Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The tripartite model of mental well-being regards well-being as a three-dimensional concept encompassing correlated yet distinct dimensions of hedonic, psychological, and social well-being. This study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) to evaluate this model in an Iranian sample (N = 1435). It was found that the model was generally consistent with the data, although a few variables did not have strong loadings on their target factors. The ESEM model provided improved fit compared with the CFA model. The results illustrate the methodological advantages of ESEM over traditional CFA in this line of research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmad, S. F. (2009). The Islamic personality: a sequential model. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 283–316). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. doi:10.1080/10705510903008204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobowik, M., Basabe, N., & Páez, D. (2015). The bright side of migration: Hedonic, psychological, and social well-being in immigrants in Spain. Social Science Research, 51, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Carvalho, J. S., Pereira, N. S., Pinto, A. M., & Marôco, J. (2016). Psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form: a study of Portuguese speaking children/youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2141–2154.

    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 

  • Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., & Khan, Z. H. (2007). Theoretical, empirical, and potential ideological dimensions of using Western conceptualizations to measure Muslim religious commitments. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2, 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haque, A. (2004). Psychology from Islamic perspective: contributions of early Muslim scholars and challenges to contemporary Muslim psychologists. Journal of Religion and Health, 43(4), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heene, M., Bollmann, S., & Bühner, M. (2014). Much ado about nothing, or much to do about something? Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 245–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huq, M. (2009). The heart and personality development. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 159–181). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2013). Mental well-being in Iran: the importance of comprehensive well-being in understanding the linkages of personality and values. In C. L. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: international contributions to the study of subjective well-being and positive mental health (pp. 177–207). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2016a). A new look at the factor structure of the MHC-SF in Iran and the United States using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 701–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2016b). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023–2036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2017a). Factor structure and criterion validity of original and short versions of the negative and positive affect scale (NAPAS). Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 233–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2017b). Islamic conceptions of well-being. In R. Estes & J. Sirgy (Eds.), The pursuit of human well-being: the untold global history (pp. 109–131). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M., & Bakhshi, A. (2016). The factor structure and measurement invariance of positive and negative affect across gender and cultural groups: a study in Iran and the USA. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M., Bobowik, M., & Basabe, N. (2016). Distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Joshanloo, M., Capone, V., Petrillo, G., & Caso, D. (2017). Discriminant validity of hedonic, social, and psychological well-being in two Italian samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M., & Ghaedi, G. H. (2009). Value priorities as predictors of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 294–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M., & Lamers, S. M. A. (2016). Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 8–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’s comprehensive scale of well-being. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 9, 35–51 (in Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M., Wissing, M. P., Khumalo, I. P., & Lamers, S. (2013). Measurement invariance of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) across three cultural groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 755–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. doi:10.1080/17439760802303044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140. doi:10.2307/2787065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). The subjective well-being of America’s youth: toward a comprehensive assessment. Adolescent & Family Health, 4(1), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–201. doi:10.1080/17439760902844228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legatum Institute. (2012). The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index: Methodology and technical appendix. Retrieved from: http://www.prosperity.com

  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 212–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosellini, A. J., & Brown, T. A. (2011). The NEO five-factor inventory: latent structure and relationships with dimensions of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large clinical sample. Assessment, 18(1), 27–38.

    Article  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(1), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. doi:10.1177/0011000006286345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeol Boulevard, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu, 42601, South Korea

    Mohsen Joshanloo

  2. Department of Psychology, Elmo-Farhang University, Tehran, Iran

    Shirin Niknam

Authors
  1. Mohsen Joshanloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shirin Niknam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Joshanloo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the conventional ethical standards applied in psychological research.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joshanloo, M., Niknam, S. The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity. Curr Psychol 38, 128–133 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9595-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9595-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation