Brief Inventory of Thriving: Testing Italian version’s reliability using SEM

Autori/Curatori Angela Sorgente, Semira Tagliabue, Margherita Lanz
Anno di pubblicazione 2019 Fascicolo 2019/1 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 21 P. 97-117 Dimensione file 257 KB
DOI 10.3280/PDS2019-001006
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The 10-item Brief Inventory of Thriving is an instrument measuring well-being, overcoming the traditional hedonia-versus-eudaimonia framework. Evidence for this scale’s validity has been already collected in American, German and Chinese populations. The current paper aims to develop the Italian version of the Brief Inventory of Thriving, verify its mono-dimensionality and collect evidence about its reliability. Reliability evidence is usually collected performing Pearson correlations between observed variables, while the current study uses SEM methods, as suggested by the recent literature on the topic. Specifically, internal consistency was estimated by composite reliability (?), temporal stability was tested both by longitudinal measurement invariance between two time points (structural stability) and correlation of individual latent scores assessed at two separate occasions (differential stability). Finding suggested that the scale is mono-dimensional, has good internal consistency (? >0.70), has structural stability (full longitudinal measurement invariance) and differential stability (test-retest r=0.85). Future studies should further investigate the adequateness of items 1 and 2.

Il Brief Inventory of Thriving è uno strumento composto da 10 item che misurano il be-nessere, superando la tradizionale contrapposizione tra edonismo ed eudemonismo. La scala è stata già validata in America, Germania e Cina. Il presente studio ha l’obiettivo di sviluppare la versione italiana di questa scala, di verificare la sua mono-dimensionalità e di testare la sua attendibilità. Mentre l’attendibilità degli strumenti psicometrici viene solitamente testata effettuando delle correlazioni di Pearson tra variabili osservate, il presente studio propone di testare l’attendibilità attraverso l’utilizzo dei modelli di equazioni strutturali, come suggerito dalla recente letteratura sul tema. Nello specifico, la consistenza interna della scala è stata stimata calcolando la composite reliability (ω), la stabilità temporale è stata testata sia verificando l’invarianza longitudinale della scala (stabilità strutturale) sia eseguendo una correlazione tra il fattore latente della scala al tempo 1 e quello al tempo 2 (stabilità diffe-renziale). I risultati ottenuti mostrano che la scala è monodimensionale, ha una buona consi-stenza interna (ω >0.70), ha stabilità strutturale (piena invarianza longitudinale) e differenziale (test-retest r=0.85). Gli studi futuri dovrebbero approfondire l’adeguatezza degli item 1 e 2.

Keywords:Benessere, thriving, validazione, attendibilità, stabilità, modelli di equazioni strutturali.

  1. Andolfi V.R., Tay L., Confalonieri E. and Traficante D. (2017). Assessing well-Being in children: Italian adaptation of The Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving for children (CIT-Child). TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 24(1): 1-19. DOI: 10.4473/TPM24.1.
  2. Bentler P.M. (2009). Alpha, dimension-free and model-based internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika, 74(1): 137-143.
  3. Boerchi D. and Tagliabue S. (2018). Assessing students’ perception of parental career-related support: development of a new scale and a new taxonomy. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 18: 181-201.
  4. Bradburn N.M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
  5. Brown T.A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  6. Bryne B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Satorra A. and Bentler P.M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4): 507-514. DOI: 10.1007/BF0229619
  8. Cangur S. and Ercan I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1): 152-167.
  9. Chessman H.M. (2015). Student Affairs Administrators and Well-being: Examining Time in Field, Position Level and Factors That Have the Strongest Relationship to Well-being (Doctoral dissertation). -- Retrieved from
  10. Cheung G.W. and Rensvold R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2): 233-255.
  11. Conroy D.E., Metzler J.N. and Hofer S.M. (2003). Factorial invariance and latent mean stability of performance failure appraisals. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3): 401-422.
  12. Cooke P.J., Melchert T.P. and Connor K. (2016). Measuring well-being: a review of instruments. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(5): 730-757. DOI: 10.1177/001100001663350
  13. Costello B. and Osborne J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7): 1-9. -- Retrieved from
  14. De Jong Gierveld J. and Van Tilburg T. (1999). Living arrangements of older adults in the Netherlands and Italy: Coresidence values and behaviour and their consequences for loneliness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 14(1): 1-24.
  15. Diener E., Emmons R.A., Larsen R.J. and Griffin S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1): 71-75.
  16. Diener E., Wirtz D., Tov W., Kim-Prieto C., Choi D.W., Oishi S. and 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.
  17. Dimitrov D.M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2): 121-149. DOI: 10.1177/074817561037345
  18. Duan W. and Bu H. (2017). Randomized Trial Investigating of a Single-Session Character-Strength-Based Cognitive Intervention on Freshman’s Adaptability. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(1): 82-92. DOI: 10.1177/104973151769952
  19. Duan W., Guan Y. and Gan, F. (2016). Brief Inventory of Thriving: a comprehensive measurement of wellbeing. Chinese Sociological Dialogue, 1(1): 15-31. DOI: 10.1177/239720091666523
  20. Dunn T.J., Baguley T. and Brunsden V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3): 399-412.
  21. Forgeard M.J., Jayawickreme E., Kern M.L. and Seligman M.E. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1): 79-106.
  22. Geldhof G.J., Preacher K.J. and Zyphur M.J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1): 72-91.
  23. Hausler M., Huber A., Strecker C., Brenner M., Höge T. and Höfer S. (2017). Validierung eines Fragebogens zur umfassenden Operationalisierung von Wohlbefinden. Diagnostica, 63(3): 219-228.
  24. Hennessy M., Hunt N., Morris K. and Sealey C. (2016, July). Investigating the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) as a rehabilitation outcome measure. Paper presented at 13th neuropsychological rehabilitation special interest group of the WFNR Conference, Scotland.
  25. Hofer S.M. (1999). Assessing personality structure using factorial invariance procedures. In Mervielde I., Deary I., DeFruyt F. and Ostendorf F. (eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 35-49). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
  26. Iacobucci D. (2010). Structural equation modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1): 90-98.
  27. IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  28. Jöreskog K.G. and Goldberger A.S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(351a): 631-639. DOI: 10.2307/228594
  29. Joseph S. and Wood A.M. (2010). Assessment of positive functioning in clinical psychology: Theoretical and practical issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7): 830-838.
  30. Kahneman D., Diener E. and Schwarz N. (eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  31. Keyes C.L., Shmotkin D. and Ryff C.D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6): 1007-1022. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.100
  32. Lai K. and Green S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2-3): 220-239. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2015.113430
  33. Marsh H.W. (1993). Stability of individual differences in multiwave panel studies: Comparison of simplex models and one-factor models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2): 157-183.
  34. McArdle J.J. (1988). Dynamic but structural equation modeling of repeated measures data. In Nesselroade J.R. and Cattell R.B. (eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 561-614). New York, NY: Plenum.
  35. Milfont T.L. and Fischer R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in crosscultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1): 111-121. DOI: 10.21500/20112084.85
  36. McDonald R.P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23(1): 1-21.
  37. Muthén B. and Muthén L. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.
  38. Nunnally J.C. and Bernstein I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  39. Pollard E. and Lee P. (2003). Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature, Social Indicators Research, 61(1): 9-78. DOI: 10.1023/A:102128421580
  40. Prezza M. and Costantini S. (1998). Sense of community and life satisfaction: Investigation in three different territorial contexts. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8(3): 181-194.
  41. Raykov T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2): 173-184. DOI: 10.1177/0146621697021200
  42. Rogers C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  43. Ryff C.D. (2016). Articolo Target. Psychological well-being and health: Past, present and future. Psicologia della Salute, (1): 7-26. DOI: 10.3280/PDS2016-00100
  44. Ryff C.D. and Keyes C.L.M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4): 719-727. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.71
  45. Schutz R.W. (1998). Assessing the stability of psychological traits and measures. In Duda J.L. (ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 393-408). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
  46. Sijtsma K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120.
  47. Sorgente A., Tagliabue S., Andrade C., Oliveira J.E., Duan W. and Lanz M. (2018, July). Brief Inventory of Thriving: The Italian version development and the cross-cultural invariance between Italian, Portuguese and Chinese versions. Poster presented at the Joint Conference of Sepex – Sepneca – AIPexperimental, Madrid, Spain.
  48. Stiglitz J., Sen A.K. and Fitoussi J.P. (2009). The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited: Reflections and Overview. -- Retrieved from
  49. Su R., Tay L. and Diener E. (2014). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 6(3): 251-279.
  50. Tabachnick B.G. and Fidell L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  51. Tavakol M. and Dennick R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2: 53-55.
  52. Thomas J. (2009). Working paper: Current measures and the challenges of measuring children’s wellbeing. Newport, RI: Office for National Statistics.
  53. Voskuil V.R., Pierce S.J. and Robbins L.B. (2017). Comparing the Psychometric Properties of Two Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Instruments in Urban, Adolescent Girls: Validity, Measurement Invariance, and Reliability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
  54. Wiese C.W., Tay L., Su R. and Diener E. (2018). Measuring Thriving across Nations: Examining the Measurement Equivalence of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 10(1): 127-148.
  55. World Health Organization (1997). WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. Geneva, CHN: World Health Organization.
  56. Zinbarg R.E., Revelle W., Yovel I. and Li W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1): 123-133.
  57. Zumbo B.D. (2005). Reflections on validity at the intersection of psychometrics, scaling, philosophy of inquiry, and language testing. Conference paper presented at Samuel J. Messick Memorial Award Lecture, LTRC 27th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Ottawa, CDN.
  58. Zumbo B.D. (2009). Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice. In Lissitz R.W. (ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications (pp. 65-82). Charlotte, NC: IAP, Information Age Publishing.

  • Brief Inventory of Thriving: Testing Italian version's reliability using SEM Angela Sorgente, Semira Tagliabue, Margherita Lanz, in PSICOLOGIA DELLA SALUTE 1/2019 pp.97
    DOI: 10.3280/PDS2019-001006
  • The multidimensional subjective financial well-being scale for emerging adults: Development and validation studies Angela Sorgente, Margherita Lanz, in International Journal of Behavioral Development /2019 pp.466
    DOI: 10.1177/0165025419851859
  • Gender, Age, and Cross-Cultural Invariance of Brief Inventory of Thriving Among Emerging Adults Angela Sorgente, Semira Tagliabue, Claudia Andrade, José Egidio Oliveira, Wenjie Duan, Margherita Lanz, in Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development /2021 pp.251
    DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2020.1827434
  • The comprehensive inventory of thriving: a systematic review of published validation studies and a replication study Angela Sorgente, Michela Zambelli, Semira Tagliabue, Margherita Lanz, in Current Psychology /2021
    DOI: 10.1007/s12144-021-02065-z
  • Meaning-Making Profiles During Emerging Adulthood: A Person-Oriented Approach in the Context of Romantic and Working Conditions Michela Zambelli, Semira Tagliabue, in Emerging Adulthood /2022 pp.216769682211113
    DOI: 10.1177/21676968221111314

Angela Sorgente, Semira Tagliabue, Margherita Lanz, Brief Inventory of Thriving: Testing Italian version’s reliability using SEM in "PSICOLOGIA DELLA SALUTE" 1/2019, pp 97-117, DOI: 10.3280/PDS2019-001006