There is increasing interest in the study of subjective well-being. Diener (1984) suggests that subjective well-being is composed of three dimensions: life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect. Life satisfaction is regarded as a cognitively-based facet of well-being, in contrast to positive and negative affect, which are affectively-based evaluations. This interest in subjective well-being has been accompanied by the recent development of a number of new self-report measures. One such measure is the Depression-Happiness Scale (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph, 1993), a 25-item self-report scale which contains 12 items concerned with positive feelings (e.g., I felt happy) and 13 items concerned with negative feelings (e.g., I felt sad). Items concerning negative feelings are reverse scored so that lower scores on the scale indicate a lower frequency of positive feelings and a higher frequency of negative feelings. Respondents are asked to think about how they have felt in the past seven days and to rate the frequency of each item on a 4-point scale: never (0); rarely (1); sometimes (2); often (3). Scores can range between 0 and 75, with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of positive feelings and a lower frequency of negative feelings. Sample questions include: ‘I felt I had failed as a person’ (Item 2 [reversed]), ‘I felt cheerful’ (Item 6), and ‘I felt pleased with the way I am’ (item 20). McGreal and Joseph (1993) intended the scale to be used in the assessment of subjective well-being in non-psychiatric populations, and were concerned that the measure should be able to capture individual differences in affect without floor or ceiling effects.

At present some 20 studies in which the Depression-Happiness Scale was used have been reported, and there is encouraging evidence for both its reliability and its validity. The scale possesses a satisfactory level of internal reliability (Cronbach, 1951) ranging from 0.85, (Lewis, Lanigan, Joseph, & de Fockert, 1997) to 0.93 (Joseph, Lewis, & Olsen, 1996) among a number of studies (Cammock, Joseph, & Lewis, 1994; Joseph & Lewis, 1998; Joseph, Lewis, & Olsen, 1996; Lewis & Joseph, 1995; Lewis, Joseph, & McCollam, 1996; McGreal & Joseph, 1993; Walsh, Joseph, & Lewis, 1995). Satisfactory levels of temporal stability have been reported over both two weeks (r = 0.70: Lewis, McCollum, & Joseph, 1999) and two years (r = 0.55: Lewis & Joseph, 1997). The mean scores for non-psychiatric populations tend to be around 48 (e.g., 51.1 (SD = 10.7) Lewis & Joseph, 1997; 48.04 (SD = 10.75) Joseph & Lewis 1998; 46.30 (SD = 10.98) French & Joseph, 1999). In addition, preliminary data (Lewis, Joseph, & Shevlin, 1999) suggest that a score of 42 on the Depression-Happiness Scale may be a reasonable cut-off score for mild, but clinically relevant, depression (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961).

The scale has good convergent validity also with various measures of subjective well-being. These include the constructs of depression (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; Joseph, Lewis, & Olsen, 1996; Lewis, Joseph, & McCollam, 1996; McGreal & Joseph, 1993) happiness (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; Lewis & Joseph, 1995), locus of control (Cammock, Joseph, & Lewis, 1994), self-esteem (Cammock, Joseph, & Lewis, 1994), anxiety (Cammock, Joseph, & Lewis, 1994; Lewis, Joseph, & McCollam, 1996), general health (Walsh, Joseph, & Lewis, 1995), and satisfaction with life (Lewis & Joseph, 1995; Lewis, Lanigan, Joseph, & de Fockert, 1997).

The aim in the present study was to provide further evidence for the convergent validity of the Depression-Happiness Scale. The overall Affect Balance Scale was employed as it is very well established in the subjective well-being literature (Andrews & Robinson, 1991), and – as it contains measures of both positive and negative affect – seeks to measure the same construct as the Depression-Happiness Scale. The Affect Balance Scale (Bradburn, 1969) is a 10-item measure of affect. It contains five positive affect items and five negative affect items. Respondents are asked ‘During the past few weeks, did you ever …’. It is scored on a yes (1)/no (0) format and possible scores can range between 0 to 5 on each scale, with higher scores indicating more positive and negative affect, respectively. Sample questions include ‘Proud because someone complimented you on something you had done?’ (Item 3) and ‘Depressed or very unhappy?’ (Item 8). The overall Affect Balance Scale has been traditionally scored in a variety of ways. The methodology proposed by Bradburn (1969) suggests that “One point is given for each positive response to the Positive Affect items, and one point for each negative response to the Negative Affect items. (In order to have enough cases for analysis, the two categories at the low-frequency end of each scale, 0 and 1 for Positive Affect, and 4 and 5 for Negative Affect, were combined to produce scores ranging from 0 to 4 for each scale.) Affect balance is computed as Positive Affect minus Negative Affect plus a constant of 5 (to avoid negative values) and thus ranges from +1 (lowest Affect Balance) to +9 (highest Affect Balance)” (see also Andrews & Robinson, 1991, p. 83). However, more recently Bowling (1997) has noted that “differential weights were tested but did not significantly alter the results and so are not used” (p. 117). Hence scores can now range between 0 (lowest affect balance) to +10 (highest affect balance). Satisfactory levels of reliability have been reported ranging from 0.47 to 0.73 for the positive scale and 0.48 to 0.73 for the negative scale (Cherlin & Reeder, 1975; Warr, 1978). In addition, satisfactory levels of temporal stability have been reported over three days (Affect Balance Scale r = 0.76, Positive Affect Scale r = 0.83, Negative Affect Scale r = 0.81; Bradburn, 1969). In the present study both the original weighted scoring method and the nonweighted scoring method were employed for purposes of comparison.

Among a sample of undergraduate Northern Irish students, it was predicted that higher scores on the Depression-Happiness Scale would be significantly associated with higher scores on the Affect Positive Scale and with lower scores on the Affect Negative Scale, but not with scores on the Affect Balance Scale.

Method

Respondents

The respondents comprised 67 undergraduate students (12 men and 55 women) at the University of Ulster at Coleraine in Northern Ireland. They were aged between 18 and 41 years (M = 21.2 years, SD = 4.9).

Measures

All respondents completed a questionnaire booklet containing two self-report measures:

The Depression-Happiness Scale (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph, 1993), which is a 25-item self-report scale designed to measure positive affect.

The Affect Balance Scale (Bradburn, 1969), which is a 10-item measure of affect.

Procedure

All respondents completed the questionnaire booklet at the end of an introductory class in psychology. Participation was voluntary and no financial rewards or course credits were given to the respondents for taking part.

Results

Adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951) were found for all of the measures administered (Table 1). These findings are in line with those reported by the authors of the tests (Bradburn, 1969; Joseph & Lewis, 1998). The means, standard deviations, range, and alpha coefficient for each of the measures are contained in Table 1.

Discussion

The aim in the present paper was to provide further evidence for the convergent validity of the Depression-Happiness Scale (Joseph & Lewis, 1998; McGreal & Joseph, 1993). The Affect Balance Scale (Bradburn, 1969) was administered alongside the Depression-Happiness Scale to a sample of Northern Irish students. As predicted, higher scores on the Depression-Happiness Scale were significantly associated with higher scores on the Affect Balance Scale and the Affect Positive Scale, and with lower scores on the Affect Negative Scale. These finding were consistent across the two scoring methods that have previously been employed by researchers to score Bradburn’s Affect Balance Scale.

These data provide further evidence of the convergent validity of the Depression-Happiness Scale. Future researchers may seek to further support the validity of the Depression-Happiness Scale using different measures of subjective wellbeing, and among different samples. Moreover, use of the Depression-Happiness Scale is presently confined to the United Kingdom, hence further important work should seek to establish the reliability of the validity of the Depression-Happiness Scale in other cultures, especially among those who are non-native English speakers. In addition, the utility of the Depression-Happiness Scale within the clinical context is also worthy of further work (Lewis, Joseph, & Shevlin, 1999). Meanwhile, the authors are currently developing both a short form and, children’s version of the Depression-Happiness Scale.

In conclusion, the growing number of studies in which the Depression-Happiness Scale is used attests to its potential as an important and useful tool for researchers interested in the measurement of subjective well-being.

References

Appreciation is due to reviewers including

Dr. John Maltby

School of Health &

Community Studies

Sheffield Hallan University

England

Dr. Alain Morin

St. Francis University

Canada.

Dr Christopher Alan Lewis, School of Psychology and Communication, University of Ulster at Magee College, Londonderry, Northern Ireland BT48 7JL. Email: [email protected]