Validación mexicana de la Escala de Funcionamiento Psicológico Positivoperspectivas en torno al estudio del bienestar y su medida

  1. Mª Dolores Merino 1
  2. Jesús Privado 2
  3. Zeus Gracia 1
  1. 1 Facultad de Psicología, Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico II (Psicología Diferencial y del Trabajo). Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  2. 2 Facultad de Psicología, Departamento de Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Journal:
Salud mental

ISSN: 0185-3325

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 38

Issue: 2

Pages: 109-115

Type: Article

DOI: 10.17711/SM.0185-3325.2015.015 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Salud mental

Abstract

Background The Positive Psychological Functioning scale (PPF) is a newly developed measure in Spain. It consists of 11 psychological resources: autonomy, resilience, self-esteem, purpose in life, enjoyment, optimism, curiosity, Creativity, humor, environmental mastery and vitality. All of them are grouped into a second order factor called Positive Psychological Functioning. This measure has adequate validity and reliability. In addition, the confirmatory factor analysis showed a good level of adjustment. Objective The goal of this research is to validate the PPF in Mexico. Method We used a sample of 184 college students from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM). They applied the PPF and other scales to calculate the reliability and validity in Mexico. Results The results obtained in the PPF scale showed good psychometric properties (reliability and validity). Moreover, the scale has hierarchical factorial structure formed by 11 prime order factors, and one second order general factor. The same result was found in the Spanish scale validation. Discussion and conclusion This measurement is innovative because, to our knowledge, there is no scale to measure Positive Functioning in this country, since attempts to adapt other similar scales have not been satisfactory. The results allow us to recommend the application of this scale in Mexico.

Bibliographic References

  • Huta V, Ryan R. Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The Differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J Happiness Studies 2010;11:735-762. [ Links ]
  • Keyes CLM, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD. Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. J Personality Social Psychology 2002;82:1007-1022. [ Links ]
  • Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review Psychology 2001;52:141-166. [ Links ]
  • Waterman AS, Schwartzb SJ, Zamboangac B, Ravertd RD et al. The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The J Positive Psychology 2010;5:41-61. [ Links ]
  • Vázquez C, Herbás G, Rahona J, Gómez D. Bienestar psicológico y salud aportaciones desde la psicología positiva. Anuario Psicología Clínica Salud 2009;5:15-28. [ Links ]
  • Diener E, Emmons RA, Larson RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Personality Assessment 1985;49:71-75. [ Links ]
  • Watson D, Clarck LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANNAS scales. J Personality Social Psychology 1988;54:1063-1070. [ Links ]
  • Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Personality Social Psychology 1989;57:1069-1081. [ Links ]
  • Stones MJ, Worobetz S, Brink P. Overestimated Relationship with wellbeing. Canadian Psychology 2011;52:93-100. [ Links ]
  • Medina-Calvillo MA, Gutiérrez-Hernández CY, Padrós-Blázquez F. Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de bienestar psicológico de Ryff en población mexicana. Revista Educación Desarrollo 2013;27:25-30. [ Links ]
  • Schmutte PS, Ryff D. Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and meanings. J Personality Social Psychology 1997;73:549-559. [ Links ]
  • Grant S, Langan-Fox J, Anglim J. The big five traits as predictors of subjective and psychological well-being. Psychological Reports 2009;105:205-231. [ Links ]
  • Hayes N, Joseph S. Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 2003;34:723-727. [ Links ]
  • McCrae RR, Costa PT. A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality Individual Differences 2004;36:587-596. [ Links ]
  • Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research 1999;46:137-155. [ Links ]
  • Spielberger CD, Gorssuch RL, Lushene PR, Vagg PR et al. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc; 1983. [ Links ]
  • Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. BDI-II. Beck depression inventory. Second edition. Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1996. [ Links ]
  • Díaz D, Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Blanco A, Moreno-Jiménez B et al. Adaptación española de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff. Psicothema 2006;18:572-577. [ Links ]
  • Loera N, Balcázar P, Trejo L, Gurrola G et al. Adaptación de la escala de Bienestar Psicológico de Ryff en adolescentes preuniversitarios. Neurol Neurocir Psiquiat 2008;41(3-4):90-97. [ Links ]
  • Vázquez C, Duque A, Hervás G. Satisfaction with Life Scale in a Representative Sample of Spanish Adults: Validation and Normative Data. Spanish J Psychology 2013;16(E82):1-15. [ Links ]
  • Sardín B, Chorot P, Lostao L, Joiner TE et al. Escalas PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: Validación factorial y convergencia transcultural. Psicothema 1999;11:37-51. [ Links ]
  • Arbuckle JL. Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS; 2006. [ Links ]
  • Abad FJ, Olea J, Ponsoda V, García C. Medición en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Madrid: Síntesis; 2011. [ Links ]
  • Martínez-Arias R, Hernández-Lloreda MJ, Hernández-Lloreda MV. Psicometría. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 2006. [ Links ]
  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson RE et al. Multivariate Data Analysis (6th Edition). Nueva Jersey: Pearson; 2006. [ Links ]
  • Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS basic concepts, applications, and programming. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001. [ Links ]
  • Bentler BM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 1980;88:588-606. [ Links ]
  • Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1990;25:173-180. [ Links ]
  • Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 1990;107:238-246. [ Links ]
  • James LR, Mulaik SA, Brett JM. Causal analysis: models, assumptions and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1982. [ Links ]
  • Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Segunda edición. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988. [ Links ]
  • Neff KD, Rude SS, Kirkpatrick KL. An examination of self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. J Research Personality 2007;41:908-916. [ Links ]
  • Sharpe JP, Martin NR, Roth KA. Optimism and the Big Five factors of personality: Beyond neuroticism and extraversion. Personality Individual Differences 2011;51:946-951. [ Links ]
  • Pardo A, Ruiz MA, San Martín R. Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud II. Madrid: Síntesis; 2010. [ Links ]
Data source: Dialnet