Skip to main content
Log in

International Well-being Index: The Austrian Version

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The International Well-being Index (IWI) measures both personal and national well-being. It comprises two subscales: the Personal Well-being Index (PWI) and the National Well-being Index (NWI). The aim of this paper is to test the psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of the translated scale in Austria. Convergent validity is assessed using the Scales of Psychological Well-Being, the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale. In addition, a Visual–Analog Scales capturing “satisfaction with life as a whole” was applied. The participants were 581 students of the Medical University Innsbruck (female: 47.7%; age: 23.2 ± 3.7). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the IWI was for both scales > .70 (PWI: .85; NWI: .83). The exploratory factor analysis of the IWI identified a 2-factor-structure identical with the two scales of the IWI explaining 54.2% of the variance. The convergent validity hypotheses were confirmed, construct validity was partly confirmed for the PWI being a deconstruction of a first factor called “satisfaction with life” (38.1% explained variance). Happy participants scored higher on the PWI (84.3 ± 7.9 vs. 68.7 ± 13.7; p < .001) and NWI (64.3 ±  15.8 vs. 57.9 ±  15.1; p < .001) scores than unhappy participants. It is concluded that the Austrian version of the IWI is a reliable and valid instrument to assess personal and national well-being. Further studies including a representative sample should be carried out on a recurring basis to use the IWI as an indicator for social science research in Austria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conferences, Association of European Universities. (2000). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999.

  • Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003a). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A., Hunter, B., Davern, M., Eckersley, R., Lo, S. K., & Okerstrom, E. (2003b). The Australian unity wellbeing index: An overview. Social Indicators Network News, 76, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A., Walter, J., & Woerner, J. (2007a). Australian unity wellbeing index: Report 16.1—“The wellbeing of Australians—groups with the highest and lowest wellbeing in Australia”. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne.

  • Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Tomyn, A., Gibson, A., & Knapp, T. (2007b). Australian unity wellbeing index: Report 17.0 The wellbeing of Australians? Work, wealth and happiness. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne.

  • Davern, M., & Cummins, R. A., Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective/cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 429–449. doi: 10.1007/s10902-007-9066-1.

  • Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. The American Psychology, 55, 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., Sharpe, A., Sirgy, J., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and Agenda for Research. Social Indicators Research, 55, 1–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1988). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal wellbeing index. Australian centre on quality of life. Melburne: Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Wellbeing Group. (2007). Translations. Available from: http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/inter_wellbeing/index.htm#index. Cited 7 Sep 2007.

  • Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Form der Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Diagnostica, 42, 139–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalos, A. C. (1980). North American Social Report (Vol. 1): Foundations, Population and Health. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

  • O’Boyle, C., Höfer, S., & Ring, L. (2005). Individualised quality of life in clinical trials. In R. Hays & P. Fayers (Eds.), Quality of life assessment in clinical trials (pp. 225–242). Oxford.

  • Prutkin, J. M., & Feinstein, A. R. (2002). Quality-of-life measurements: Origin and pathogenesis. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 75, 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring, L., Höfer, S., McGee, H., Hickey, A., & O’Boyle, C. A. (2007). Individual quality of life: Can it be accounted for by psychological or subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 82, 443–461. doi: 10.1007/s11205-006-9041-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, J. (2003). Satisfaction with life scale. In J. Schumacher, A. Klaiberg & E. Brähler (Eds.), Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden (pp. 305–309). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staudinger, U., Lopez, F., & Baltes, P. (1997). The Psychometric location of wisdom-related performance: Intelligence, personality and more? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1200–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiliouine, H., Cummins, R. A., & Davern, M. (2006). Measuring wellbeing in developing countries: The case of Algeria. Social Indicators Research, 75, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by an EU-Marie Curie Reintegration Grant (ERG-012844) and a grant by the “Tiroler Wissenschaftsfonds” of the local government of the Tyrol/Austria (UNI-0404/108) to Dr. Stefan Höfer. Dr. Daniela Renn was supported by a Research Fellowship of the Medical University Innsbruck (FS-2007-3-3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Höfer.

Appendix:

Appendix:

International Well-being Index—Austria

1.1 Subjektives Wohlbefinden

  • Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit Ihrem Lebensstandard?

  • Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit Ihrer Gesundheit?

  • Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit dem, was Sie in Ihrem Leben erreicht haben?

  • Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit Ihren persönlichen Beziehungen?

  • Wie zufrieden sind Sie damit, wie sicher Sie sich fühlen?

  • Wie zufrieden sind Sie damit wie Sie sich als Teil Ihrer sozialen Gemeinschaft fühlen?

  • Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit Ihrer Sicherheit in der Zukunft?

1.2 Nationales Wohlbefinden

  • Wie zufrieden sind sie mit der wirtschaftlichen Situation in Österreich?

  • Wie zufrieden sind sie mit dem Zustand der Umwelt in Österreich?

  • Wie zufrieden sind sie mit den sozialen Bedingungen in Österreich?

  • Wie zufrieden sind sie mit der Regierung in Österreich?

  • Wie zufrieden sind sie mit der wirtschaftlichen Aktivität in Österreich?

  • Wie zufrieden sind sie mit der nationalen Sicherheit in Österreich?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Renn, D., Pfaffenberger, N., Platter, M. et al. International Well-being Index: The Austrian Version. Soc Indic Res 90, 243–256 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9255-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9255-2

Keywords

Navigation