Contenido principal del artículo

Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez
José Ventura-León
Karla Azabache-Alvarado
Mario Reyes-Bossio
Isabel Cabrera-Orosco

Introducción: actualmente, existe un mayor interés por el estudio del bienestar, debido a su importancia en el desarrollo y evaluación de políticas en salud a favor de la población en general. Por lo tanto, se hace necesaria una medición válida y confiable del bienestar. En este contexto, el estudio evaluó las evidencias de validez basadas en la estructura interna, confiabilidad e invarianza factorial por sexo del índice de Bienestar General (WHO-5 WBI). Materiales y métodos: participaron 499 estudiantes universitarios de la ciudad de Trujillo (Perú) de sexo femenino (n = 271) y masculino (n = 228). Se realizó un análisis factorial confirmatorio, confiabilidad por consistencia interna e invarianza factorial por sexo mediante un análisis multigrupo. Resultados: el análisis factorial confirmatorio indicó que el modelo unidimensional de cinco ítems con errores correlacionados de los ítems 1 y 4 presentaba un buen ajuste (χ2 = 9.667 [gl = 4]; p > 0.05; χ2/gl = 2.416; CFI = 0.994; RMSEA = 0.053 [IC90%: 0.006-0.097]; SRMR = 0.018). Además, se reportó una confiabilidad aceptable (ω = 0.758) e invariancia factorial por sexo. Conclusión: el WHO-5 WBI demostró evidencia empírica a favor de la validez basada en la estructura interna, confiabilidad de las puntuaciones e invariancia factorial, que permiten contar con un instrumento útil y rápido para la medición del bienestar subjetivo en estudiantes universitarios.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Caycho-Rodríguez T. ., Ventura-León J. ., Azabache-Alvarado, K. ., Reyes-Bossio, M., & Cabrera-Orosco, I. . (2020). Validez e invariancia factorial del Índice de Bienestar General (WHO-5 WBI) en universitarios peruanos. Revista Ciencias De La Salud, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.9797

Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2(4):253-60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6

World Health Organization. Mental health action plan 2013-2020 [internet]. 2013. Disponible en: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/89966/1/9789241506021_eng.pdf

Diener E, Oishi S, Ryan KL. Universals and cultural differences in the causes and structure of happiness: a multilevel review. En Keyes C, editor. Mental well-being Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. p. 153-76.

Diener E, Oishi S, Lucas RE. National accounts of subjective well-being. Am Psychol. 2015;70(3):234-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038899

Altun I, Özbağ GK, Arli E. Subjective Well-Being in University Students. Iran J Public Health. 2014;43(11):1585-6.

Rodríguez YR, Berríos AQ. El bienestar psicológico en el proceso de ayuda con estudian- tes universitarios. Rev Griot. 2012;5(1):7-17.

Bailey TH, Phillips LJ. The influence of motivation and adaptation on students’ subjective well-being, meaning in life and academic performance. High Educ Res Dev. 2016;35(2):201-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087474

Gómez V, De Posada CV, Barrera F, Cruz JE. Factores predictores de bienestar subjetivo en una muestra colombiana. Rev Latinoam Psicol. 2007;39(2):311-25.

Hutz CS, Midgett A, Pacico JC, Bastianello MR, Zanon C. The relationship of hope, optimism, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and personality in Brazilians and Americans. Psychology. 2014;5(6):514-22. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.56061

Salmela-Aro K, Nurmi JE. Self-esteem during university studies predicts career characteristics 10 years later. J Vocat Behav. 2007;70(3):463-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2007.01.006

Rania N, Siri A, Bagnasco A, Aleo G, Sasso L. Academic climate, well-being and academic performance in a university degree course. J Nurs Manag. 2014;22(6):751-60. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01471.x

Musikanski L. Measuring happiness to guide public policy making: a survey of instruments and policy initiatives. J Soc. Change. 2015;7(1):39-55. https://doi.org/10.5590/ JOSC.2015.07.1.04

Canadian Index of Wellbeing. How are Canadians really doing? The 2012 CIW Report. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo; 2012.

Pontin E, Schwannauer M, Tai S, Kinderman P. A UK validation of a general measure of subjective well-being: the modified BBC subjective well-being scale (BBC-SWB). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-150

World Health Organization. Well-being measures in primary health care: The DepCare Project. Consensus meeting, Stockholm: World Health Organization; 1998.

Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The who-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167-76. https://doi. org/10.1159/000376585

Garland AF, Deyessa N, Desta M, Alem A, Zerihun T, Hall KG, et al. Use of the who’s Perceived Well-Being Index (WHO-5) as an efficient and potentially valid screen for depression in a low income country. Fam Syst Health. 2018;36(2):148-58. https://doi. org/10.1037/fsh0000344

Morelatto de Souza C, Loayza MP. World Health Organization 5-item well-being index: validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012;262(3):239-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-011-0255-x

Campo-Arias A, Miranda-Tapia GA, Cogollo Z, Herazo E. Reproducibilidad del Índice de Bienestar General (WHO-5 WBI) en estudiantes adolescentes. Salud Uninorte. 2015;31(1):18-24. https://doi.org/10.14482/sun.30.1.4309

Péntek M, Hajdu O, Rencz F, Beretzky Z, Brodszky V, Baji P, et al. Subjective expectations regarding ageing: a cross-sectional online population survey in Hungary. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(1):17-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01059-w

Bonnín CM, Yatham LN, Michalak EE, Martínez-Arán A, Dhanoa T, Torres I, et al. Psychometric properties of the well-being index (WHO-5) Spanish version in a sample of euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2018;228: 153-9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.12.006

Omani-Samani R, Maroufizadeh S, Almasi-Hashiani A, Sepidarkish M, Amini P. The who- 5 Well-Being Index: a validation study in people with Infertility. Iran J Public Health. 2019;48(11):2058-64.

Guðmundsdóttir HB, Ólason DÞ, Guðmundsdóttir DG, Sigurðsson JF. A psychometric evaluation of the Icelandic version of the who-5. Scand J Psychol. 2014;55(6):567-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12156

Mortazavi F, Mousavi SA, Chaman R, Khosravi A. Validation of the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index; assessment of maternal well-being and its associated factors. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2015;26(1):1-7.

Simancas-Pallares M, Díaz-Cárdenas S, Barbosa-Gómez P, Buendía-Vergara M, Arévalo- Tovar L. Propiedades psicométricas del Índice de Bienestar General-5 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud en pacientes parcialmente edéntulos. Rev Fac Med. 2016;64(4):701-5. https://doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v64n4.52235

Krieger T, Zimmermann J, Huffziger S, Ubl B, Diener C, Kuehner C, Holtforth MG. Measuring depression with a well-being index: further evidence for the validity of the who Well-Being Index (who-5) as a measure of the severity of depression. J Affect Disord. 2014;156: 240-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.12.015

Abdulameer SA, Al-Jewari WM, Sahib MN. Psychological health status and salivary IgA among pharmacy students in Iraq: validation of PSS-4 and who-5 well-being (Arabic version). Pharm Educ. 2019;19(1):10-8.

Preoteasa CT, Preoteasa E. Psychometric properties of Romanian version of who-5 well-being index in dental students. Rom J Oral Rehabil. 2015;7(3):21-7.

Byrne BM. Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: a walk through the process. Psicothema. 2008;20(4):872-2.

Ato M, López-García JJ, Benavente A. Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de inves- tigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología. 2013;29(3):1038-59. https://doi.org/10.6018/ analesps.29.3.178511

Schumacker R, Lomax R. A beginner ́s guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Routledge; 2016.

Mueller RO, Hancock GR. Best practices in structural equation modeling. En Osborne JW, editor. Best practices in quantitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008. p. 488-508.

Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Whittaker TA. Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. J Exp Educ. 2012;80(1):26-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 0220973.2010.531299

Dimitrov DM. Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2010;43(2):121-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175610373459

Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.112.1.155

McDonald RP. Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999

Raykov T. Bias of coefficient afor fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Appl

Psych Meas. 2001;25(1), 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216010251005

Chongwo E, Ssewanyana D, Nasambu C, Mwangala PN, Mwangi PM, Nyongesa MK, Newton ChR, Abubakar A. Validation of a Swahili version of the World Health Organization 5-item well-being index among adults living with HIV and epilepsy in rural coastal Kenya. Glob Health Res Policy. 2018;3(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-018-0081-z

Saris WE, Satorra A, Sörbom D. The detection and correction of specification errors in structural equation models. Sociol Methodol. 1987;17: 105-29. https://doi. org/10.2307/271030

Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.

Gu F, Little TD, Kingston NM. Misestimation of reliability using coefficient alpha and structural equation modeling when assumptions of tau-equivalence and uncorrelated errors are violated. Methodology. 2013;9(1):30-40. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/ a000052

Heene M, Hilbert S, Freudenthaler HH, Bühner M. Sensitivity of SEM fit indexes with respect to violations of uncorrelated errors. Struct Equ Modeling. 2012;19(1):36-50. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.634710

Dadfar M, Momeni Safarabad N, Asgharnejad Farid AA, Nemati Shirzy M, Ghazie pour Abarghouie F. Reliability, validity, and factorial structure of the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index (who-5) in Iranian psychiatric outpatients. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2018;40(2):79-84.

Rauwerda NL, Tovote KA, Peeters ACTM, Sanderman R, Emmelkamp PMG, Schroevers MJ, Fleer J. who-5 and bdi-ii are acceptable screening instruments for depression in peo- ple with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2018;35(12), 1678-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13779

Graham C, Chattopadhyay S. Gender and well-being around the world. Int J of Happiness Dev. 2013;1(2):212-32.

Helliwell J, Layard R, Sachs J. Setting the stage. En Helliwell J, Layard R, Sachs J. editores. World happiness report 2015. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network; 2015. p. 3-11.

Becerra S. Universidades saludables: una apuesta a una formación integral del estudiante. Rev Psicol. 2013;31(2):287-314.

Barrantes-Brais K, Ureña-Bonilla P. Bienestar psicológico y bienestar subjetivo en estudiantes universitarios costarricenses. Rev Intercont Psicol Educ. 2015;17(1):101-23.

Detalles del artículo

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a