See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330299473

Measuring Everyday Processes and Mechanisms of Stress Resilience:

Development and Initial Validation of the Sustainability of Living Inventory
(SOLI)

Article in Psychological Assessment · January 2019

DOI: 10.1037/pas0000692

CITATIONS READS

41 1,585

5 authors, including:

Wai Kai Hou Francisco Lai

The Education University of Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong
98 PUBLICATIONS 1,785 CITATIONS 121 PUBLICATIONS 1,957 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Clint Hougen Brian J. Hall

Teachers College New York University Shanghai
6 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS 380 PUBLICATIONS 25,795 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wai Kai Hou on 21 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Title Page with Author Information and Author Note

Measuring everyday processes and mechanisms of stress resilience: Development and

initial validation of the Sustainability of Living Inventory (SOLI)

Wai Kai Hou

Laboratory of Psychology and Ecology of Stress (LoPES), Department of Psychology, Centre

for Psychosocial Health

The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Francisco Tsz Tsun Lai

The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Clint Hougen

Teachers College

Columbia University, New York NY, USA

Brian J. Hall

Department of Psychology, Global and Community Mental Health Research Group

University of Macau, Macau SAR, China

Department of Health, Behavior and Society

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Stevan E. Hobfoll

Department of Behavioral Sciences

Rush University Medical Center, Chicago IL, USA

Correspondence:

Wai-Kai Hou, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

The Education University of Hong Kong

10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, NT

Hong Kong SAR

Email: wkhou@eduhk.hk

Phone: (852) 2948-8841

Fax: (852) 2948-8454

Acknowledgement:

This research was supported by Early Career Scheme (Project No.: HKIED 859113) and the

Fulbright-RGC Hong Kong Senior Research Scholar Award from the Research Grants

Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (WK Hou). The Fulbright-

RGC Hong Kong Award was in collaboration with the Consulate General of the United

States in Hong Kong.

Masked Manuscript

Abstract

Sustainment of daily routines requires greater psychological resilience and may lead to

greater resilience in the face of stressors. Existing scales tend only to focus on emotions and

engagement, rather than how well individuals sustain routine behaviors. To address this gap

in the literature, we developed the Sustainability of Living Inventory (SOLI). A pool of 46

Likert-type items were developed to indicate how regularly respondents performed a variety

of specific routines. Four separate study samples were collected through online surveys with

community-dwelling American adults (N=1,109). The final model evidenced excellent

goodness-of-fit and consisted of 42 items, which loaded on eight dimensions: hygiene, eating,

sleep, duties at home, leisure at home, exercising, social activities, and work/study

involvement (α=.73-.93). These eight dimensions further loaded on two second-order factors,

primary and secondary daily routines. Convergent validity was demonstrated in the

correlations with Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, Perceived Ability to

Cope with Trauma Scale, Savoring Beliefs Inventory, and Conservation of Resources–

Evaluation. Discriminant validity was demonstrated in the correlations with the List of

Threatening Experiences, Life Events Checklist for DSM-5, and items on chronic financial

strain. Criterion-related validity was demonstrated in the correlations with established

outcome measures including State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Patient Health Questionnaire,

PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, Satisfaction with

Life Scale, and Perceived Stress Scale. Incremental validity was shown in the correlations

with outcome measures independent of common coping and resource variables. Implications

of the SOLI on mental health screening and intervention were discussed.

 2

Keywords

Stress; Resilience; Everyday life; Regularity; Daily routines; Mental health

Public Significance Statements

This study developed a theory-driven, self-report instrument, Sustainability of Living

Inventory (SOLI), which validly and reliably assesses perceived regularity of different

dimensions of daily routines. Based on the data from SOLI, cost-effective mental health

assessment and intervention protocols could be designed and tailor-made for individuals

adjusting to different forms of trauma and chronic stress conditions.

 3

Measuring everyday processes and mechanisms of stress resilience: Development and

initial validation of the Sustainability of Living Inventory (SOLI)

Resilience, a concept borrowed from natural sciences in the 1950s (Alexander, 2013;

Olsson, Jerneck, Thoren, Persson, & O’Byrne, 2015), was applied to understand human stress

adaptation and intensively studied across different settings and populations in recent decades.

Early findings suggested that psychological resilience is rare, meaning that only the minority

of people undergoing different forms of trauma and chronic stress conditions demonstrated

adaptive psychological functioning (Anthony, 1974).

The term “ordinary magic” was used to describe children and adolescents who did not

demonstrate significant psychological distress but continued normative personal and social

development across their lifespan despite childhood adversities (Masten, 2001). The concept

then underwent a major turning point following the seminal work by Bonanno and colleagues

who demonstrated that resilience is common (Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno et al., 2002). A

wealth of evidence is currently available to show that the majority of the people exposed to

major stressors and life changes did not report clinically significant psychological distress

over time, including bereavement (e.g., Bonanno et al., 2002), life-threatening diseases (e.g.,

Hou, Law, Yin, & Fu, 2010), armed conflict (e.g., Greene et al., 2017), and military

deployment (e.g., Donoho, Bonanno, Porter, Kearney, & Powell, 2017). A wide array of

personal and social predictors were identified to be predictive of the resilient trajectory over

time following diverse traumatic exposures and major chronic stressors. The theoretical and

empirical literature further included sustaining well-being as a concomitant and interrelated

pathway along with recovery from distress in stress resilience (Hou & Lam, 2014; Zautra et

al., 2010).

Processes and Mechanisms in Resilience

 4

Other lines of research elucidated the importance of building a resource-endowed

environment that is conducive to resilience. The socio-ecological perspective highlighted that

resources are embedded at various levels of the ecology during stress and dictate resilience

during mass-level adversities such as social unrest, war, and armed conflict (Panter-Brick,

2014; Rosshandler, Hall, & Canetti, 2016). This perspective expanded the repertoire of

personal and interpersonal predictors of resilience to family, societal, and community levels,

such as family functioning, social capital, and collective efficacy (Ehsan & De Silva, 2015;

Hall, Tol, Jordans, Bass, & de Jong, 2014; Walsh, 2016). Hobfoll and colleagues (2012)

further demonstrated that psychological resilience could be manifested into active

engagement in important life tasks in a study of Palestinians during a period of ongoing

violent conflict. In this key study, most individuals continued to engage in life tasks despite

significant levels of psychological distress (Hobfoll et al., 2012).

What is commonly implied across these perspectives is the context through which

psychological resilience is realized. “Ordinary magic” and interrelated pathways of recovery

from distress and sustainment of well-being were suggested to be seen in adaptation and

resources in ordinary living. Structural resilience in the socio-ecological perspective

emphasizes sustaining livelihood and preserving life and cultural meanings in everyday life.

There is evidence showing that individuals are driven to engage in important life tasks, which

occur day in and day out, despite persistent direct and indirect traumatic experiences and

psychological distress.

Reasons for Studying Everyday Life as the Mechanisms

Conceptualizing and measuring everyday life as the processes and mechanisms of

stress resilience importantly advances the current research and practice in several ways. First,

the absence of psychological distress has been found to be common in prospective adaptation

to differential stressful situations (Bonanno, Westphal, & Mancini, 2011; Bonanno et al.,
 5

2015). Because of the comparable proportion and pattern of resilient trajectory, it does not

seem likely that differential stressful situations bring about the same resilient trajectory for

the same set of predictor variables. Rather, differential stressful situations can bring about the

same resilient trajectory for the same set of mechanisms. For example, despite the great

variety of major and minor stressors across different physical (e.g., natural disasters, wars,

workplace) and social (e.g., conjugal bereavement, interpersonal violence, marital conflict)

conditions, one thing that remains constant is that people need to live their lives day in and

day out. Understanding everyday life as the mechanisms of resilience will contribute

parsimony and generalizability to research on psychological resilience.

Second, stressful situations could impact various biological, emotional, behavioral,

and social functioning. But how and why are most of us able to remain emotionally and

socially healthy, that is, resilient, over time despite adversity? Measuring the mechanisms of

resilience will clarify the links between diverse stressors and outcomes.

Third, everyday life mechanisms of resilience can be compared and contrasted across

different stressful situations. Sustaining regular daily routines is an indispensable part of

adaptation in ordinary time, as well as in post-traumatic and chronic stress conditions.

Therefore, greater clarity on the components of the mechanisms for individual stressors,

together with valid and reliable assessment methods, could facilitate the development of

effective interventions, not only for the immediate and medium terms but also for the long

term.

Fourth, stressful situations impact not only individual and social well-being but also

how we live our lives. For example, people with type-2 diabetes need to devote extra

attention on what they eat and regularly test blood-sugar levels in their daily living alone or

with social partners. Immediately following disasters, survivors need to make an effort to get

clean water, food, and sufficient sleep; adults might lose their jobs and children might not
 6

have regular schooling. Everyday life mechanisms will explain how resilience emerges and

expand the concept beyond conventional predictor and outcome variables.

Measuring Everyday Life Experiences

Currently, there are at least two lines of research on the measurement of everyday life

experiences. The first measures activities of daily living (ADL) that originated from the

importance of understanding and enhancing self-maintenance and independence of basic

daily functioning among disabled, the elderly, and those with physical limitations (Katz,

1983). ADL can be basic or instrumental. Basic ADL refers to self-care tasks such as bathing,

personal hygiene, dressing, self-feeding, and mobility for independent living. Instrumental

ADL are more complex activities that demand higher levels of physical functioning, such as

preparing meals, home maintenance, shopping for groceries, and travelling within the

community.

The second line of research measures hassles and uplifts, which encompass a great

variety of activities or behaviors (e.g., sex, cooking), people (e.g., family, fellow workers),

interpersonal interactions (e.g., conversations with spouse), thoughts and feelings (e.g., being

organized, feeling safe), the environment (e.g., the weather, political or social issues), or even

objects (e.g., television, pets) (DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988; Kanner, Coyne,

Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). Emotional valence of each item is rated in terms of hassle, pain,

distress, negative emotions, uplift, or positive emotions.

Both measures of ADL and daily hassles and uplifts emerged for practical reasons.

ADL focused on dimensions that have significant implications for clinical and health care

practice. Hassles and uplifts were mundane yet important life dimensions that were

overlooked at the time when most research focused exclusively on significant life

events/stressors such as the death of loved ones and a major health problem. Neither ADL

nor daily hassles and uplifts address directly exact behaviors pertinent to adaptation in
 7

stressful encounters. Previous frameworks have consistently proposed the importance of

contextualizing psychological resilience within ordinary daily living. But none of the two

measures above conceptualized how overt behaviors, or daily routines, which are parts of our

everyday life, might be relevant to vulnerability and resilience during and after different

forms of trauma and chronic stress conditions. This study sought to develop a self-report

instrument for measuring everyday processes that lead to psychological resilience.

Drive to Thrive Theory

To address the need to attend to everyday life in stress adaptation and resilience, how

the multitude of everyday life experiences impact stress adaptation and resilience should be

clarified in order to generate testable hypotheses and appropriate measurement for empirical

investigations. A new theory called the Drive to Thrive (DTT) theory used the term “fabrics”

as a metaphor of interwoven and interdependent routines and rituals that make up the

structure of our everyday life and offer sustaining benefit on health in adaptation to stress

(Hou, Hall, & Hobfoll, 2018a). The basic tenet of the Drive to Thrive (DTT) theory is that

stress resilience is determined by sustaining the fabrics and structure of everyday life.

Type of Daily Routines

Everyday fabrics/routines refer to actual behaviors and quotidian activities, instead of

thoughts and feelings, people we meet, objects, and our physical and social environment as in

measures of daily hassles and uplifts. Our daily routines could be understood by referring to

different degrees of necessity of performing them (Baltes, Maas, Wilms, Borchelt, & Little,

1999; Hou et al., 2018). Primary routines refer to essential behaviors that are linked to

survival or biological needs. For example, we need to eat and sleep, and maintain certain

standards of personal hygiene for maintaining health (Prüss, Kay, Fewtrell, & Bartram,

2002). We need a home for practical utility including meal and a shelter as well as a sense of

meaning and belonging (Oswald & Wahl, 2005). Secondary routines refer to optional
 8

behaviors that we perform occasionally or regularly depending on preference and motivation.

Participation in regular exercises and leisure activities benefits physical and mental health

(Chen & Pang, 2012). We attempt to stay connected with family and friends. Despite the

health benefit, these activities might not be practiced in some stress conditions, such as

during social upheaval and when experiencing heavy job demands (Borodulin et al., 2016).

Work or study are usual routines for people except for those within less socially organized

structures, such as people who are self-employed, housewives, or retired.

Quality of Daily Routines

According to the DTT theory, people are challenged to sustain their daily routines

during stress, while they increasingly focus their attention on the stressors or their own

distress (Principle 1). Traumatic and chronic stress are usually associated with contexts that

affect and restrict people from practicing tasks that sustain their daily routines, resulting in

disruption or reduced regularity of the routines (Principle 2). For example, they pay less

attention to personal hygiene and dietary standards, sleep less, spend less time at home or on

leisure activities, limit social contact, or quit or are fired from jobs.

Based on Principle 1 and Principle 2, two corollaries explain how daily routines could

change during stress adaptation. First, daily routines and stressors reciprocally influence each

other – a more negative experience of the stressors contributes to reduced the regularity of

practicing the routines, and vice versa (Corollary 1). Second, the regularity and sustainment

of daily routines are related to health outcomes independent of the impact of stressors

(Corollary 2). The DTT theory argues that it is the disruption and termination of daily

routines, indicated by how regularly people perform them, that impact stress adaptation and

resilience. In addition, the relevance of primary and secondary routines to adaptation depends

on the type of stressors. Under immediate deprived conditions such as financial difficulty

following the death of working husband and extreme physical conditions following natural
 9

disasters, reduced regularity of primary but not secondary routines could have stronger

inverse associations with physical and mental health (Hou, Ho, Kim, Seong, & Hobfoll,

2018b). In contrast, people undergoing chronic stress could have developed an altered

regularity of necessary, primary routines (Lai, Ma, Hobfoll, & Hou, 2018). Disruption or

termination of selective secondary routines could have a stronger adverse impact on health

(Zschucke, Renneberg, Dimeo, Wüstenberg, & Ströhle, 2015).

The Present Study

This study aims to develop a new self-report instrument, hereafter referred to as

Sustainability of Living Inventory (SOLI), for capturing important everyday life processes

that are relevant to adaptation and resilience among multiple samples of community-dwelling

adults. First, items were drafted, tested, and modified with reference to the pilot data on the

dimensionality of the scale items in exploratory factor analysis (Study 1). Second, the

factorial structure of the scales was established using confirmatory factor analysis in

accordance with the results of exploratory factor analysis (Study 2). Third, measurement

invariance of the SOLI was tested across demographic groups (age, sex, and ethnicity) to

ensure the robustness of the established model (Study 3). Fourth, subscales were validated

against existing self-report instruments in order to establish convergent, discriminant,

criterion-related, and incremental validity (Study 4). To reduce assessment load on the

participants, we have collected four separate samples using different instruments for

validation purposes. Specifically, in the present study, Study 1 was conducted with the first

sample (n=406), Study 2 with the second sample (n=402), Study 3 with the third sample

(n=406), and Study 4 with the fourth sample (n=301) together with the second and third

samples to validate the final scale. Table 1 summarized characteristics of the four samples.

Study 1: Item Development and Exploratory Factor Analysis

Our initial goal was to develop a pool of items that sufficiently covered key dimensions of
 10

everyday life as outlined in the DTT theory and explore the dimensionality among these

items. Based on the DTT theory, previous relevant frameworks (Baltes et al., 1999), and

existing self-report measures that capture everyday experiences (DeLongis et al., 1988;

Kanner et al., 1981; Katz, 1983; Lawton & Brody, 1969), a pool of items were developed to

reflect primary and secondary daily routines, in particular, actual behaviors but not thoughts

and feelings, people we meet, objects, and our physical and social environment. Necessary

primary routines included maintaining personal hygiene, eating healthy, sleep, and activities

at home. Discretional secondary routines included exercising, social activities, leisure

activities, and work/study involvement. An item pool was generated for each domain by the

authors. With a multi-cultural team, the authors examined the appropriateness of the items

across different sociocultural contexts. Wordings and expressions were adjusted and agreed

upon by the authors. For example, while it is more common for U.S. young adults to live

apart from their parents, young adults in Hong Kong tend to live with their parents and the

trend has been increasing in recent decades (Hu & Chou, 2016). In addition, although the rate

of cohabitation has been increasing as China modernizes, the rate is still lower than those in

Western societies (Yu & Xie, 2015). To account for the possible sociocultural differences, for

example, in the item “Spend time with close social partners at home e.g., family/ partner/

children/ roommate(s),” we included roommate as well. Moreover, relative to Westerners,

Chinese demonstrated similar leisure motivations but less frequent participation in outdoor

recreational activities (Walker & Wang, 2008; Yu & Xie, 2015). When we drafted the items,

we included items that described active, outdoor-oriented activities such as eating out and

going to concerts as well as passive activities like watching TV and reading at home.

The initial instrument contained 46 draft items: Personal Hygiene (6 items), Eating (7

items), Sleep (4 items), Home Time (8 items), Exercising (5 items), Socializing with Friends

(5 items), Leisure Activities (5 items), and Work/Study Involvement (6 items). The

 11

instruction read, “We are interested in how regularly you do the following things normally

every day. Please rate how regularly you do the following activities every day

NORMALLY.” Participants were asked to rate each item on a 3-point scale (0=Not at all,

1=Very little or seldom, 2=Very much or often). The reason for using a 3-point scale is to

make responding easier and thus enhance the applicability of the instrument to wider

populations, among which some might be minority or less educated, without compromising

validity and reliability of the resulting scores (Lee & Paek, 2014; Preston & Colman, 2000).

Method

Participants and procedure

The study was conducted using Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) Service.

MTurk facilitates experimental and survey data collection using crowdsourced convenience

samples. There is evidence showing that data derived from MTurk participants is valid,

representative (e.g., Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011), and reliable (Casler, Bickel, &

Hackett, 2013; Ramsey, Thompson, & McKenzie, 2016). The survey session was advertised

on MTurk as “Behavioral Adjustment in Everyday Life” and consisted of demographic items

and the draft items for SOLI. As aforementioned, the first of the four samples was used for

Study 1, where four hundred and six participants (203 males, 202 females, 1 other), mean age

35.64 (SD=11.17, range=18-81), completed the measures and were paid US$.50 for their

participation (Table 1). To minimize multiple participations, we restricted each MTurk

Worker ID to one participation across the four studies reported in this paper.

Analytic plan

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with promax rotation was conducted on the SOLI

draft with 46 items. Factorability of the item correlation matrix was tested using the Kaiser–

Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Communality values indicated the association between item variance and the factors. The
 12

optimal number of factors was determined by a combination of latent root criteria

(eigenvalues>1.0) and scree plot. Inter-factor correlations, inter-item correlations within a

factor, and cross-loading were examined to determine the appropriateness of including an

item in the factor.

Results

In the factor analysis with promax rotation for the 46 items, the KMO index (.868)

and Bartlett’s test (χ2=7,502.16, df=1,035, p<.0001) indicated that the sample size was

adequate and the extracted factors accounted for substantial observed variance. Communality

values (range=.23–.74) suggested that a satisfactory-to-large proportion of item variance was

predicted by the underlying factors. The latent root criterion suggested a 10-factor model

(60.13% of the total observed variance). The scree plot showed a noticeable difference in

slope after the second and the fifth eigenvalues. Three reverse or negatively worded items

namely “Skip meals,” “Eat instant or prepackaged food,” and “Take naps” formed a factor

that was uncorrelated or weakly correlated with the other factors (r= -.144 to -.204); another

reverse worded item “Avoid exercise” also cross-loaded on this factor. Inspection of these

items revealed that the reverse item “Skip meals” was only correlated with “Eat regularly

during the day” (r=-.27, p<.001) and “Eat instant or prepackaged food” (r=.336, p<.001). The

item “Eat instant or prepackaged food” was only weakly correlated or uncorrelated with the

other three eating-related items (r= -.18 to .07). The item “Take naps” was uncorrelated with

other sleep items (r= -.070 to .084, p= .099 to .626). The four items were excluded from

subsequent analyses.

Factor analysis with promax rotation was performed on the remaining 42 items

(Supplemental Table A1). An 8-factor model was specified. The KMO index (.876) and

Bartlett’s test (χ2=7038.705, df=861, p<0.0001) indicated that the sample size was adequate

and the extracted factors accounted for substantial observed variance. Communality values
 13

(range=.22–.74) suggested that a satisfactory-to-large proportion of item variance was

predicted by the underlying factors. The latent root criterion suggested an 8-factor model

(57.90% of the total observed variance). The scree plot showed a noticeable difference in

slope after the eighth eigenvalue. Factor 1 “Work/Study Involvement” consisted of six items

on work-related behaviors or performance (23.528%). Factor 2 “Social Activities” consisted

of eight items describing connection and leisure activities with close social partners

(8.057%). Factor 3 “Personal Hygiene” consisted of five items on hygienic behaviors such as

brushing teeth and shower (7.185%). Factor 4 “Leisure at Home” contained five items that

described relaxing activities at home and leisure activities and hobbies (5.348%). Factor 5

“Exercising” contained four items on exercising and being active (4.099%). Factor 6 “Sleep”

consisted of three items on regular sleeping habits (3.569%). Factor 7 “Eating” contained

three items on regular and healthy eating (3.249%). Factor 8 “Duties at Home” contained five

items that describe duties at home, including cooking, grocery, laundry, household chores,

and home maintenance (2.866%). The 42 items were validated in subsequent phases. Factor

loadings are summarized in Supplemental Table A1.

Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

After selecting the 42 items with EFA in Study 1, the goal of Study 2 was to establish the

factorial structure of SOLI. Findings in Study 1 showed that eight factors were applicable for

categorizing the regularity of eight routines: Personal Hygiene (primary), Eating (primary),

Sleep (primary), Duties at Home (primary), Leisure at Home (secondary), Exercising

(secondary), Social Activities (secondary), and Work/Study Involvement (secondary). This

factorial structure guided subsequent phases of the validation process.

Method

Participants and procedure

Similar to Study 1, all data collection in Study 2 was conducted using the MTurk
 14

Service. The second study sample was used. As shown in Table 1, in total, 402 participants

(213 males, 188 females, 1 other) of mean age 34.59 (SD=9.99, range=19-72) completed the

measures and were paid US$3.20 for their participation.

Analytic plan

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with R package ‘lavaan’

(Rosseel, 2012) on the SOLI in Study 2. Using the diagonal weighted least square (DWLS)

estimator, we estimated a model with items respectively loaded on the eight dimensions

identified in the EFA, and further specified two second-order latent constructs in accordance

with the DTT: primary routines and secondary routines. In addition, we estimated another

model with only one second-order latent construct for comparison whereby all eight

dimensions were loaded on the same second-order construct. Goodness-of-fit was assessed

using Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square

Residual (SRMR), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). We

accepted the model if RMSEA and SRMR were both smaller than .08, and CFI and TLI were

both greater than .90. Last, we derived the Pearson correlation coefficients between average

scores of subscales and checked the Cronbach’s α of each of them to examine internal

consistency.

Results

Excellent goodness-of-fit was achieved for both models with one and two second-

order latent constructs, the performance of which were essentially identical: for the one-

construct model, χ2(df, p-value)= 1104.6 (810, <0.001), RMSEA=.032 (95% CI [0.027,

0.036]), SRMR=.063, CFI=.982, and TLI=.981; for the two-construct model, χ2(df, p-value)=

1136.7(811, <0.001), RMSEA=.030 (95% CI [0.026, 0.034]), SRMR=.063, CFI=.984, and

TLI=.983. All estimated parameters were statistically significant, and loadings were in

general reasonably strong in both models. Hence, in the absence of a significantly better
 15

fitting parsimonious model (i.e. the one-construct model), we have adopted the hypothesized

two-construct model derived from the DTT theory as the final model for our further analyses

in subsequent studies (shown as Figure 1). For supplemental information, estimated

parameters of the one-construct model were tabulated as Supplemental Table A2. Table 2

shows the Pearson correlations between average scores of subscales and their Cronbach’s

alphas, which all suggested good internal consistency (>.70).

Study 3: Measurement Invariance

After establishing the measurement model in Study 2, Study 3 aimed at testing the

measurement invariance across age groups, racial groups, and gender. In essence, we would

like to check whether the measurement model was consistent and robust across various

categorizations of participants.

Method

Participants and procedure

All data collection was conducted using the MTurk Service. We used the third study

sample for testing the measurement invariance across demographic groups (Table 1). In total,

406 participants (225 males, 181 females) of mean age 35.11 (SD=10.76, range=19-70)

completed the measures. All participants were paid US$2.50 for their participation.

Analytic plan

Model invariance was tested by comparing models with and without equality

constraints on the estimated parameters using χ2 tests and the changes in the value of SRMR,

CFI, and RMSEA. Models were compared between age groups (19-30 or 31+, 31 was the

median age of the sample), sex (men or women), and racial groups (white or non-white).

Significant χ2 test results suggest potential heterogeneity of the model across groups, while

small changes in SRMR, CFI, and RMSEA suggest model invariance (Chen, 2007). As χ2

tests are sensitive to sample size and may wrongly reject invariance (Chen, 2007), we further
 16

applied the size of change criteria of SRMR, CFI, and RMSEA in cases of significant χ2 test

results to determine model invariance. We examined the invariance of loadings, intercepts,

and means of the model. Specifically, for testing loading invariance, a change of ≥ .010 in

CFI, supplemented by a change of ≥ .015 in RMSEA or a change of ≥ .030 in SRMR

indicated non-invariance. For testing intercept and mean invariance, a change of ≥ .010 in

CFI, supplemented by a change of ≥ .015 in RMSEA or a change of ≥ .010 in SRMR

indicated non-invariance (Chen, 2007).

Results

As shown in Table 3, χ2 test results and other indicators of model invariance did not

agree on model invariance for some stratifications at certain levels. Therefore, where model

invariance was not supported by χ2 test results, we further examined changes of SRMR, CFI,

and RMSEA to generate support for model invariance.

Specifically, χ2 tests only supported invariance of the loadings and intercepts of the

model across age (p>.05), but not across sex and race (p<.05). Also, χ2 test results did not

support model invariance across all three stratifications in means variance testing (p<.05).

We, accordingly, examined the changes in the value of the SRMR, CFI, and RMSEA

associated with the equality constraints on intercepts and means, which were all below the

aforementioned thresholds of indicating non-invariance (as stated in Method). Hence, model

invariance across age, gender, and race was confirmed.

Study 4: Scale Validity

In Study 4, we examined the convergent validity, discriminant validity, criterion-

related validity, and incremental validity of the SOLI based on the DTT theoretical

framework. Self-reported variables that were theorized to be related and unrelated to the scale

were chosen to be compared with subscales of the SOLI to determine the extent to which the

empirical relationships agreed with the theory, indicating validity of the measurement scale.
 17

Method

Participants and procedure

As a data collection strategy to reduce survey response burden for participants, we

included different instruments in different study samples. Data collected in Study 2, 3, and 4

was used. The demographics of the three samples are shown in Table 1. Using the model

derived in Study 2, model invariance across samples was examined and confirmed according

to the criteria applied in Study 3. Each of the 301 participants in the fourth sample were paid

US$2.50 for their participation.

Analytic plan

To establish convergent validity of the SOLI, we quantified the correlations between

the total and subscale scores of SOLI and instruments that measure related concepts. Existing

validated measures of everyday life experiences included Lawton instrumental activities of

daily living (IADL) scale (Lawton & Brody, 1969), 10 most frequent daily hassles and uplifts

as measured in Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lazarus (1981), and a self-report scale

measuring perceived engagement in important life tasks (Hobfoll et al., 2012). Coping-

related measures included the Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma (PACT) scale

(Bonanno, Pat-Horenczyk & Noll, 2011) and Coping Flexibility Scale (Kato, 2012).

Measures of psychosocial resources that are related to everyday life experiences included

Savoring Beliefs Inventory (Bryant, 2003) and resource loss (personal, social, and material)

(Hou et al., 2015). We expected that SOLI full scale and subscale scores were correlated

inversely with hassles, difficulty in activities of daily living, and resource loss, and correlated

positively with uplifts, perceived engagement in important life tasks, coping, and perceived

capability of savoring. We also examined the correlations between ratings of regularity and

ratings of frequency (0=Not at all, 1=A little, 2=Quite a bit, 3=A lot).

Discriminant validity was tested by estimating the correlations between the SOLI and
 18

measurements of life histories of stress. The DTT theory describes a reciprocal association

between stressors and the regularity of routines in the midst of post-traumatic or chronic

stress conditions (Hou et al., 2018a). Nevertheless, measures of life histories of trauma or

significant stressors could be distal and minimally related to the current evaluation of the

regularity of daily routines. These measures included list of threatening events (Brugha,

Bebbington, Tennant, & Hurry, 1985), potential traumatic events [Life Events Checklist for

DSM-5 (LEC-5); Weathers et al., 2013], and chronic financial strain (Peirce, Frone, Russell

& Cooper, 1996). We expected that measurement of the regularity of routines is weakly

correlated or uncorrelated with measures of life histories of major stressors.

Criterion-related validity was tested by deriving the correlations between the SOLI

and common self-reported outcomes that indicate psychological vulnerability and resilience.

The outcomes included anxiety symptoms measured by the State version of the State-Trait

Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), depressive

symptoms by Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001),

PTSD symptoms by the PTSD Checklist – Civilian Version (PCL-C; Weathers et al., 2013),

10 positive emotional states in Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson,

Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), life satisfaction by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener,

Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), and stress-related perceived thoughts and feelings by the

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). We expected that

SOLI scores were inversely correlated with psychiatric symptoms and perceived stress and

positively correlated with positive emotions and life satisfaction.

Finally, incremental validity was tested by showing the predictive utility of SOLI in

psychological functioning over and beyond the effects of other relevant variables.

Hierarchical multiple regressions tested the associations of SOLI scores with outcome scores

controlling for the effect of activities of daily living, daily hassles and uplifts, coping-related
 19

variables, and psychosocial resources. We expected that SOLI scores were correlated with

outcomes independent of the effects of the related constructs.

Results

Convergent validity

The results on convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity are summarized

in Table 4. Scores on impairment of instrumental ADL were moderately correlated with

SOLI’s total scores (-.351), subscale scores on the regularity of hygiene (-.408), duties at

home (-.331), leisure at home (-.346), and work/study involvement (-.273). Scores on daily

hassles and uplifts were uncorrelated with SOLI scores except between daily hassles and the

regularity of social activities (.235). Scores on perceived engagement in important life tasks

were moderately correlated with SOLI’s total scores (.525) as well as all subscale scores

(.261 to .458). Scores on both perceived ability to cope with trauma and coping flexibility

were moderately correlated with SOLI’s total scores, respectively (.371 and .302). Perceived

ability to cope with trauma was correlated with more regular eating, duties at home, leisure at

home, and social activity as well (.244 to .314). Savoring was positively correlated with

SOLI’s total scores (.414) and individual scores on eating (.304), sleep (.265), duties at home

(.262), leisure at home (.320), and social activities (.291). Loss of personal resources was

inversely correlated with hygiene, eating, duties at home, and leisure at home (-.247 to -.308)

and total scores (-.308) of SOLI. Summed resource loss was inversely correlated with total

scores (-.269) and individual scores on hygiene (-.293) and leisure at home (-.285) of SOLI.

Moderate to strong correlations were found between ratings of regularity and ratings of

frequency: hygiene (.353), eating (.482), sleep (.560), duties at home (.448), leisure at home

(.464), exercising (.589), social activities (.788), and work/study involvement (.526).

Discriminant validity

Different measures of generic stressful and traumatic life events were only weakly
 20

correlated or uncorrelated with total and subscale scores of SOLI. Scores on chronic financial

strain were uncorrelated with all scores of SOLI, while scores on acute financial strain were

only weakly correlated with total and all subscale scores of SOLI (.096 to .226); none of the

stressors measures were correlated with social activities subscale (.019 to .079) (Table 4).

Criterion-related validity

Sleep, leisure at home, and total scores on SOLI (-.345 to -.261) were moderately

correlated with lower anxiety symptoms. Hygiene, eating, sleep, leisure at home, work/study

involvement, and total scores (-.382 to -.311) were moderately correlated with lower

depressive symptoms. Hygiene (-.316) and leisure at home (-.321) were associated with

lower PTSD symptoms. Eating, sleep, duties at home, leisure at home, exercising, and total

scores were correlated with lower perceived stress (-.411 to -.275). Eating, exercising, social

activities, and total scores were moderately correlated with higher positive emotions (.266 to

.424). Sleep, exercising, social activities, and total scores were moderately correlated with

life satisfaction (.297 to .439) (Table 4).

Incremental validity

The results are summarized in Table 5. Controlling for the effects of activities of daily

living and daily hassles and uplifts, anxiety symptoms were not associated with all SOLI

scores. Depressive symptoms were associated with less regular eating but more regular social

activities. Positive emotions were associated with more regular eating and social activities.

Life satisfaction was associated with more regular duties at home, exercise, and social

activities, and less regular leisure at home.

Controlling for the effect of engagement in important life tasks, anxiety symptoms

were associated with more regular sleep and leisure at home. Depressive symptoms were

associated with less regular sleep and work/study involvement and more regular social

activities. While positive emotions were associated with none of the routines, life satisfaction
 21

was associated with more regular sleep and social activities and less regular hygienic

behaviors.

Controlling for the effect of perceived ability of coping with trauma, anxiety

symptoms were associated with less regular sleep, duties and leisure at home, and work/study

involvement, whereas depressive symptoms were associated with less regular hygiene,

eating, sleep, and work/study. Positive emotions and life satisfaction were inversely

associated with hygiene and positively associated with social activities, while the later was

also positively associated with sleep. Controlling for the effect of coping flexibility, anxiety

and depressive symptoms were inversely associated with the regularity of sleep and social

activities. Psychological well-being was positively associated with the regularity of sleep and

social activities.

Controlling for the effect of resource loss, both anxiety and depressive symptoms

were associated with less regular sleep and social activities. Positive emotions were

associated with more regular exercising and social activities. Life satisfaction was associated

with less regular hygiene and more regular sleep, exercising, and social activities.

Overall, the regularity of hygiene, sleep, and social activities consistently emerged to

be associated with higher mental health, independent of the effects of other relevant

psychosocial variables.

Discussion

We developed and validated the SOLI as one of the first self-report instruments for

assessing perceived regularity of daily routines based on the DTT theory. Across four

samples of participants, eight subscales were derived and tested, namely Personal Hygiene,

Eating, Sleep, Duties at Home, Leisure at Home, Exercising, Social Activities, and

Work/Study Involvement. Exploratory factor analysis identified an 8-factor structure of

SOLI. Confirmatory factor analysis derived a model with two latent factors, primary and
 22

secondary daily routines, each was correlated with specific subscales: primary – Personal

Hygiene, Eating, Sleep, Duties at Home; secondary – Leisure at Home, Exercising, Social

Activities, and Work/Study Involvement. Model invariance was established by showing

comparable model statistics between age groups (19-30 or 31+), gender (men or women), and

ethnicity (white or non-white). Convergent validity was shown in the moderate correlations

of SOLI full scale and subscales with other measures of everyday life experiences (i.e.,

activities of daily living and perceived engagement in everyday life tasks), coping (i.e.,

perceived ability to cope with trauma and coping flexibility), and psychosocial resources

Correlations between ratings of regularity and ratings of frequency on the routines were

moderate to strong. Discriminant validity was asserted by null and weak correlations of the

subscales with measures of generic stressful life experiences and specific acute and chronic

financial strain. Criterion-related validity was demonstrated by the moderate correlations of

the subscales with well established, commonly used measures of mental health outcomes,

namely anxiety, depressive, and PTSD symptoms, positive emotions, and life satisfaction.

Incremental validity was demonstrated by correlations of individual subscales with the

outcomes, controlling for the effects of measures of related constructs (i.e., everyday life

experiences, coping, and psychosocial resources).

Basic Daily Living in Stress and Coping

Most if not all primary daily routines were moderately correlated with perceived

engagement in important life tasks, perceived capability of savoring, personal resource loss,

anxiety and depressive symptoms, perceived stress, positive emotions, and life satisfaction.

The regularity of primary daily routines could be used for evaluating the mental health

implication of basic daily living. Decades of research has found that ADL is a fundamental

outcome that is closely related to lower utilization of medical and supportive care services

and reduced odds of mortality among disabled, physically disadvantaged, and aging
 23

populations (Veerbeek, Kwakkel, van Wegen, Ket, & Heymans, 2011; Jekel et al., 2015).

Measurement of ADL includes very basic activities such as shopping for grocery,

maintaining hygiene, cooking, and making phone calls. These are essential activities that are

minimally impaired among adults without significant physical limitations, and if these

activities are impaired, people’s basic livelihood will be seriously affected. Because ADL

instruments were designed for populations with potentially lower overall functioning, ceiling

effect might be observed in otherwise healthy populations or those who face mental but not

physical limitations. Therefore ADL instrument might not be sensitive enough to detect

differences in daily routines that are relevant to stress adaptation and resilience and might not

be applicable to studying populations other than those with physical limitations or in extreme

stress conditions. In addition, ADL assesses whether or not people are able to do the basic

activities, not how well they do them, which are conceptually distinct. The DTT theory

suggested that the regularity of primary as well as secondary routines is directly related to

mental health and interacts with the impact of stressors. This conceptual difference is also

confirmed by our finding that ADL was only moderately correlated with the SOLI. By

looking at regularity, SOLI assesses how well people can maintain their primary routines,

extending the conceptual and empirical utility of looking at basic daily living in stress and

coping research.

Daily Routines, Stress, and Health: Conceptual Clarity

Contrary to our expectation, SOLI total and subscale scores were almost uncorrelated

with daily hassles and uplifts. This result highlighted that measuring regularity is

conceptually and psychometrically distinct from measuring emotional valence of daily

routines, showing the discriminant validity of SOLI. A large body of literature has

demonstrated moderate associations of aggregated hassles and uplifts with psychological

distress and well-being (e.g., Almeida, 2005; Brantley, Waggoner, Jones, & Rappaport, 1987;
 24

Butler, Hokanson, & Flynn, 1994; Charles, Piazza, Mogle, Sliwinski, & Almeida, 2013;

DeLongis et al., 1988; Kanner et al., 1981; Totenhagen, Serido, Curran, & Butler, 2012). This

line of work importantly highlights that positive and negative feelings relating to daily

events, apart from major life events, are also associated with distress and well-being.

However, only a handful of studies have categorized the events into meaningful domains

such as leisure activities (e.g., Totenhagen et al., 2012), while hassles and uplifts were

conceptualized as part of stressful and positive experiences respectively (Harkness &

Monroe, 2016). Unlike measures of daily hassles and uplifts, SOLI focuses on regularity,

precluding the possible overlap between its scores and mental health outcomes including

distress and well-being. The concept and measurement of SOLI take into account the

possibility that daily routines as behavioral processes play a role in the associations between

trauma and chronic stress conditions and physical and mental health. Next, we focus our

discussions on the possible interaction between sleep and waking activities, the centrality of

regular social activities, and the role of leisure among other routines.

Regularity of Sleep and Waking Activities

The regularity of sleep was consistently correlated with lower anxiety and depressive

symptoms controlling for the effects of other psychosocial variables. Conceptually sleep

represents the non-waking side of our daily routines, whereas routines in waking hours

include personal hygiene, eating, home maintenance/making, leisure and social activities, and

scheduled work/study. Studies have shown that people with more regular routines

demonstrated deeper nocturnal dip in body temperature, which is associated with better sleep

(Monk, Petrie, Hayes, & Kupper, 1994). Compared with those with clinical insomnia, people

without sleeping problems reported similar levels of activity but more regularity in daily

routines (Moss, Carney, Haynes, & Harris, 2015). More regular routines were also associated

with shorter sleep latency, higher sleep efficiency, and improved sleep quality among older
 25

adults, controlling for the effects of activities of daily living (Zisberg, Gur-Yaish, & Shochat,

2010). Taken together with previous and the present findings, although routines in waking

hours might not be correlated with mental health outcomes in itself, they might moderate the

association between the regularity of sleep and mental health.

Central Role of Regular Social Activities

The regularity of social activities was consistently associated with higher positive

emotions and life satisfaction, controlling for the effects of activities of daily living, daily

hassles and uplifts (i.e., emotional valence of everyday experiences), perceived coping-

related traits, and psychosocial resources. Interpersonal and social rhythm therapy has been

adopted as a specialized approach for managing and improving bipolar and depressive

disorders through enhancing the regularity of routines in everyday life (Frank et al., 2005;

Miklowitz et al., 2007). Among various routines, the initial focus of interpersonal and social

rhythm therapy emphasizes activities relating to role transitions, role disputes, and

interpersonal relational problems – daily routines that are closely related to fulfillment of

social roles such as home maintenance, work or study, and social activities. As suggested in

the DTT theory, the regularity of secondary routines is more related to mental health in the

absence of acute or even traumatic stress conditions, for primary routines are relatively stable

among people experiencing varying degrees of chronic stressors (Hou et al., 2018a). The

findings on the regularity of social activities were consistent with the theoretical proposition.

In addition, among different secondary routines, social activities could be more consistently

associated with psychological well-being relative to distress.

Supplementary Role of Regular Leisure at Home

The associations of the regularity of leisure at home with psychological distress and

well-being became non-significant after controlling for the effects of coping-related variables

and psychosocial resources. Meta-analytic review showed that the positive associations
 26

between engagement in leisure and different domains of subjective well-being are likely to be

moderated by employment status – stronger associations were observed among those who

were retired (Kuykendall, Tay, & Ng, 2015). Volunteering as a kind of serious leisure was

more strongly associated with subjective well-being among older adults with higher

perceived spousal support (Chen, 2014). We suggest two possible conditions. One possibility

is that regular leisure activities serve a supplementary role in the associations between

coping/psychosocial resources and mental health. When coping abilities or resources are low,

the association between leisure activities and mental health is significant and stronger. When

coping abilities or resources are high, the association became nonsignificant or weaker. The

other possibility is that the positive impact of regular leisure activities on mental health is

stronger when coping abilities or resources are higher, showing facilitative effects of coping

and resources on the health benefit of regular leisure activities. Because ratings on coping and

resources were comparable to those reported in previous studies (Bonanno et al., 2011; Hou

et al., 2015), it is more likely for the present findings to suggest that regular leisure

supplements the mental health impact of coping and resources.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted in interpreting the present findings. First, our

findings were generated from four sets of crowdsourcing data collected on MTurk. Growing

evidence suggests that the quality of data collected on MTurk is representative, valid, and

reliable, and we have attempted to minimize repeated data from the same participants by

restricting one participation to each MTurk Worker ID. Nevertheless, we could not rule out

the possibility that people with more than one ID participated in multiple studies, and this

might inadvertently influence the results. Second, the majority of our respondents were full-

time/part-time working adults in early and middle adulthood; most of them are educated with

at least college diploma and around half are married. The sample characteristics might have
 27

restricted generalizability of the findings to other populations such as those with lower

socioeconomic status and less socially structured commitment to work/study. Third, the SOLI

was validated using cross-sectional retrospective data. We were not able to administer

measures of activities or behaviors using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). To rule

out possible memory biases, the retrospective self-report in SOLI should be validated with

data obtained from an EMA protocol (Stone, Shiffman, Atienza, & Nebeling, 2007). But

SOLI, as shown across multiple samples of community dwelling adults, was ecologically

valid, reliable, and relatively easier to administer compared with an intensive longitudinal

design like EMA. Fourth, only the regularity of daily routines was assessed. There is a

chance that some people do not perform a routine at all, which is different from performing a

routine with varying degrees of regularity. Nevertheless, conceptually DTT theory does not

distinguish between performance and non-performance because non-performance also

indicates regularity. The thesis is that psychological resilience, be it absence of significant

psychological distress or presence of psychological well-being, are positively associated with

the regularity of routines, whether the regularity indicates performance or non-performance.

Fifth, some of the associations showing convergent validity were modest and might be

largely explained by shared method variance. The variables for examining convergent

validity were chosen based on their relevance to everyday life context (i.e., instrumental

activities of daily living scale), coping with stress (i.e., perceived capability and flexibility of

coping), and coping resources (i.e., resource loss). In fact, the measured constructs are at best

relevant to but not the same as the construct of regularity of daily routines or “fabrics.” The

difficulty of confirming convergent validity could be common for instruments measuring new

constructs. One possible solution, as we used in this study, is to examine the convergence

between different response formats: to what extent is the report of frequency consistent with

the report of regularity of daily routines?

 28

Conclusion and Implications

Notwithstanding the above limitations, this study is one of the first attempts to

develop and validate a psychometric instrument for assessing different dimensions of

everyday life experiences. Specifically, a theory-driven approach was adopted to design the

SOLI for measuring perceived regularity of different dimensions of daily routines. The

importance of assessing and intervening disruptions to daily experiences for mental health

has been emphasized. For example, the Activity Restriction Model of Depressed Affect

(Williamson, 1998; Williamson & Shaffer, 2000) suggested that reduction in valued daily

activities due to physical illnesses is one of the key pathways leading to depression. The loss

of control and consistency over important aspects of everyday life was found to predispose

poorer mental health among older adults who might face the stress of physical decline,

disability, and bereavement (Schulberg, Schulz, Miller, & Rollman, 2000; Zautra, Reich, &

Guarnaccia, 1990). The daily stressor model similarly proposed that post-traumatic personal

and social stress is more predictive of mental health over and beyond preexisting

vulnerability factors such as traumatic exposure among refugees and conflict-affected

populations (Miller & Rasmussen, 2010, 2014). Lifestyle interventions (i.e., personal

hygiene, healthy diet, sleep, exercising, management of recreational drug use, leisure and

relaxation, and social interaction) have been shown to be effective and provide added values

on preventing and intervening depression (Olivan-Blázquez et al., 2018; Sarris, Adrienne,

Coulson, Schweitzer, & Berk, 2014).

Specific instruments such as Social Rhythm Metric have been developed for assessing

the regularity of daily routines in an EMA protocol (Giglio et al., 2009; Monk, Flaherty,

Frank, Hoskinson, & Kupfer, 1990). But the instruments did not distinguish different

categories and types of routines that might vary across different post-traumatic and chronic

stress conditions (Hou et al., 2018a). SOLI could be used as a valid and reliable instrument
 29

for screening daily routines that are relevant to mental health across differential stressors.

SOLI could also serve as a baseline measurement in EMA protocols, which aim to tease out

the daily processes of stress adaptation and resilience. With the data from SOLI, more cost-

effective EMA protocols could be designed. In addition, SOLI could extend the dimensions

of lifestyle interventions which currently focus more on exercising and diet (Sarris et al.,

2014). Interventions and psychoeducational programs, as a result, could be tailor-made to

enhance the regularity of multiple dimensions of daily routines such as hygiene, leisure, and

duties at home.

References

Alexander, D. E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological

journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13, 2707-2716.

Almeida, D. M. (2005). Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary

methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 64-68.

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.

Baltes, M. M., Maas, I., Wilms, H.-U., Borchelt, M., & Little, T. D. (1999). Everyday

competence in old and very old age: Theoretical considerations and empirical findings.

In P. B. Baltes & K. U. Mayer (Eds.), The Berlin Aging Study: Aging from 70 to 100 (pp.

384-403). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the

Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events? American Psychologist,

59, 20-28.

Bonanno, G. A., Pat-horenczyk, R., & Noll, J. (2011). Coping Flexibility and

Trauma. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 117-129.

 30

Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A., Klein, S. I. (2015). The temporal elements of psychological

resilience: An integrative framework for the study of people, families, and communities.

Psychological Inquiry, 26, 139-169.

Bonanno, G. A., Westphal, M., & Mancini, A. D. (2011). Resilience to loss and potential

trauma. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 511-535.

Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., Lehman, D. R., Tweed, R. G., Haring, M., Sonnega, J.,

Carr, D., & Nesse, R. M. (2002). Resilience to loss and chronic grief: a prospective study

from preloss to 18-months postloss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,

1150-1164.

Borodulin, K., Sipilä, N., Rahkonen, O., Leino-Arjas, P., Kestilä, L., Jousilahti, P., &

Prättälä, R. (2016). Socio-demographic and behavioral variation in barriers to leisure-

time physical activity. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 44, 62-69.

Brantley, P. J., Waggoner, C. D., Jones, G. N., & Rappaport, N. B. (1987). A daily stress

inventory: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10,

61-73.

Brugha, T., Bebbington, P., Tennant, C., & Hurry, J. (1985). The List of Threatening

Experiences: a subset of 12 life event categories with considerable long-term contextual

threat. Psychological Medicine, 15, 189-194.

Bryant, F. (2003). Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about

savouring. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 175-196.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new

source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6,

3-5.

Butler, A. C., Hokanson, J. E., & Flynn, H. A. (1994). A comparison of self-esteem lability

and low trait self-esteem as vulnerability factors for depression. Journal of Personality
 31

and Social Psychology, 66, 166-177.

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of

participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face

behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156-2160.

Charles, S. T., Piazza, J. R., Mogle, J., Sliwinski, M. J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). The wear

and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychological Science, 24, 733-741.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.

Structural Equation Modeling, 36, 462-494.

Chen, M., & Pang, X. (2012). Leisure motivation: An integrative review. Social Behavior

and Personality: an international journal, 40, 1075-1081.

Chen, K. Y. (2014). The relationship between serious leisure characteristics and subjective

well-being of older adult volunteers: The moderating effect of spousal support. Social

Indicators Research, 119, 197-210.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The impact of daily stress on health and

mood: psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 54, 486.

Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Donoho, C. J., Bonanno, G. A., Porter, B., Kearney, L., & Powell, T. M. (2017). A Decade of

War: Prospective Trajectories of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Among

Deployed US Military Personnel and the Influence of Combat Exposure. American

Journal of Epidemiology, 186, 1310-1318.

Ehsan, A. M., & De Silva, M. J. (2015). Social capital and common mental disorder: a
 32

systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69, 1021-1028.

Frank, E., Kupfer, D. J., Thase, M. E., Mallinger, A. G., Swartz, H. A., Fagiolini, A. M.,

Grochocinski, V., Houck, P., Scott, J., Thompson, W., & Monk, T. (2005). Two-year

outcomes for interpersonal and social rhythm therapy in individuals with bipolar I

disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 996-1004.

Giglio, L. M. F., da Silva Magalhães, P. V., Andreazza, A. C., Walz, J. C., Jakobson, L.,

Rucci, P., Rosa A. R, Hidalgo M. P, Vieta E., & Kapczinski, F. (2009). Development and

use of a biological rhythm interview. Journal of Affective Disorders, 118, 161-165.

Greene, T., Gelkopf, M., Grinapol, S., Werbeloff, N., Carlson, E., & Lapid, L. (2017).

Trajectories of traumatic stress symptoms during conflict: A latent class growth

analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 220, 24-30.

Guo, T., & Schneider, I. (2015). Measurement properties and cross-cultural equivalence of

negotiation with outdoor recreation constraints: an exploratory study. Journal of Leisure

Research, 47, 125-153.

Hall, B. J., Tol, W. A., Jordans, M. J., Bass, J., & de Jong, J. T. (2014). Understanding

resilience in armed conflict: Social resources and mental health of children in

Burundi. Social Science & Medicine, 114, 121-128.

Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Canetti, D., Palmieri, P. A., Hall, B. J., Lavi, I., & Galea, S.

(2012). Can people remain engaged and vigorous in the face of trauma? Palestinians in

the West Bank and Gaza. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 75, 60-75.

Hou, W. K., Hall, B. J., Canetti, D., Lau, K. M., Ng, S. M., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2015). Threat to

democracy: Physical and mental health impact of democracy movement in Hong Kong.

Journal of Affective Disorders, 186, 74-82.

Hou, W. K., Hall, B. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2018a). Drive to thrive: A theory of resilience

following loss. In N. Morina & A. Nickerson (Eds.), Mental Health in Refugee and
 33

Conflict-Affected Populations: Theory, Research and Clinical Practice. Springer.

Hou, W. K., Ho, J., Kim, H., Seong, E., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2018b). Everyday life experiences

and mental health among refugee and conflict-affected populations: A systematic review

and meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hou, W. K., & Lam, J. H. M. (2014). Resilience in the year after cancer diagnosis: a cross-

lagged panel analysis of the reciprocity between psychological distress and well-

being. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 391-401.

Hou, W. K., Law, C. C., Yin, J., & Fu, Y. T. (2010). Resource loss, resource gain, and

psychological resilience and dysfunction following cancer diagnosis: A growth mixture

modeling approach. Health Psychology, 29, 484-495.

Hu, F. Z., & Chou, K. L. (2016). Understanding the transition to independent living among

urban youth: A decomposition analysis for Hong Kong. Habitat International, 51, 141-

148.

Jekel, K., Damian, M., Wattmo, C., Hausner, L., Bullock, R., Connelly, P. J., Dubois, B.,

Eriksdotter, M., Ewers, M., Graessel, E., & Kramberger, M. G. (2015). Mild cognitive

impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: A systematic

review. Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, 7, 1-20.

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two

modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal

of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.

Kato, T. (2012). Development of the Coping Flexibility Scale: Evidence for the coping

flexibility hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 262-273.

Katz, S. (1983). Assessing self‐maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and

instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 31,

721-727.
 34

Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., & Ng, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective well-being: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 364-403.

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ‐9. Journal of General

Internal Medicine, 16, 606-613.

Lai, F. T. T., Ma, T. W., Hobfoll, S. E., & Hou, W. K. (2018). Multi-morbidity and disrupted

daily routines: An ecological momentary assessment study of community-dwelling

Chinese adults in Hong Kong. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and

instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 179-186.

Lee, J., & Paek, I. (2014). In search of the optimal number of response categories in a rating

scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 663-673.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American

Psychologist, 56, 227-238.

Miklowitz, D. J., Otto, M. W., Frank, E., Reilly-Harrington, N. A., Wisniewski, S. R., Kogan,

J. N., … & Sachs, G. S. (2007). Psychosocial treatments for bipolar depression: A 1-year

randomized trial from the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 64, 419-426.

Miller, K. E., & Rasmussen, A. (2010). War exposure, daily stressors, and mental health in

conflict and post-conflict settings: Bridging the divide between trauma-focused and

psychosocial frameworks. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 7-16.

Miller, K. E., & Rasmussen, A. (2014). War experiences, daily stressors and mental health

five years on: Elaborations and future directions. Intervention, 12, 33-42.

Monk, T. H., Flaherty, J. F., Frank, E., Hoskinson, K., & Kupfer, D. J. (1990). The Social

Rhythm Metric: An instrument to quantify the daily rhythms of life. The Journal of

Nervous and Mental Disease, 178, 120-126.

 35

Monk, T. H., Petrie, S. R., Hayes, A. J., & Kupfer, D. J. (1994). Regularity of daily life in

relation to personality, age, gender, sleep quality and circadian rhythms. Journal of Sleep

Research, 3, 196-205.

Moss, T. G., Carney, C. E., Haynes, P., & Harris, A. L. (2015). Is daily routine important for

sleep? An investigation of social rhythms in a clinical insomnia population.

Chronobiology International, 32, 92-102.

Olivan-Blázquez, B., Montero-Marin, J., García-Toro, M., Vicens-Pons, E., Serrano-Ripoll,

M. J., Castro-Gracia, A., ... & Garcia-Campayo, J. (2018). Facilitators and barriers to

modifying dietary and hygiene behaviours as adjuvant treatment in patients with

depression in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC psychiatry, 18, 205.

Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is

unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific

use of resilience. Science Advances, 1(4). Retrieved from

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/4/e1400217

Oswald, F., & Wahl, H. W. (2005). Dimensions of the meaning of home in later life. In G. D.

Rowles, & H. Chaudhury (Eds.), Home and Identity in Late Life (pp. 21-46). New York:

Springer.

Panter-Brick, C. (2014). Health, risk, and resilience: Interdisciplinary concepts and

applications. Annual Review of Anthropology, 43, 431-448.

Peirce, R. S., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1996). Financial stress, social

support, and alcohol involvement: A longitudinal test of the buffering hypothesis in a

general population survey. Health Psychology, 15, 38-47.

Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating

scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta

Psychologica, 104, 1-15.

 36

Prüss, A., Kay, D., Fewtrell, L., & Bartram, J. (2002). Estimating the burden of disease from

water, sanitation, and hygiene at a global level. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110,

537-542.

Ramsey, S. R., Thompson, K. L., McKenzie, M., & Rosenbaum, A. (2016). Psychological

research in the internet age: The quality of web-based data. Computers in Human

Behavior, 58, 354-360.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more.

Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.

Rosshandler Y., Hall, B. J. & Canetti, D. (2016). An application of an ecological framework

to understand risk factors of PTSD due to prolonged conflict exposure: Israeli and

Palestinian adolescents in the Line of Fire. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,

Practice and Policy, 8, 641-648.

Sarris, J., Adrienne, O., Coulson, C. E., Schweitzer, I., & Berk, M. (2014). Lifestyle medicine

for depression. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 107-107.

Schulberg, H. C., Schulz, R., Miller, M. D., & Rollman, B. (2000). Depression and physical

illness in older primary care patients. In G. M. Williamson, D. R. Shaffer, & P. A.

Parmelee (Eds.), Physical Illness and Depression in Older Adults: A Handbook of

Theory, Research, and Practice. (pp. 239–256). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual

for State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Stone, A., Shiffman, S., Atienza, A., & Nebeling, L. (2007). The Science of Real-Time Data

Capture: Self-reports in Health Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. (5th ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.
 37

Totenhagen, C. J., Serido, J., Curran, M. A., & Butler, E. A. (2012). Daily hassles and uplifts:

A diary study on understanding relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 26,

719-728.

Veerbeek, J. M., Kwakkel, G., van Wegen, E. E., Ket, J. C., & Heymans, M. W. (2011).

Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: A systematic

review. Stroke, 42, 1482-1488.

Walker, G. J., & Wang, X. (2008). The meaning of leisure for Chinese/Canadians. Leisure

Sciences, 31, 1-18.

Walsh, F. (2016). Family resilience: A developmental systems framework. European Journal

of Developmental Psychology, 13, 313-324.

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, 1063-1070.

Weathers, F.W., Litz, B.T., Keane, T.M., Palmieri, P.A., Marx, B.P., & Schnurr, P.P. (2013).

The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Scale available from the National Center for

PTSD at www.ptsd.va.gov.

Williamson, G. M. (1998). The Central Role of Restricted Normal Activities in Adjustment

to Illness and Disability: A Model of Depressed Affect. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43,

327-347.

Williamson, G. M., & Shaffer, D. R. (2000). The Activity Restriction Model of depressed

Affect. In G. M. Williamson, D. R. Shaffer, & P. A. Parmelee (Eds.), Physical Illness

and Depression in Older Adults: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Practice (pp.

173–200). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Yu, J., & Xie, Y. (2015). Cohabitation in China: Trends and determinants. Population and

Development Review, 41, 607-628.

 38

Zautra, A. J., Arewasikporn, A., & Davis, M. C. (2010). Resilience: Promoting well-being

through recovery, sustainability, and growth. Research in Human Development, 7, 221-

238.

Zautra, A. J., Reich, J. W., & Guarnaccia, C. A. (1990). Some everyday life consequences of

disability and bereavement for older adults. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 550-561.

Zisberg, A., Gur-Yaish, N., & Shochat, T. (2010). Contribution of routine to sleep quality in

community elderly. Sleep, 33, 509-514.

Zschucke, E., Renneberg, B., Dimeo, F., Wüstenberg, T., & Ströhle, A. (2015). The stress-

buffering effect of acute exercise: Evidence for HPA axis negative

feedback. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 51, 414-425.

Masked Table 1-5

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the four samples.

Sample 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
n 406 402 406 301
Age group
<25 51 (12.6) 44 (10.9) 51 (12.6) 47 (15.6)
25-29 91 (22.4) 111 (27.6) 112 (27.6) 87 (28.9)
30-34 97 (23.9) 99 (24.6) 76 (18.7) 73 (24.3)
35-39 59 (14.5) 51 (12.7) 67 (16.5) 36 (12.0)
40-44 34 (8.4) 34 (8.5) 30 (7.4) 17 (5.6)
45-49 26 (6.4) 25 (6.2) 18 (4.4) 13 (4.3)
50-54 16 (3.9) 13 (3.2) 17 (4.2) 8 (2.7)
55-59 13 (3.2) 12 (3.0) 24 (5.9) 7 (2.3)
60-64 7 (1.7) 10 (2.5) 6 (1.5) 6 (2.0)
65-69 8 (2.0) 2 (0.5) 3 (0.7) 4 (1.3)
70+ 4 (1.0) 1 (0.2) 2 (0.5) 3 (1.0)
Gender
Male 203 (50.0) 213 (53.0) 225 (55.4) 177 (58.8)
Female 202 (49.8) 188 (46.8) 181 (44.6) 124 (41.2)
Other 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Annual income ($)
0-19,999 93 (22.9) 96 (23.9) 118 (29.1) 78 (25.9)
20,000-39,999 126 (31.0) 126 (31.3) 121 (29.8) 87 (28.9)
40,000-59,999 79 (19.5) 89 (22.1) 81 (20.0) 75 (24.9)
60,000-79,999 47 (11.6) 46 (11.4) 49 (12.1) 35 (11.6)
80,000-99,999 33 (8.1) 25 (6.2) 21 (5.2) 14 (4.7)
100,000-119,999 17 (4.2) 13 (3.2) 10 (2.5) 7 (2.3)
120,000+ 11 (2.7) 7 (1.7) 6 (1.5) 5 (1.7)
Marital status
Single 146 (36.0) 190 (47.3) 200 (49.3) 142 (47.2)
Married 231 (56.9) 184 (45.8) 175 (43.1) 140 (46.5)
Divorced 26 (6.4) 28 (7.0) 28 (6.9) 13 (4.3)
Widowed 3 (0.7) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.7) 6 (2.0)
Employment status
Full-time 281 (69.2) 286 (71.1) 281 (69.2) 233 (77.4)
Part-time 66 (16.3) 60 (14.9) 77 (19.0) 41 (13.6)
Unemployed 24 (5.9) 18 (4.5) 27 (6.7) 15 (5.0)
Housewife 23 (5.7) 23 (5.7) 15 (3.7) 8 (2.7)
Retired 12 (3.0) 15 (3.7) 6 (1.5) 4 (1.3)
Educational attainment
Some high school or less 3 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 4 (1.0) 0 (0.0)
High school diploma or equivalent 24 (5.9) 58 (14.4) 58 (14.3) 33 (11.0)
Some college 93 (22.9) 111 (27.6) 115 (28.3) 63 (20.9)
College diploma 129 (31.8) 155 (38.6) 136 (33.5) 113 (37.5)
Some graduate school 27 (6.7) 22 (5.5) 13 (3.2) 18 (6.0)
Graduate degree 130 (32.0) 55 (13.7) 80 (19.7) 74 (24.6)
Race (Non-mutually exclusive)
Hispanic 53 (13.1) 43 (10.7) 63 (15.5) 55 (18.3)
Asian 110 (27.1) 53 (13.2) 71 (17.5) 74 (24.6)
White 251 (61.8) 316 (78.6) 291 (71.7) 189 (62.8)
African American 27 (6.7) 35 (8.7) 40 (9.9) 30 (10.0)
American Indian 30 (7.4) 11 (2.7) 17 (4.2) 15 (5.0)
Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 1 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2) 0 (0.0)
Table 2. Pearson correlation matrix of the average scores of SOLI subscales in Study 2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Subscale Mean SD Cronbach’s α
1. Hygiene 2.72 0.37 0.83 1
2. Eat 2.59 0.48 0.77 0.41 1
3. Sleep 2.52 0.60 0.89 0.26 0.35 1
4. Home (duties) 2.46 0.42 0.82 0.55 0.44 0.34 1
5. Home (leisure) 2.58 0.37 0.73 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.44 1
6. Exercise 2.34 0.58 0.88 0.35 0.51 0.34 0.38 0.39 1
7. Social 2.15 0.53 0.89 0.23 0.26 0.30 0.35 0.48 0.42 1
8. Work 2.66 0.50 0.91 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.22 1
9. Total 2.49 0.31 0.93 0.61 0.62 0.58 0.68 0.74 0.68 0.72 0.57 1
Note. SOLI= Sustainability of Living Inventory. All correlations were significant at p<0.05.
Table 3. Tests for measurement invariance in Study 3.
Model Model χ2 (df) χ2 diff. test (df), p SRMR CFI RMSEA ΔSRMR ΔCFI ΔRMSEA
Gender (male and female)
Configural 3235.7 (1620) 0.082 0.810 0.070
Loadings 3293.1 (1660) 57.356 (40), 0.037 0.087 0.808 0.070 0.006 0.002 0.000
Intercepts 3393.0 (1692) 99.952 (32), <0.001 0.088 0.800 0.070 0.001 0.008 0.001
Means 3444.7 (1702) 51.632 (10), <0.001 0.091 0.795 0.071 0.003 0.005 0.001
Age (19-30 and 31+)
Configural 3267.2 (1620) 0.085 0.804 0.071
Loadings 3303.1 (1660) 35.878 (40), 0.656 0.089 0.804 0.070 0.004 0.000 0.001
Intercepts 3345.7 (1692) 42.564 (32), 0.100 0.089 0.803 0.070 0.001 0.001 0.000
Means 3373.7 (1702) 28.071 (10), 0.002 0.091 0.801 0.070 0.002 0.002 0.000
Race (white and non-white)
Configural 3219.7 (1620) 0.079 0.814 0.070
Loadings 3284.8 (1660) 65.075 (40), 0.007 0.086 0.811 0.069 0.007 0.003 0.000
Intercepts 3352.7 (1692) 67.960 (32), <0.001 0.087 0.807 0.070 0.001 0.004 0.000
Means 3405.6 (1702) 52.866 (10), <0.001 0.090 0.802 0.070 0.003 0.005 0.001
Note. CFI = Comparative Fix Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. Configural:
testing whether the factor structure is the same across groups; Loadings: testing whether the factor loadings (from items to constructs and from constructs to
higher-order constructs) are similar across groups; Intercepts: testing whether model inercepts are also equivalent across groups; Means: testing whether
values/means are also equivalent across groups.
 Table 4. Pearson correlations between SOLI subscales and other self-reported instruments in Study 4.
Subscales
Sample Hygiene Eat Sleep Home Home Exercise Social Work Total
size (duties) (leisure)
Convergent validity
Daily experiences
Activities of daily living 301 -0.408 *** -0.239 *** -0.172 ** -0.331 *** -0.346 *** -0.143 * -0.040 -0.273 *** -0.351 ***
Hassles 301 -0.141 -0.125 -0.088 -0.093 -0.135 0.100 0.235 * -0.080 -0.023
Uplifts 301 -0.046 -0.094 -0.065 -0.106 -0.022 -0.002 0.030 0.021 -0.034
Engagement 402 0.261 *** 0.300 *** 0.314 *** 0.313 *** 0.343 *** 0.416 *** 0.458 *** 0.261 *** 0.525 ***
Coping
Coping with trauma 406 0.152 ** 0.247 *** 0.198 *** 0.247 *** 0.244 *** 0.228 *** 0.314 *** 0.183 *** 0.371 ***
Coping flexibility 402 0.205 *** 0.201 *** 0.208 *** 0.215 *** 0.213 *** 0.191 *** 0.157 ** 0.235 *** 0.302 ***
Psychosocial resources
Savoring 808 0.249 *** 0.304 *** 0.265 *** 0.262 *** 0.320 *** 0.205 *** 0.291 *** 0.239 *** 0.414 ***
Resource loss (personal) 402 -0.299 *** -0.250 *** -0.239 *** -0.247 *** -0.308 *** -0.161 ** -0.059 -0.204 *** -0.308 ***
Resource loss (social) 402 -0.265 *** -0.191 *** -0.218 *** -0.177 *** -0.203 *** -0.052 0.090 -0.188 *** -0.187 ***
Resource loss (material) 402 -0.211 *** -0.192 *** -0.167 *** -0.135 ** -0.240 *** -0.063 -0.010 -0.210 *** -0.214 ***
Resource loss (total) 402 -0.293 *** -0.240 *** -0.236 *** -0.211 *** -0.285 *** -0.105 * 0.007 -0.228 *** -0.269 ***
Regularity and frequency 1109 0.353 *** 0.482 *** 0.560 *** 0.448 *** 0.464 *** 0.589 *** 0.788 *** 0.526 *** 0.572 ***
Discriminant validity
Threatening events 402 -0.143 ** -0.062 -0.096 -0.034 -0.092 0.007 0.079 -0.096 -0.062
Potential traumatic events 301 0.200 *** 0.091 0.117 * 0.099 0.142 * 0.021 0.019 0.123 * 0.146 *
 Chronic financial strain 808 -0.008 0.044 -0.009 0.068 -0.054 0.050 0.061 0.031 0.039
Criterion-related validity
Anxiety symptoms 1109 -0.243 *** -0.242 *** -0.261 *** -0.234 *** -0.317 *** -0.181 *** -0.166 *** -0.201 *** -0.345 ***
Depressive symptoms 1109 -0.323 *** -0.315 *** -0.317 *** -0.227 *** -0.321 *** -0.180 *** -0.119 *** -0.311 *** -0.382 ***
PTSD symptoms 301 -0.316 *** -0.199 *** -0.200 *** -0.080 -0.321 *** -0.027 0.135 * -0.236 *** -0.203 ***
Perceived stress 402 -0.241 *** -0.318 *** -0.306 *** -0.275 *** -0.357 *** -0.290 *** -0.233 *** -0.209 *** -0.411 ***
Positive emotions 1109 0.134 *** 0.266 *** 0.215 *** 0.247 *** 0.217 *** 0.336 *** 0.424 *** 0.175 *** 0.414 ***
Life satisfaction 1109 0.090 ** 0.252 *** 0.297 *** 0.255 *** 0.221 *** 0.317 *** 0.439 *** 0.144 *** 0.414 ***
Note. SOLI=Sustainability of Living Inventory. *** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; **** p<0.05.
Table 5. Incremental validity of SOLI subscales in predicting mental health outcomes in Study 4.
Anxiety Depressive PTSD Positive Life
symptoms symptoms symptoms emotions satisfaction
Controlled variables Sample size Regularity of routines β β β β β
IADL; hassles and uplifts 301 Hygiene 0.002 -0.068 -0.074 0.014 -0.03
301 Eating -0.09 -0.106* -0.032 0.189** 0.105
301 Sleep 0.007 -0.08 -0.11** -0.02 0.064
301 Home (duties) -0.016 0.098 0.124** 0.112 0.136*
301 Home (leisure) -0.037 -0.043 -0.11* -0.086 -0.142*
301 Exercise -0.06 0.035 0.077 0.072 0.128*
301 Social activities 0.045 0.119* 0.173*** 0.289*** 0.253***
301 Work 0.094 -0.05 -0.016 -0.026 -0.063
Engagement 402 Hygiene -0.063 -0.076 - -0.031 -0.117*
402 Eating -0.031 -0.103 - 0.024 0.001
402 Sleep -0.127** -0.189*** - -0.027 0.155***
402 Home (duties) 0.034 0.030 - 0.04 0.09
402 Home (leisure) -0.133** -0.080 - 0 -0.055
402 Exercise 0.079 0.039 - -0.014 0.06
402 Social activities 0.035 0.112* - 0.041 0.159*
402 Work -0.004 -0.102* - -0.013 -0.038
Coping with trauma 406 Hygiene -0.02 -0.156** - -0.106* -0.151**
406 Eating -0.058 -0.164** - 0.049 0.094
406 Sleep -0.121* -0.149** - 0.063 0.156**
406 Home (duties) -0.135* -0.062 - 0.05 0.052
406 Home (leisure) -0.175** -0.087 - -0.093 -0.058
 406 Exercise 0.048 0.083 - 0.094 -0.011
406 Social activities 0.093 0.012 - 0.279*** 0.37***
406 Work -0.127* -0.211*** - 0.063 0.02
Coping flexibility 402 Hygiene -0.065 -0.078 - -0.025 -0.11
402 Eating -0.037 -0.122* - 0.039 0.033
402 Sleep -0.151** -0.201*** - 0.015 0.178***
402 Home (duties) 0.031 0.028 - 0.051 0.105
402 Home (leisure) -0.128* -0.068 - -0.005 -0.068
402 Exercise -0.008 -0.02 - 0.124* 0.14
402 Social activities -0.116* -0.007 - 0.277*** 0.324***
402 Work -0.008 -0.108* - 0.006 -0.002
Resource loss 402 Hygiene -0.022 0.012 - 0.036 -0.108*
402 Eating -0.001 -0.055 - 0.044 0.003
402 Sleep -0.138** -0.147*** - 0.061 0.204***
402 Home (duties) 0.026 0.038 - 0.068 0.107
402 Home (leisure) -0.036 0.05 - 0.035 -0.078
402 Exercise -0.037 -0.07 - 0.122* 0.151**
402 Social activities -0.166** -0.11* - 0.250*** 0.297***
402 Work 0.004 -0.063 - 0.056 -0.007
Note. SOLI=Sustainability of Living Inventory. The 95% confidence interval for each beta has been removed to enhance readability of the Table. The full
Table including confidence intervals is available from the corresponding author.
*** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; **** p<0.05
Masked Figure 1

Figure 1. Final model generated from the confirmatory factor analysis with standardized
coefficients.

Note. Hy: personal hygiene item; Ea: eating item; Sl: sleep item; Ho: home item; Le: leisure
item; Ex: exercise item; Wo: work/study item; So: social activities item.
Supplemental Table A1

Click here to access/download

Masked Supplemental Material
Supplemental Table A1.docx
Supplemental Table A2

Click here to access/download

Masked Supplemental Material
Supplemental Table A2.xlsx

View publication stats