Validation and Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Riverside Eudaimonia Scale

Abstract

The Riverside Eudaimonia Scale (RES) has been recently developed to measure psychological measures of eudaimonia. Currently, there is no evidence regarding its psychometric properties in Turkish. Therefore, this study, for the first time, examined the validation and psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the RES. Participants included 336 undergraduate students from a public university in Turkey. The results showed good internal consistency of the RES suggesting a good measure to assess eudaimonic flourishing. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded a one-factor structure as a good fit with strong reliability evidence. The results indicated that the RES was correlated with life satisfaction and flourishing, and the RES explained a significant amount of variance in the prediction of life satisfaction and flourishing after controlling for age and gender. The results suggest that the RES has sound psychometric properties, is culturally and linguistically acceptable, and is equally fruitful in measuring eudaimonic flourishing in Turkish population.

Keywords

Riverside Eudaimonia Scale eudaimonic well-being satisfaction with life flourishing psychometrics

Introduction

Human beings have been interested in answering the questions like “What is happiness?”, “What makes people happy?”, and “Which people are happier?” for centuries. For this reason, from the past to the present, many different disciplines, from philosophy to theology, have focused on the concept of happiness in different ways and made different explanations for the concept of happiness. However, the scientific treatment of the concept of happiness has started relatively recently, and happiness has been viewed with the concept of well-being (Diener & Seligman, 2002). Basically, two approaches dominate well-being research. One of them is the hedonic approach, which focuses on the quality of life and positive and negative emotions of individuals, while the other is the eudaimonic approach, which considers well-being as meaning, purpose, and growth and emphasizes the potential of human beings (Ryan & Deci, 2001). There are various studies on these two approaches (Ryan & Deci, 2001 see for review).

Although theorists and researchers generally agree with the concept and measurement of hedonic well-being, there is no consensus on the concept of eudaimonic well-being. The Psychological Well-being Scale (PWBS; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), the Mental Health Continuum Scale (MHC; Keyes, 2002), the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010), and the Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (QEWB; Waterman et al., 2010) aim to measure eudaimonic well-being levels. However, each of these measurement tool has various limitations. In this regard, Margolis et al. (2022) recently developed the Riverside Eudaimonia Scale (RES) to overcome all these limitations and to reliably measure Eudaimonia with a few items. By focusing on self-assessments of acquiring eudaimonic goods, the RES assesses the extent to which people believe they have attained eudaimonic goods such as intellectual or artistic achievement and positive relationships (Margolis et al., 2022). The RES was found to have good psychometric properties with only five items that yielded a one-factor solution (χ2 (5) = 361, CFI = .978, TLI = .957, RMSEA = .111, 90% CI [.079, .147], and SRMR = .038). The RES was associated with life satisfaction, happiness, psychological well-being, and personality traits. Furthermore, the RES indicated satisfactory reliability in terms of both the 2-week test–retest correlation ((.75 (95% CI = [.38, .81])) and the average inter-item correlation and ωt, which was, respectively, .40 and .77 (Margolis et al., 2022).

To date, to the best of our knowledge, the RES has not been validated in Turkish culture. A measure of eudaimonic flourishing, which is culturally and linguistically acceptable to Turkish, is warranted. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to present evidence regarding the reliability and validity of RES in Turkish university students. Especially, the current research seeks (a) to present the internal consistency reliability of the Turkish version of the RES, (b) to examine its factorial structure, (c) to investigate the convergent validity of the RES with other well-being measures, and (d) to examine the predictive role of the RES in explaining satisfaction with life and flourishing. Therefore, the present study tested the following hypothesis:

(i) The RES shows good internal consistency reliability.

(ii) The RES yields a one-factor solution.

(iii) The RES positively relates to satisfaction with life and flourishing with moderate-large effect sizes.

(iv) The RES predicts a significant proportion of variance in satisfaction with life and flourishing over and above the effects of age and gender.

Method

Participants

Participants were 336 undergraduate students (93.2% males; age_range = 18–29 years; mean_age = 22.83 ± 4.64) studying different courses at a public university in Turkey. The sample was randomly divided into two subsamples of equal size. Subsample 1 (n = 168) was used for exploratory factor analysis and Subsample 2 (n = 168) was used for confirmatory factor analysis.

Measures

Riverside Eudaimonia Scale (RES; Margolis et al., 2022) was used to measure individuals’ perceptions of their eudaimonic well-being. The RES includes five items answered on a 7-point Likert-type ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach’s α-value was .84 for the first subsample and .83 for the second subsample.

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) was used to assess overall cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one’s life. The SWLS includes five items rated on a 7-point Likert-type ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The SWLS was translated into Turkish by Durak et al. (2010). The single-factor model of the SWLS indicated a good fit to the data (χ2 (4) = 141.6, CFI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.040, and SRMR = 0.010) (Jovanović et al., 2022). In this study, Cronbach’s α-value was .83 for the first subsample and .82 for the second subsample.

Flourishing Scale (FS; Diener et al., 2010) was constructed to assess the psychological well-being of people using 8 items self-reported items. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert-type ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The FS was adopted into Turkish culture by Telef (2011). The single-factor solution of the FS indicated a good fit to the data, χ2 (205) = 309.598, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.959, and SRMR = 0.053 (Tan et al., 2021). In this study, Cronbach’s α-value was .83 for the first subsample and .82 for the second subsample.

Procedure

A forward–backward method of translation was used to translate the RES into the Turkish language. Three independent bilingual researchers with PhD degrees were involved in the adaptation of the final version of this scale in Turkish language, with two researchers participating in forward translation and one researcher taking part in back-translation. Language consistency was assured between the two languages. Data collection was conducted online using instant messaging apps such as WhatsApp with the help of class representatives, who were asked to share the study link with other students. Volunteer participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality of personal information. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Results

There was no issue regarding the distribution of items and variables. Exploratory factor analysis using a maximum-likelihood extraction method was carried out to explore the underlying factor structure of the RES. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. The number of subjects (168) to items (5) ratio exceeded the suggested minimum ratio required for EFA of 5 to 1 (with a minimum number of participants of 150) (Gorsuch, 1983). Bartlett’s test for sphericity, [χ2 (10) = 288.27, p < .001] and Kaiser’s measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .82) showed that the data were suitable for the factor analysis. The results yielded a one-factor structure that accounted for 59.04% of the total variance (eigenvalue = 2.95). Furthermore, findings of the parallel analysis indicated that only the first eigenvalue in real datasets, [2.95 and .69], exceeded those obtained from 1000 randomly generated datasets by chance, [1.24 and 1.10]. Therefore, a one-factor solution for the scale was held true in this subsample. Factor loadings for the scale ranged between .54 and .83 (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Mean, standard deviation, reliability, and factor loadings for the RES items.

	Subsample 1 (n = 168)					Subsample 2 (n = 168)
Item	Mean	SD	IC	CD	FL	Mean	SD	IC	CD	FL
Riverside Eudaimonia 1	5.61	1.40	0.65	0.78	0.74	5.52	1.29	0.56	0.81	0.62
Riverside Eudaimonia 2	5.74	1.20	0.51	0.82	0.54	5.38	1.45	0.63	0.79	0.70
Riverside Eudaimonia 3	5.82	1.22	0.66	0.78	0.72	5.55	1.37	0.64	0.79	0.73
Riverside Eudaimonia 4	5.55	1.33	0.72	0.76	0.83	5.47	1.21	0.64	0.79	0.71
Riverside Eudaimonia 5	5.46	1.39	0.58	0.80	0.65	5.52	1.31	0.66	0.78	0.75

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; FL = factor loading; IC = item-total correlations; CD = Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted.

Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS version 25 with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to test the unidimensional factor structure of the RES. Results were assessed by utilizing commonly used indices with their cutoff points where the normed fit index (NFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) ≥0.90 and ≥0.95, respectively, represent sufficient and good-data model fit; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤0.10, ≤0.08, and ≤0.05, respectively, represent acceptable, satisfactory, and good data-model fit (Kline, 2015). Using the second subsample, the CFA indicated that the results of the goodness of fit indices were excellent, χ2 (5) = 8.73, p = .120, CIMIN/DF = 1.75, NFI = .97, CFI = .99, SRMR = .03, and RMSEA = .07 [.00, .14]. The standardized factor loadings were very good varying from .62 to .75. The results of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded a single factor which is in accordance with the original version of the scale Margolis et al. (2022) by presenting very good factor loadings and indices of model fit.

Cronbach’s alphas for Subsample 1 and Subsample 2 were, respectively, .84 and .82. The results of correlation analysis showed that the RES had a significant positive correlation with satisfaction with life and flourishing in both subsamples (see Table 2). Also, the results of regression analysis indicated that the RES was able to explain a significant portion of the variance in satisfaction with life and flourishing after controlling for the effects of age and gender (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alphas, and correlations of the study variables.

	Subsample 1 (n = 168)								Subsample 2 (n = 168)
	Descriptive Statistics					Correlation			Descriptive Statistics					Correlation
Variable	α	Mean	SD	Skew	Kurt	1	2	3	α	Mean	SD	Skew	Kurt	1	2	3
1. Riverside Eudaimonia	0.84	28.17	5.03	−0.57	−0.59	—			0.83	27.45	5.12	−0.58	−0.27	—
2. Satisfaction with life	0.83	23.36	6.15	−0.31	−0.45	.52^**	—		0.82	23.49	5.87	−0.31	−0.53	.45^**	—
3. Flourishing	0.89	43.33	8.53	−0.58	−0.51	.76^**	.51^**	—	0.85	42.72	7.91	−0.61	−0.06	.70^**	.57^**	—

Notes: **. P < 0.01; α = Cronbach alpha; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Skew = skewness; Kurt = kurtosis.

Table 3.

A summary of multiple regression analyses.

	Subsample 1 (n = 168)
	Satisfaction with Life				Flourishing
Predictor	B	β	t	p	B	β	t	p
Step 1	F (2,165) = .45, R = .07, R² = .01, p > .05				F (2,165) = 1.76, R = .15, R² = .02, p > .05
Age	0.04	0.05	0.64	0.52	0.10	0.10	1.36	0.18
Gender	−2.10	−0.05	−0.67	0.50	5.72	0.10	1.33	0.19
Step 2	F (3,164) = 22.38, R = .54, R² = .29, ΔR² = .29, p < .01				F (3,164) = 74.81, R = .76, R² = .58, ΔR² = .56, p < .01
Age	0.03	0.04	0.56	0.58	0.08	0.09	1.70	0.09
Gender	−5.21	−0.13	−1.95	0.05	−0.31	−0.01	−0.11	0.91
Riverside Eudaimonia	0.66	0.54	8.12	0.00	1.28	0.75	14.71	0.00
	Subsample 2 (n = 168)
Predictor	Satisfaction with life				Flourishing
Predictor		B	β	t	p	B	β	t	p
Step 1	F(2,165) = 3.90, R = .21, R² = .05, p < .05				F(2,165) = 2.44, R = .17, R² = .03, p > .05
Age	0.12	0.20	2.67	0.01	0.13	0.16	2.07	0.04
Gender	−0.88	−0.05	−0.63	0.53	1.78	0.07	0.93	0.35
Step 2	F(3,164) = 16.55, R = .48, R² = .23, ΔR² = .19, p < .01				F(3,164) = 54.38, R = .71, R² = .50, ΔR² = .47, p < .01
Age	0.10	0.16	2.33	0.02	0.07	0.09	1.63	0.11
Gender	−0.98	−0.05	−0.77	0.44	1.57	0.06	1.14	0.26
Riverside Eudaimonia	0.50	0.43	6.32	0.00	1.06	0.69	12.40	0.00

Discussion

We examined the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the RES. The results suggest that the RES is a psychometrically sound scale that measures eudaimonic flourishing in the Turkish population. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded a single-factor solution with high internal consistency reliability. These findings are consistent with the study, in which the RES was originally developed (Margolis et al., 2022). Furthermore, the significant positive relationship of the RES with satisfaction with life provided evidence about the convergent validity of the RES. These findings suggest that individuals with high levels of eudaimonia are more likely to experience greater life satisfaction and flourishing. These results are consistent with previous studies showing that eudaimonia is associated with satisfaction with life (Huta, 2015; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Schueller & Seligman, 2010). Also, the RES was found to be associated with flourishing. This support the views that Eudaimonia is closely related to intellectual and social flourishing (Diener et al., 2010; Rice, 2013) and flourishing in terms of activities that enable people to reach their potential (Margolis et al., 2022).

The present study is not without limitations. First, the results of this study were based on self-report data. Future studies may use different methods such as implicit measures to prevent individuals from responding in the direction of social desirability. Second, the sample consisted of undergraduate students and volunteers. Future studies should examine the psychometric properties of the RES in studies conducted with randomly generated samples in different age groups such as the elderly or adolescents. Furthermore, this study was based on a cross-sectional research design which limits causal relationships between the analyzed variables. Future research should address this limitation by using a longitudinal research design.

Despite all these limitations, the current research presented initial data that support the idea that the concept of eudaimonic well-being may also hold true in the context of Turkish culture. The findings showed that the Turkish version of RES has very good reliability and validity. The validation of the RES will simulate much theoretical and empirical research on eudaimonia to be conducted in the relevant literature. Considering the findings of current and earlier studies, interventions focusing on the enhancement of well-being could facilitate a powerful psychological buffer to improve and promote well-being. The adaptation of the Turkish version of the RES is very useful in terms of promoting a cross-cultural comparison of the research findings related to eudaimonic well-being. The validation of RES will also help to better understand the differences and similarities in the way the concept of eudaimonic well-being is studied across different cultures. In addition, presenting a reliable and valid scale for the assessment of eudaimonic well-being in Turkey will allow educators, healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers to tailor and assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving well-being and quality of life.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank all participants who voluntarily contributed to this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

ORCID iD

Murat Yildirim

References

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Diener

Seligman

M. E.

(2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

D. W.

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

Durak

Senol-Durak

Gencoz

(2010). Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research, 99(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9589-4

Gorsuch

R. L.

(1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Huta

(2015). The complementary roles of eudaimonia and hedonia and how they can be pursued in practice. In Joseph

(Ed), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 159–182). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch10

Huta

Ryan

R. M.

(2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

Jovanović

Rudnev

Arslan

Buzea

Dimitrova

Góngora

Guse

R. T. H.

Iqbal

Jambori

Jhang

F. H.

Kaniusonyte

Lim

Y. J.

Lodi

Mannerstrom

Marcionetti

Neto

Osin

Žukauskienė

(2022). The satisfaction with life scale in adolescent samples: Measurement invariance across 24 countries and regions, age, and gender. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(4), 2139–2161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-10024-w

Keyes

C. L. M.

(2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197

10.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.

11.

Margolis

Schwitzgebel

Ozer

D. J.

Martinez

R. L.

Lyubomirsky

(2022). Measuring eudaimonic and non-eudaimonic goods in the pursuit of the good life: The Riverside eudaimonia scale and the rich and sexy well-being scale. International Journal of Wellbeing, 12(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v12i1.1575

12.

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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

13.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

14.

Schueller

S. M.

Seligman

M. E.

(2010). Pursuit of pleasure, engagement, and meaning: Relationships to subjective and objective measures of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003794130

15.

Tan

Zhang

Kong

(2021). Longitudinal measurement invariance of the flourishing scale in adolescents. Current Psychology, 40(11), 5672–5677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01754-z

16.

Telef

B. B.

(2011). The validity and reliability study of the psychological well-being or flourishing scale. In National congress of counselling and guidance. Izmir.

17.

Waterman

A. S.

Schwartz

S. J.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Ravert

R. D.

Williams

M. K.

Agocha

V. B.

Kim

S. Y.

Donnellan

B. M.

(2010). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903435208