Vol. 17, n. 3, novembre 2024
STRUMENTI
Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS): Proprietà psicometriche negli studenti universitari
Annamaria Di Fabio1 e Andrea Svicher2
Sommario
L’obiettivo di questo studio è stato esaminare le proprietà psicometriche della Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) nel contesto universitario italiano. Un totale di 308 studenti universitari italiani ha completato la FSS, la Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) e il Work and Meaning Inventory for University Students (WAMI-U). È stata condotta un’Analisi Fattoriale Confermativa (AFC) per valutare la struttura fattoriale della FSS. La consistenza interna è stata valutata utilizzando l’alfa di Cronbach e la validità concorrente è stata indagata attraverso correlazioni tra la FSS e sia la SSS sia lo WAMI-U. I risultati della CFA hanno supportato una struttura unidimensionale della FSS, con indici di adattamento accettabili (CFI = .97; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .04). La FSS ha dimostrato un’ottima consistenza interna (α = .87). La validità concorrente è stata confermata da correlazioni positive e significative tra la FSS e la SSS (r = .38, p < .01) e tra la FSS e la WAMI-U (r = .56, p < .01). Questi risultati suggeriscono che la FSS è uno strumento affidabile per misurare il flourishing in relazione allo studio in studenti universitari italiani, indicando promettenti applicazioni nella ricerca e negli interventi.
Parole chiave
Flourishing, Flourishing in Studies Scale, Studenti universitari, Benessere eudaimonico.
INSTRUMENTS
Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS): Psychometric Properties in University Students
Annamaria Di Fabio3 and Andrea Svicher4
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) in the Italian university context. A total of 308 Italian university students completed the FSS, the Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS), and the Work and Meaning Inventory for University Students (WAMI-U). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the factor structure of the FSS. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and concurrent validity was investigated through correlations among FSS and both the SSS and WAMI-U. The CFA results supported a unidimensional structure of the FSS, with acceptable fit indices (CFI = .97; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .04). The FSS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = .87). Concurrent validity was confirmed by positive and significant correlations between the FSS and the SSS (r = .38, p < .01) and between the FSS and the WAMI-U (r = .56, p < .01). These findings suggest that the FSS is a reliable instrument for measuring flourishing in studies among Italian university students.
Keywords
Flourishing, Flourishing in Studies Scale, University students, Eudaimonic well-being.
Introduction
University students often face challenges that negatively impact their well-being, including stress and feelings of isolation (Fink, 2014; Smith & McLellan, 2023; Suyo-Vega et al., 2022). Scholars agree on the necessity of identifying risk factors and implementing preventive actions to mitigate poor mental health outcomes within this population (Sheldon et al., 2021). In the study of well-being, the concept of flourishing has garnered increasing attention (Hone et al., 2014; Iasiello et al., 2022; Rule et al., 2024), with significant focus in educational settings as well (Kristjánsson, 2016; Martela, 2024).Research on well-being highlights two primary approaches: hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being. Hedonic well-being centres on pleasure attainment and pain avoidance (Kahneman et al., 1999), while eudaimonic well-being emphasizes self-realization, purpose, and meaning in life (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Flourishing falls into the eudaimonic category and encompasses a positive outlook on oneself, one’s life, and the future, along with a sense of ability to enhance personal well-being and contribute to the well-being of others (Diener et al., 2010; Huppert & So, 2013).
Previous studies have shown that flourishing was linked to higher levels of overall well-being and prosocial behaviours, such as engaging in volunteer activities (Nelson et al., 2016; Santini et al., 2019). Among university students, greater flourishing correlates with reduced psychological distress, enhanced self-control, a wider range of emotion regulation strategies, and improved academic success (Basson & Rothmann, 2018; Howell, 2009; Peter et al., 2011). The Flourishing Scale developed by Diener et al. (2010) is one of the most widely applied tools for measuring individuals’ flourishing, including aspects like relationships, purpose, and personal growth (Rule et al., 2024). Following Diener et al. (2010), Di Fabio (2022) introduced a more focused analysis by examining the psychometric properties of a flourishing scale specifically addressed to the work context. Considering the growing interest in flourishing among university students (e.g., Mostert et al., 2023), the present study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Flourishing Scale in relation to the specific study context, introducing the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS). The objective of this research is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the FSS among Italian university students, thereby advancing the availability of an assessment tool specifically developed for measuring flourishing in studies.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
Three hundred and eight (N = 308) university students from central Italy participated in the study, with an average age of 21.84 years (SD = 3.11). Of the participants, 55.00% were female (n = 169) and 45.00% were male (n = 139). Participation was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained in line with Italian privacy regulations (Legislative Decree DL 196/2003) as well as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR 2016/679). To mitigate any potential order effects, the administration sequence of the questionnaires was randomized.
Measures
The Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) has been developed by Di Fabio and Svicher following the original version of the Flourishing Scale by Diener et al. (2010) and the Italian version (Di Fabio, 2016), modifying it to fit the study context. It is a self-report measure composed of 8 items with responses recorded on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 («Strongly disagree») to 7 («Strongly agree»). Examples of items are: «Through my studies, I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others»; and «I am optimistic about my future studies».
The Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) developed by Di Fabio and Svicher (2024) is a self-report instrument developed faithfully following the Job Satisfaction Scale (Judge et al., 1998) and the Italian version (Di Fabio, 2018), adapting the scale to the study context. This scale comprises five items, each rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 («Strongly disagree») to 7 («Strongly agree»). The SSS has demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 in the study by Di Fabio and Svicher (2024) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 in the present study. Examples of items are: «Most days I am enthusiastic about my studies»; and «I find real enjoyment in my studies».
The Work and Meaning Inventory for University Students (WAMI-U) (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2020) is a scale developed by closely following the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI) (Steger et al., 2012) and the Italian version (Di Fabio, 2018), modifying it to assess meaning making through study at university. The scale consists of ten items where respondents indicate their agreement level on a seven-point scale from «Strongly disagree» to «Strongly agree». The WAMI-U assesses three factors: Positive Meaning, Meaning Making Through Study, and Greater Good Motivations, allowing also for a total score calculation. The total scale reliability is supported by a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 in the study of Di Fabio and Kenny (2020) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 in the present study. Examples of items are items are: «I have a good sense of what makes my study meaningful»; and «I view my study as contributing to my personal growth».
Data Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the Lavaan package in RStudio (version 0.6-15) to evaluate the unidimensional structure of the FSS. Model fit was assessed using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR). A model fit was considered good with CFI and TLI values above .90 and RMSEA values below .08, in line with Hu and Bentler’s (1999) guidelines. The internal consistency of the scale was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, with a threshold of .70 indicating acceptable reliability. Concurrent validity was assessed by calculating Pearson’s correlations between the FSS and SSS as well as FSS and WAMI-U.
Results
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) testing the one-factor model demonstrated an acceptable fit: χ² (20) = 78.24, p < .001; CFI = .97; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .08 [90% CI: .06–.10]; SRMR = .04. The standardized factor loadings for the eight items ranged from .53 (Item 3) to .78 (Item 7), indicating that all items significantly contributed to the latent construct (Figure 1). Internal consistency was good, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87, confirming the reliability of the scale. The Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) showed statistically significant positive correlations with the Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) (r = .38, p < .01) and the Work and Meaning Inventory for University Students (WAMI-U) (r = .56, p < .01) (Table 1). These results suggest that higher levels of flourishing in studies are associated with greater study satisfaction and a higher meaning making through study.
Figure 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Path diagram of the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) (N = 308)
Note: FSS = Flourishing in Studies Scale.
Table 1
Pearson’s correlations of the FSS with the SSS and the WAMI-U (N = 308)
|
SSS |
WAMI-U |
|
|
FSS |
.38** |
.56** |
Note: FSS = Flourishing in Studies Scale; SSS = Study Satisfaction Scale; WAMI-U = Work and Meaning Inventory for university students. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Discussion
The current study investigated the psychometric properties of the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) among Italian university students. The results illustrate a unidimensional factor structure with adequate reliability and evidence of concurrent validity with the Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) and the Work and Meaning Inventory for University Students (WAMI-U).
The unidimensional structure of the FSS aligns with the original conceptualization of flourishing by Diener et al. (2010), which views flourishing as a single construct encompassing specific aspects. The good internal consistency observed for the FSS suggests that it is a reliable instrument for assessing flourishing in the study context.
The positive relationships between the FSS and both the SSS and WAMI-U suggest adequate concurrent validity, indicating that higher levels of flourishing are associated with greater study satisfaction and a stronger meaning making through study. This finding is consistent with previous literature highlighting the relationship between flourishing in university students and positive outcomes (Howell, 2009; Peter et al., 2011).
Building upon the path initiated by Di Fabio (2022) in the study of flourishing at work, this study advances that perspective by introducing a scale adapted specifically to the study context. By providing a tailored instrument that captures the aspects of flourishing through study, this research allows for promising advances in the specific field of flourishing in studies (e.g., Kristjánsson, 2016; Martela, 2024). Therefore, the FSS fills a gap in the literature by offering a tool that can assess flourishing in relation to the specific context of the study. In brief, the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS) demonstrates good psychometric properties, indicating that it is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing flourishing in studies in the Italian context.
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
Di Fabio, A. (2016). Flourishing Scale: Primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [Flourishing Scale: First contribution to the validation of the Italian version]. Counseling, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.14605/CS911606
Di Fabio, A. (2018). Job Satisfaction Scale: First contribution to the validation of the Italian version. Counseling, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1121807
Di Fabio, A. (2022). Flourishing Scale at Work: Psychometric properties. Counseling, 15(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1512207
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny M. E. (2020). The work and meaning inventory (WAMI) at university: Psychometric properties of the Italian version for university students. Counseling, 13(3), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1332001
Di Fabio, A., & Svicher, A. (2024). Study Satisfaction Scale: Psychometric properties in university students. Counseling, 17(2), 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.14605/CS1722407
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
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, 62-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4
Howell, A. (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.
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 1245-1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7
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. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.2307/3514043
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
Morgan, J., & Farsides, T. (2009). Measuring the meaningful life: The development and validation of the Meaningful Life Measure (MLM). Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(4), 258-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902933763
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). 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. 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(1), 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
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, e3418. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3418
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160
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, 922017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.922017
Appendix
Items in Italian of the Flourishing in Studies Scale (FSS)
1. I miei studi apportano scopo e significato alla mia vita
2. Nei miei studi trovo relazioni sociali supportive e gratificanti
3. Mi impegno e sono interessato/a alle mie attività quotidiane di studio
4. Attraverso i miei studi, contribuisco attivamente alla felicità e al benessere degli altri
5. Sono competente e capace nelle attività di studio che sono importanti per me
6. Sono una brava persona e vivo una bella vita nei miei studi
7. Sono ottimista riguardo ai miei studi futuri
8. Le persone mi rispettano come studente/studioso
-
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, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html.
-
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, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html
Vol. 17, Issue 3, November 2024
