Volume 18, Numero 1, Febbraio 2025

Vol. 18, n. 1, febbraio 2025

doi: 10.14605/CS1812508 — ISSN: 2421-2202 — pp. 100-108

Corrispondenza: Annamaria Di Fabio — e-mail: annamaria.difabio@unifi.it

STRUMENTI

Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS): proprietà psicometriche

Annamaria Di Fabio¹ e Andrea Svicher²

Sommario

Questo studio mirava a indagare le proprietà psicometriche della Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) nel contesto universitario. A 211 studenti sono state somministrate la FSS, insieme alla Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) e alla Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). L’analisi fattoriale confermativa ha supportato una struttura unidimensionale della FSS, con indici di adattamento adeguati (CFI = .965, TLI = .951, RMSEA = .073). La consistenza interna (Cronbach’s α = .87) è risultata soddisfacente, mentre le correlazioni di Pearson hanno confermato la validità concorrente sia con la soddisfazione negli studi (r = .39, p < .01) sia con la soddisfazione di vita (r = .37, p < .01). Questi risultati evidenziano che le buone proprietà psicometriche della scala ne indicano l’utilità come strumento prezioso per ricercatori e professionisti per misurare il flourishing nello studio in ambito accademico.

Parole chiave

Flourishing, Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS), Benessere eudaimonico, Studenti universitari.

INSTRUMENTS

Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS): Psychometric Properties

Annamaria Di Fabio³ and Andrea Svicher⁴

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) in the university context. Two hundred and eleven university students were administered the FSS, together with the Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure of the FSS, with adequate fit indices (CFI = .965, TLI = .951, RMSEA = .073). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .87) was satisfactory, while Pearson’s correlations confirmed concurrent validity with both study satisfaction (r = .39, p < .01) and life satisfaction (r = .37, p < .01). These findings highlight the good psychometric properties of the scale, identifying it as a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners to measure flourishing in the academic setting.

Keywords

Flourishing, Flourishing in Studies Scale, Eudaimonic well-being, University students.

Introduction

University life can present various hurdles, such as high stress and potential isolation (Fink, 2014; Smith & McLellan, 2023; Suyo-Vega et al., 2022), which can negatively affect mental health. Researchers emphasize the value of identifying potential risk factors and employing interventions to protect student well-being (Sheldon et al., 2021). In the broad field of well-being research, there has been growing attention on flourishing (Hone et al., 2014; Iasiello et al., 2022; Rule et al., 2024), including focused interest in educational environments (Kristjánsson, 2016; Martela, 2024).

Two primary approaches often frame well-being studies: the hedonic perspective, emphasizing pleasure and avoiding discomfort (Kahneman et al., 1999), and the eudaimonic perspective, highlighting purpose and self-realization (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Flourishing, situated within the eudaimonic framework, involves a broad sense of personal efficacy, optimism, and the ability to foster not only one’s own well-being but also that of others (Diener et al., 2010).

In addition, evidence suggests that flourishing in academic contexts is tied to successful adjustment and personal growth (Hood & Henry, 2020; Shankland & Rosset, 2017). Several investigations link higher levels of flourishing with greater global well-being, stronger prosocial tendencies (Nelson et al., 2016; Santini et al., 2019), and, in the case of university students, reduced psychological issues, improved self-management of emotions, and enhanced academic performance (Basson & Rothmann, 2018; Howell, 2009; Peter et al., 2011).

A commonly utilized measure is Diener et al.’s (2010) Flourishing Scale, which captures aspects like meaningful relationships and personal growth (Rule et al., 2024). In line with that concept, Di Fabio (2022) adapted a scale for flourishing in work contexts. Given the heightened interest in flourishing among college students (e.g., Mostert et al., 2023), this paper focuses on evaluating the psychometric properties of a scale adapted from the original version of the Flourishing Scale by Diener et al. (2010) to the study context, the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Two hundred and eleven university students from Central Italy (53.08% female and 46.92% male), averaging 22.57 years of age (SD = 2.96), took part under voluntary conditions. Informed consent was obtained in accordance with Italian privacy norms (Legislative Decree 196/2003) and European data protection regulations (EU 2016/679).

All instruments were administered in English, and all participants had a B2 certification in English. To limit potential bias stemming from presentation order, the measures were administered in a randomized sequence.

Measures

The Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) was adapted from Diener et al.’s (2010) Flourishing Scale to the study context. It consists of eight statements, each rated on a 7-point Likert continuum (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Illustrative items are: «My studies bring purpose and meaning to my life», «In my studies I find supporting and rewarding social relationships» (Appendix).

The Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) by Di Fabio and Svicher (2024) is a five-item unidimensional measure adapted from the Job Satisfaction Scale (Judge et al., 1998) to the study context, likewise employing a 7-point Likert format. Cronbach’s alpha is .86 for the original version and .88 in the present study. Representative items: «I feel fairly well satisfied with my present studies»; «I find real enjoyment in my studies».

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) includes five items, each to be rated on a 7-point Likert continuum, designed to gauge overall life satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha is .87 for the original version and .86 in the present study. Examples include «I am satisfied with my life» and «If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing».

Data Analysis

All analyses were performed with R Studio (version 2024.04.2), employing the lavaan (version 0.6-15) package to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that tested the hypothesized one-factor structure of the FSS. Model adequacy was judged based on a comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) ≥ .90, with a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Reliability for the FSS, SSS, and SWLS was determined by Cronbach’s alpha, with ≥ .70 considered acceptable. We used the psych (version 2.3.6) package to compute Cronbach’s alpha for the FSS items. Pearson’s correlations among the FSS, SSS, and SWLS were computed to assess concurrent validity, anticipating that the measure of flourishing in academic contexts would display a positive association with study satisfaction and overall life satisfaction.

Results

A one-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted on the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) demonstrated an acceptable model fit (Table 1). The standardized factor loadings for the scale ranged from .54 for item 2 to .80 for item 3, with all values being statistically significant (p < .001) (Table 2). The fit indices were also satisfactory, showing a comparative fit index (CFI) of .965, a Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .951, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .073. Additionally, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was below the recommended cutoff of .08, further supporting the model’s adequacy. The scale displayed good internal consistency, indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .87. Correlations with study satisfaction and life satisfaction were positive and statistically significant, with correlation coefficients of r = .39 and r = .37, respectively (p < .01) (Table 3).

Table 1

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Model Fit Indices for the One-Factor FSS Model (N = 211)

Fit Index	Value
χ² (df)	42.22 (20)
p-value	.003
CFI	.965
TLI	.951
RMSEA	.073
SRMR	.037

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Table 2

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Standardized Factor Loadings for the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) (N = 211)

Item	Loadings	SE	p-value
Item 1	.74	.08	< .001
Item 2	.55	.10	< .001
Item 3	.80	.08	< .001
Item 4	.64	.09	< .001
Item 5	.70	.09	< .001
Item 6	.73	.08	< .001
Item 7	.54	.10	< .001
Item 8	.68	.09	< .001

Table 3

Correlations between the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) and the Study Satisfaction Scale, and correlations between the FSS and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (n = 211)

	SSS	SWLS
FSS	.39**	.37**

Note. FSS = Flourishing in Studies Scale; SSS = Study Satisfaction Scale; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; ** p < 0.01.

Discussion

The current findings support a unidimensional structure of flourishing in studies as measured by the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed strong factor loadings across all items, indicating that flourishing in studies is represented by a single latent dimension, in line with previous work highlighting a comparable structure in the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .87 further attests to the scale’s internal consistency, suggesting that the FSS items coherently measure a shared underlying construct. These findings support the FSS as a reliable measure of flourishing in studies in the academic context.

Beyond the psychometric strength, the FSS displayed meaningful associations with both study satisfaction and overall life satisfaction. These positive correlations underscore the instrument’s concurrent validity, implying that flourishing in the academic context is intertwined with students’ perceptions of contentment with their studies and a broader sense of life satisfaction.

Further investigations might adopt longitudinal designs to explore how students’ academic flourishing evolves over the course of their university tenure, particularly during transition points such as entering higher education or moving toward graduation. Cross-sectional and cross-cultural studies could also examine whether the FSS functions similarly across different demographic groups or educational settings. The present study indicates the psychometric robustness of the Flourishing in Studies Scale, which is, thus, a trustworthy instrument for research and interventions.

References

Basson, M. J., & Rothmann, S. (2018). Flourishing: Positive emotion regulation strategies of pharmacy students. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 26(5), 458-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12420

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (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

Di Fabio, A. (2022). Flourishing Scale at work: Psychometric properties in the Italian context. Counseling. International Journal of Research and Interventions, 15(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1512207

Di Fabio, A., & Svicher, A. (2024). Studio sulle proprietà psicometriche della Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS). Counseling. International Journal of Research and Interventions, 17(3), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1732409

Fink, J. E. (2014). Flourishing: Exploring predictors of mental health within the college environment. Journal of American College Health, 62(6), 380-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.917647

Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4

Hood, A., & Henry, J. (2020). Flourishing in student life: A systematic review of theoretical and applied research. Education and Health, 38(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1156504384593659

Howell, A. J. (2009). Flourishing: Achievement-related correlates of students’ well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802043459

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

Iasiello, M., van Agteren, J., Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Lo, L., Fassnacht, D. B., & Westerhof, G. J. (2022). Assessing mental wellbeing using the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form: A systematic review and meta-analytic structural equation modelling. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 29(4), 442-456. https://doi.org/10.1037/cps0000074

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation.

Kristjánsson, K. (2016). Recent work on flourishing as the aim of education: A critical review. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(1), 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1182115

Martela, F. (2024). Flourishing as the central aim of education: Steps toward a consensus. Theory and Research in Education, 22(2), 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785241258857

Mostert, K., de Beer, L. T., & de Beer, R. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Flourishing Scale for South African first-year students. African Journal of Psychological Assessment, 5(a130), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajopa.v5i0.130

Nelson, S. K., Layous, K., Cole, S. W., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2016). Do unto others or treat yourself? The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing. Emotion, 16(6), 850-861. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000178

Peter, T., Roberts, L. W., & Dengate, J. (2011). Flourishing in life: An empirical test of the dual continua model of mental health and mental illness among Canadian university students. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 13(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2011.9715646

Rule, A., Abbey, C., Wang, H., Rozelle, S., & Singh, M. K. (2024). Measurement of flourishing: A scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1293943. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1293943

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, 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Santini, Z. I., Meilstrup, C., Hinrichsen, C., Nielsen, L., Koyanagi, A., Krokstad, S., Keyes, C. L. M., & Koushede, V. (2019). Formal volunteer activity and psychological flourishing in Scandinavia: Findings from two cross-sectional rounds of the European social survey. Social Currents, 6(3), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496518815868

Shankland, R., & Rosset, E. (2017). Review of brief school-based positive psychological interventions: A taster for teachers and educators. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 363-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9357-3

Sheldon, E., Simmonds-Buckley, M., Bone, C., Mascarenhas, T., Chan, N., Wincott, M., Gleeson, H., Sow, K., Hind, D., & Barkham, M. (2021). Prevalence and risk factors for mental health problems in university undergraduate students: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 287, 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.03.054

Smith, D., & McLellan, R. (2023). Mental health problems in first-generation university students: A scoping review. Review of Education, 11, Article e3418. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3418

Suyo-Vega, J. A., Meneses-La-Riva, M. E., Fernández-Bedoya, V. H., Polonia, A. D. C., Miotto, A. I., Alvarado-Suyo, S. A., Ocupa-Cabrera, H. G., & Alarcón-Martínez, M. (2022). Mental health projects for university students: A systematic review of the scientific literature available in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, Article 922017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.922017

Appendix

Items of the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS)

My studies bring purpose and meaning to my life
In my studies I find supporting and rewarding social relationships
I am interested and engaged in my studies on a daily basis
Through my studies, I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others
I am competent and capable in the study activities that are important to me
I am a good person and live a good life in my studies
I am optimistic about my future studies
People respect me as a student/scholar

¹ Responsabile del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia del Lavoro e delle Organizzazioni per l’orientamento professionale, il career counseling, il career development, i talenti e le organizzazioni in salute» e del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia Positiva Cross-Culturale, Prevenzione e Sostenibilità», Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura, Letterature e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italia.
² Membro del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia del Lavoro e delle Organizzazioni per l’orientamento professionale, il career counseling, il career development, i talenti e le organizzazioni in salute» e del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia Positiva Cross-Culturale, Prevenzione e Sostenibilità», Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura, Letterature e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italia.
³ Director of the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Work and Organizational Psychology for Vocational Guidance, Career Counseling, Career Development, Talents, and Healthy Organizations» and the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability», Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures, and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
⁴ Member of the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Work and Organizational Psychology for Vocational Guidance, Career Counseling, Career Development, Talents, and Healthy Organizations» and the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability», Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures, and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Vol. 18, Issue 1, February 2025

(Continua)

Indietro