi version)
Intrapersonal Scale (Hindi Version): The CFA fit indices were Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI) = 0.87, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.84, Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) = 0.95, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.082,
and v2/d.f. = 4.68. However, the current model is a fair fit (Preacher and
MacCallum 2002) as per the guidelines mentioned in Chap. 2. Further Fig. 8.5
Combined model of inter-intrapersonal scale (Hindi version): The CFA fit
indices were Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.85, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
(AGFI) = 0.82, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96, root mean square error
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, and v2/d.f. = 2.80. However, the current model is
a fair fit (Preacher and MacCallum 2002) as per the guidelines mentioned in
Chap. 2. Further Fig. 8.6 indicates the domain factor loadings.
Fig. 8.5 CFA for intrapersonal scale (Hindi version)
Validity
The validity was established with the same method as Phase 2. Table 8.4 indicates
the validity for Hindi version of the scale.
Norms for the New Inter-intrapersonal Scale
set. Gender difference was observed for intrapersonal factor 2 (t(1019) = 2.91,
p < 0.01), intrapersonal factor 3 (t(1019) = −4.25, p < 0.01) and interpersonal
factor 4 (t(1017) = −1.96, p < 0.05).
Norms for the New Inter-intrapersonal Scale 209
Fig. 8.6 Factor loadings for interpersonal and intrapersonal scale (Hindi version)
210
Table 8.4 Concurrent validity for the new interpersonal-intrapersonal scale (Hindi Version)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. IA1 1
2. IA2 0.77** 1
3. IA3 0.75** 0.78** 1
4. IATOTAL 0.90** 0.93** 0.93** 1
** **
5. IE1 0.69 0.68 0.70** 0.75** 1
6. IE2 0.51** 0.52** 0.54** 0.57** 0.57** 1
** ** ** **
7. IE3 0.60 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.71** 0.53** 1
8. IE4 0.54** 0.55** 0.52** 0.58** 0.60** 0.46** 0.51** 1
9. IETOTAL 0.72** 0.72** 0.73** 0.79** 0.91** 0.78** 0.83** 0.75** 1
** ** ** ** ** ** **
10. EWB 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.18** 0.34** 1
11. SWB 0.31** 0.36** 0.28** 0.34** 0.30** 0.30** 0.40** 0.23** 0.37** 0.39** 1
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
12. PWB 0.41 0.48 0.38 0.46 0.41 0.31 0.39 0.29 0.43 0.44** 0.52** 1
13. MHCTOTAL 0.44** 0.50** 0.41** 0.49** 0.42** 0.38** 0.47** 0.30** 0.48** 0.70** 0.82** 0.85** 1
14. SPANE P 0.41** 0.42** 0.37** 0.44** 0.30** 0.31** 0.32** 0.23** 0.35** 0.51** 0.32** 0.37** 0.48** 1
15. SPANE N −0.10 −0.07 −0.12** −0.06 −0.10* −0.06 0.04 0.03 −0.05 −0.17** 0.09* −0.09* −0.06 −0.08 1
16. SPANE B 0.24** 0.29** 0.30** 0.31** 0.25** 0.23** 0.15** 0.11* 0.24** 0.42** 0.11* 0.28** 0.32** 0.62** −0.83** 1
17. FS 0.47** 0.51** 0.49** 0.53** 0.54** 0.38** 0.40** 0.25** 0.50** 0.47** 0.33** 0.54** 0.56** 0.49** −0.29** 0.50** 1
Note **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, IA1 Creativity and a desire to learn, IA2 Self-discipline and organization, IA3 Self-Regulation, IATOTAL Intrapersonal total, IE1 Sensitivity to people and environment, IE2
Gratitude, IE3 Social intelligence, IE4 Connectedness, IETOTAL Interpersonal total, EWB emotional well-being, SWB social will-being, PWB psychological well-being and MHC tot Mental Health
continuum total score, SPANE P positive, SPANE N Negative, SPANE B balance and FS flourishing scale
8 Development and Validation of New Interpersonal …
Norms for the New Inter-intrapersonal Scale 211
When the data were split for English and Hindi, it was noted that no gender
differences were present in Hindi data set, whereas in English data it was gender
differences were observed for intrapersonal factor 3 (t(472) = −2.06, p < 0.05),
interpersonal factor 1 (t(472) = −3.14, p < 0.01), interpersonal factor 2
(t(472) = −2.43, p < 0.05), interpersonal factor 4 (t(472) = −4.63, p < 0.01), and
total interpersonal strengths (t(472) = −3.27, p < 0.01). The results indicated that
males (M = 32.41) possessed higher mean as compared to females (M = 33.49) on
intrapersonal factor 3. On the interpersonal scale it was observed that females (Factor
1 M = 38.74; Factor 2 M = 19.20; Factor 4 M = 15.67; Total Interpersonal
strengths M = 91.62) possessed higher mean as compared to males (Factor
1 M = 36.76; Factor 2 M = 18.25; Factor 4 M = 14.37; Total Interpersonal
strengths M = 86.97).
difference of age group on inter-intrapersonal strengths scale. No difference of age
group was observed on English language participants, however, Hindi participants
differed significantly on intrapersonal factor 1 (t(545) = −1.93, p < 0.05), and
interpersonal factor 2 (t(545) = −2.96, p < 0.01). Data demonstrated that partici-
pants in the >30 years age group (intrapersonal factor 1 M = 22.63; interpersonal
factor 2 M = 20.03) possessed higher significant mean as compared to the <30 years
age group (intrapersonal factor 1 M = 21.91; interpersonal factor 2 M = 18.78).
When data were combined for Hindi and English participants on age group,
it was observed that participants differed significantly on intrapersonal factor 1
(t(1027) = −2.72, p < 0.01), intrapersonal factor 2 (t(1027) = −7.14, p < 0.01),
total intrapersonal score (t(1027) = −3.31, p < 0.01), interpersonal factor 2
(t(1027) = −3.60, p < 0.01), interpersonal factor 3 (t(1027) = −2.17, p < 0.05),
and total interpersonal score (t(1026) = −2.60, p < 0.01). Data indicate that par-
ticipants in the >30 years age group (intrapersonal factor 1 M = 22.50; intraper-
sonal factor 2 M = 25.36; total intrapersonal score M = 79.22; interpersonal factor
2 M = 19.98; interpersonal factor 3 M = 19.81; total interpersonal score
M = 93.34) possessed higher significant mean as compared to the <30 years age
group (intrapersonal factor 1 M = 21.65; intrapersonal factor 2 M = 22.65; total
intrapersonal score M = 76.19; interpersonal factor 2 M = 18.79; interpersonal
factor 3 M = 18.16; total interpersonal score M = 90.33).
Results and Discussion
The current study reports the development and validation of two scales—inter-
personal strengths scale and intrapersonal strengths scale. The validity of these
scales was established by correlating these scales with measures of well-being—
Mental Health Continuum, Flourishing and Positive and Negative Experience.
A four factor solution explaining 59.62 % of the variance, with an overall

reliability of the new measure a = 0.87, was deemed appropriate for assessing
interpersonal strengths in the Indian population. The four factors that were found to
constitute this new measure were: sensitivity to people and environment, gratitude,
social intelligence, and connectedness. The four factors of the interpersonal scale
significantly correlated with each other as well as with the total score on inter-
personal scale. The overall score on the interpersonal scale also showed significant
positive correlation with flourishing scale, positive affect scale and with mental
health continuum. A significant negative correlation was observed for the overall
score on the interpersonal scale with negative affect of the affect scale.
The intrapersonal scale, a three-factor solution, explaining 51.35 % variance was
deemed fit. The factors that were found to constitute this new measure were:
creativity and a desire to learn, self-discipline, and organization, and social–emo-
tional intelligence. Correlation analysis showed a significant positive correlation
amongst the three factors of intrapersonal measure as well as with the overall
intrapersonal measure. Significant positive correlation was also observed for the
overall score on intrapersonal measure with flourishing scale, affect scale and
mental health continuum. Significant correlation between domains as well as
overall interpersonal and intrapersonal measures were also found. Many studies
(Gillham et al. 2011; Andrewes et al. 2014; Park and Peterson 2009; Leontopoulou
and Triliva 2012; Proctor et al. 2009; Emmons and McCullough 2003) have
established that interpersonal and intrapersonal strengths and its dimensions such as
gratitude and self-regulation are correlated with well-being factors such as sub-
jective well-being, psychological well-being and quality of life
Conclusion
Interpersonal and intrapersonal strengths are required in every aspect of life—be it

personal or professional. In such a scenario it is important that an individual
identifies and enhances his strengths. The current study promises the potentiality of
the two new measures designed for assessing one’s interpersonal and intrapersonal
strengths.
References
Abikoff, H., & Gallagher, R. (2008). Assessment and remediation of organizational skills deficits
in children with ADHD. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Concepts, controversies and
new directions, pp. 137–152.
Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in
everyday life. Emotion, 8(3), 425.
Aloha, S. E. (1995). Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors in athletic performance. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 5, 191–199.
References 213
Andrewes, H. E., Walker, V., & O’Neill, B. (2014). Exploring the use of positive psychology
interventions in brain injury survivors with challenging behavior. Brain Injury, 28(7), 965–971.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of
trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 547–558.
Barber, B. K. (2005). Positive interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning: An assessment of
measures among adolescents. In What do children need to flourish?, pp. 147–161.
Springer US.
Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Startup, M. (1996). The IIP-32: Development of a short version of
the inventory of interpersonal problem. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 21–35.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Ben-Zur, H. (2003). Happy adolescents: The link between subjective well-being, internal
resources, and parental factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(2), 67–79.
Bienvenu, M. J. (1971). An interpersonal communication inventory. Journal of Communication,
21(4), 381–388.
Brdar, I., & Kashdan, T. B. (2010). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical
investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 151–154.
Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R., & Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The self-regulation questionnaire. The
self-regulation questionnaire. In L. VandeCreek & T. L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical
practice: A sourcebook (Vol. 17). F. L. Sarasota (Ed.), Professional resource
press/professional resource exchange, pp. 281–292.
Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the dyadic
adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and
multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289–308.
Busch, N. B., & Valentine, D. (2000). Empowerment practice: A focus on battered women.
AFFILIA, 15(1), 82–95.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of
the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50.
Cha, K. H. (2003). Subjective well-being among college students. In The Quality of Life in Korea
(pp. 455–477). Springer Netherlands.
Chan, M. (2013). Mobile phones and the good life: Examining the relationships among mobile
use, social capital and subjective well-being. New Media & Society, 1461444813516836.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An
experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389.
Froh, J. J., Bono, G., & Emmons, R. A. (2010). Being grateful is beyond good manners: Gratitude
and motivation to contribute to society among early adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 34,
144–157.
Gillham, J., Adams-Deutsch, Z., Werner, J., Reivich, K., Coulter-Heindl, V., Linkins, M., et al.
(2011). Character strengths predict subjective well-being during adolescence. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 6(1), 31–44.
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical
transactions-royal society of London series B biological sciences, 1435–1446.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 50, 93–98.
Hipple, J. L. (1972). Interpersonal relationship rating scale. In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E. Jones (Eds.),
The 1972 annual handbook for group facilitators (p. 1972). La Jolla, CA: University Associate
Publishers Inc.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of general
psychology, 9(2), 169.
Jones, M. I., & Lavallee, D. (2009). Exploring the life skills needs of British adolescent athletes.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 159–167.
Karimy, M., Niknami, S., Hidarnia, A., Hajizadeh, E., & Shamsi, M. (2014). Personal Attitudes,
Risk Perception and Perceived Vulnerability toward Water Pipe Smoking among Male
Students in Zarandieh. Health Education & Health Promotion, 1(2), 47–59.
Retrieved from http://www.sociology.emory.edu/ckeyes/. [Online, retrieved January 15, 2010]
Kulshrestha, U., & Sen, C. (2006). Subjective well-being in relation to emotional intelligence and
locus of control among executives. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology,
32(2), 93–98.
Lamers, S., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011).
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 99–110.
Leontopoulou, S., & Triliva, S. (2012). Explorations of subjective wellbeing and character
strengths among a Greek University student sample. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3),
251–270.
MacDonald, C., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the big 5: An empirical
indication of structure, journal of research in personality. Journal of Research in Personality,
42, 787–799.
Mahajan, N. N., Turnbull, D. A., Davies, M. J., Jindal, U. N., Briggs, N. E., & Taplin, J. E. (2009).
Adjustment to infertility: The role of intrapersonal and interpersonal resources/vulnerabilities.
Human Reproduction, 24(4), 906–912.
Mitra, S. (2015). A study on the correlates of general well-being. Indian Journal of Health and
Wellbeing, 6(1), 27.
Netra, N., & Das, P. K. (2013). Attributes of Success and Failure-A students perspective. Indian
Journal of Applied Research, 3(30), 20–22.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Character strengths: Research and practice. Journal of College
and Character, 10(4).
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603–619.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. Oxford University Press.
Philippe, R. A., & Seiler, R. (2005). Sex differences on use of associative and dissociative
cognitive strategies among male and female athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101(2),
440–444.
research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32(2), 153–161.
Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2009). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and
health-related quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 583–630.
Rajesh, V. R., & Chandrasekaran, V. (2014). A study on interpersonal skills of college students.
Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(14), 1932–1939.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007).
A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 921–933.
Segrin, C., & Taylor, M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association
between social skills and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 43
(4), 637–646.
References 215
Sharma, N., & Kaur, A. (2011). Factors associated with stress among nursing students. Nursing
and Midwifery Research Journal, 7(1).
Project Report.
Singh, K., & Choubisa, R. (2010). Empirical validation of values in action-inventory of strengths
(VIA-IS) in Indian context. Psychological Studies, 55(2), 151–158.
Singh, K., & Jha, S. D. (2008). Positive and negative affect, and grit as predictors of happiness and
life satisfaction. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(2), 40–45.
Singh, K., & Choubisa, R. (2009). Psychometric properties of Hindi translated version of values in
action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS). Journal of Indian Health Psychology, 4(1), 65–76.
Singh, K., Kaur, J., Singh, D., & Suri, S. (2014). Correlates of well-being: A rural women study.
Journal of Indian Health Psychology, 8(2), 31–42.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.
Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Health outcomes of bereavement. The Lancet, 370
(9603), 1960–1973.
Strohmeier, D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Intrapersonal and interpersonal risk factors for
peer victimization in immigrant youth in Finland. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 248.
Tatnell, R., Kelada, L., Hasking, P., & Martin, G. (2014). Longitudinal analysis of adolescent
NSSI: the role of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 42(6), 885–896.
Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of health and social
behavior, 115–131.
Toner, E., Haslam, N., Robinson, J., & Williams, P. (2012). Character strengths and well-being in
adolescence: Structure and correlates of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths for
Children. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 637–642.
Tuliao, A. P. (2009). Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors outside of treatment that predict
relapse and abstinence in substance use disorder. Doctoral dissertation, Ateneo de Manila
University.

Singh Et Al 2016 Muestras

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Singh Et Al 2016 Muestras

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kamlesh Singh

ISBN 978-81-322-3629-0 ISBN 978-81-322-3631-3 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946321

© Springer India 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

1 Positive Psychology in India: A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Correlates and Predictors of Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5 Mindfulness and Its Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Concurrent Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Kamlesh Singh, Ph.D. (Psychology), joined the Indian Institute of Technology

interest include developmental psychology, positive psychology, and child and

Keywords Positive psychology

© Springer India 2016 1

Indian Research on Universal Positive Psychology

Majority of Indian psychologists who are active researchers in ﬁeld of positive

equanimity, joy, synthesis, and discernment as emerging predictors of resilience,

Indian Constructs Contribute to Positive Psychology

precisely indoctrinated by following organized methodology and by indigenous

Scales on Positive Psychological Constructs

Psychological testing is well-known assessment tool for estimating the effect of

Scales Conﬁrmed Their Factor Structure

Scales Developed on Indian Constructs

Assessment of Indian constructs may contribute to better understanding of

need to achieve a higher state of consciousness (Mohan et al. 2004). Similarly,

As researchers we need to understand all applied psychology constructs and then

What Is a Psychological Test?

Psychological test is a set of objective and standardized self-report questions whose

© Springer India 2016 17

Psychological tests are often subject-centered measurements and follow certain

For example, construction of resilience scale was undertaken after exhaustive

Principles of Item Writing

Writing good items is a precursor to developing a good psychometric test.

Sample Size for Validation

Preliminary Data Analysis

It is essential that researchers employ preliminary data analysis. This covers

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor analysis is employed to analyze interrelationships among a large number of

x1 ¼ w11F1 þ w21F2 þ wn1Fn þ w1U1 þ e1;

where the Fs represent the common factors

A Rule of Thumb for EFA

• Comprehensibility is purely subjective criterion to retain factors whose meaning

Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis

previous empirical studies. As a conﬁrmatory procedure, factor analysis is primarily a

There are abundant indicators of goodness-of-ﬁt and researchers recommend

Parameters for Accepting a Model

c. The root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.08 (Cole

Abstract The concept of resilience with emphasis on the psychometric properties

Keywords Resilience Mental health Flourishing Positive experiences

© Springer India 2016 35

Resilience in the Realm of Developmental Perspective

Empirical resilience studies in early 1970s reported how children developmentally

individual’s life and overcoming odds. The research in developmental resilience

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

Empirical Studies on Resilience

Resilience researches lead to conception of various theories and models. Literature

Correlates and Predictors of Resilience

Previous researchers have correlated resilience with other well-being measures.

Resilience (Hjemdal et al. 2011) is described as a multidimensional construct

Numerous factors such as family, community, spiritual, physical, and emotional

Education, Income, and Locality

Lower income is associated with lower levels of resilience in individuals (Wagnild

Certain factors in one’s immediate environment are known to promote resilience.