Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research

Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Dutch adolescents

Authors: Chantie C. Luijten, Sofie Kuppens, Daphne van de Bongardt, Anna P. Nieboer

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Mental health is increasingly viewed as the presence of various aspects of well-being rather than just the absence of mental illness. The Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) is a 14-item instrument that assesses mental health, focusing on emotional, psychological, and social well-being. The present study examined for the first time the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the MHC-SF among adolescents, focusing on its factor structure, internal consistency, construct validity, and gender and age factorial invariance.

Methods

Data were collected from a school-based sample of 1175 adolescents (53.4% girls) aged 11–17 years (M = 13.7; SD = 1.1). Participants completed an online questionnaire in the classroom during regular school hours. Statistical analyses to evaluate the factor structure, internal consistency, construct validity, and gender and age factorial invariance were performed in SPSS and R.

Results

Using confirmatory factor analyses, a satisfactory-to-good fit was obtained for the three-factor model (emotional, psychological, and social well-being). The MHC-SF scores showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .91) and results supported convergent and divergent validity. Finally, the MHC-SF showed gender and age factorial invariance.

Conclusion

The current psychometric evaluation indicates the MHC-SF is a reliable and valid instrument to assess multiple dimensions of well-being among Dutch adolescents. The instrument can be applied for research purposes and in clinical practice.
Literature
1.
Inchley J, Currie D, Young T, Samdal O, Torsheim T, Augustson L, et al. Growing up unequal: gender and socioeconomic differences in young people's health and well-being. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: international report from the 2013/2014 survey. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2016. 277 p. (Health Policy for Children and Adolescents; 7).
2.
3.
4.
Kieling C, Baker-Henningham H, Belfer M, Conti G, Ertem I, Omigbodun O, et al. Child and adolescent mental health worldwide: evidence for action. Lancet. 2011;378:1515–25.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ormel J, Raven D, van Oort F, Hartman C, Reijneveld S, Veenstra R, et al. Mental health in Dutch adolescents: a TRAILS report on prevalence, severity, age of onset, continuity and co-morbidity of DSM disorders. Psychol Med. 2015;45:345–60.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Snyder CR, Lopez SJ. Handbook of positive psychology. Eds. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
7.
8.
Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:593–602.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Weisz JR, Kuppens S, Ng MY, Eckshtain D, Ugueto AM, Vaughn-Coaxum R, et al. What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: a multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice. Am Psychol. 2017;72:79–117.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Antaramian SP, Scott Huebner E, Hills KJ, Valois RF. A dual-factor model of mental health: toward a more comprehensive understanding of youth functioning. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2010;80:462–72.CrossRefPubMed
11.
World Health Organisation. Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice (summary report). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2004. p. 69.
12.
Peterson C, Seligman ME. Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004.
13.
14.
Keyes CL. Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73:539–48.CrossRef
15.
Suldo SM, Shaffer EJ. Looking beyond psychopathology: the dual-factor model of mental health in youth. Sch Psychol Rev. 2008;37:52–68.
16.
Suldo SM, Thalji A, Ferron J. Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early adolescents’ subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health status yielded from a dual factor model. J Posit Psychol. 2011;6:17–30.CrossRef
17.
Bradburn N. The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine; 1969.
18.
19.
Rogers C. On becoming a person: a therapist’s view of psychotherapy. London: Constable & Company; 1961.
20.
Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57:1069–81.CrossRef
21.
Ryff CD. Beyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfaction: new directions in quest of successful ageing. Int J Behav Dev. 1989;12:35–55.CrossRef
22.
Diener E. Subjective well-being. In: Diener E, editor. The science of well-being. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 11–58.CrossRef
23.
Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, editors. Well-being: foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999.
24.
Gallagher MW, Lopez SJ, Preacher KJ. The hierarchical structure of well-being. J Pers. 2009;77:1025–50.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Keyes CL, Wissing M, Potgieter JP, Temane M, Kruger A, Van Rooy S. Evaluation of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF) in setswana-speaking south Africans. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2008;15:181–92.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Keyes CL. The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J Health Soc Behav. 2002;43:207–22.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Perugini MLL, de la Iglesia G, Solano AC, Keyes CL. The mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF) in the Argentinean context: confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance. Eur J Psychol. 2017;13:93–108.CrossRef
28.
Doré I, O’Loughlin JL, Sabiston CM, Fournier L. Psychometric evaluation of the mental health continuum–short form in French Canadian Young adults. Can J Psychiatry. 2017;62:286–94.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Guo C, Tomson G, Guo J, Li X, Keller C, Söderqvist F. Psychometric evaluation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Chinese adolescents–a methodological study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:198–206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Salama-Younes M. Validation of the mental health continuum short form and subjective vitality scale with Egyptian adolescent athletes. In: Brdar I, editor. The human pursuit of well-being. Dordrecht: Springer; 2011. p. 221–34.CrossRef
31.
Singh K, Bassi M, Junnarkar M, Negri L. Mental health and psychosocial functioning in adolescence: an investigation among Indian students from Delhi. J Adolesc. 2015;39:59–69.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Donnelly A, O’Reilly A, Dolphin L, O’Keeffe L, Moore J. Measuring the performance of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in a primary care youth mental health service. Ir J Psychol Med. 2019:1–5.
33.
Petrillo G, Capone V, Caso D, Keyes CL. The mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF) as a measure of well-being in the Italian context. Soc Indic Res. 2015;121:291–312.CrossRef
34.
Lim YJ. Psychometric characteristics of the Korean mental health continuum–short form in an adolescent sample. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2014;32:356–64.CrossRef
35.
Karaś D, Cieciuch J, Keyes CL. The polish adaptation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF). Personal Individ Differ. 2014;69:104–9.CrossRef
36.
Keyes CL. The subjective well-being of America's youth: toward a comprehensive assessment. Adolescent Family Health. 2006;4:3–11.
37.
Keyes CL, Eisenberg D, Perry GS, Dube SR, Kroenke K, Dhingra SS. The relationship of level of positive mental health with current mental disorders in predicting suicidal behavior and academic impairment in college students. J Am Coll Heal. 2012;60:126–33.CrossRef
38.
Lamers SM, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET, ten Klooster PM, Keyes CL. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF). J Clin Psychol. 2011;67:99–110.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
Ebesutani C, Regan J, Smith A, Reise S, Higa-McMillan C, Chorpita BF. The 10-item positive and negative affect schedule for children, child and parent shortened versions: application of item response theory for more efficient assessment. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2012;34:191–203.CrossRef
41.
The Kidscreen Group Europe. The KIDSCREEN questionnaires – quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents. Handbook Lenge-Rich. 2006.
42.
Ravens-Sieberer U, Auquier P, Erhart M, Gosch A, Rajmil L, Bruil J, et al. The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1347–56.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Nieboer A, Lindenberg S, Boomsma A, Bruggen ACV. Dimensions of well-being and their measurement: the SPF-IL scale. Soc Indic Res. 2005;73:313–53.CrossRef
44.
Verboom CE, Sijtsema JJ, Verhulst FC, Penninx BW, Ormel J. Longitudinal associations between depressive problems, academic performance, and social functioning in adolescent boys and girls. Dev Psychol. 2014;50:247–57.CrossRef
45.
Cantril H. Pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1965.
46.
Levin K, Currie C. Reliability and validity of an adapted version of the Cantril ladder for use with adolescent samples. Soc Indic Res. 2014;119:1047–63.CrossRef
47.
Ebesutani C, Reise SP, Chorpita BF, Ale C, Regan J, Young J, et al. The revised child anxiety and depression scale-short version: scale reduction via exploratory bifactor modeling of the broad anxiety factor. Psychol Assess. 2012;24:833–45.CrossRefPubMed
48.
IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
49.
50.
Lavaan RY. An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36.
51.
Lei P. Evaluating estimation methods for ordinal data in structural equation modeling. Qual Quant. 2009;43:495–507.CrossRef
52.
Oranje A. Comparison of estimation methods in factor analysis with categorized variables: applications to NAEP data. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL; 2003 Apr.
53.
Yang-Wallentin F, Jöreskog KG, Luo H. Confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables with misspecified models. Struct Equ Model. 2010;17:392–423.CrossRef
54.
Yuan KH, Bentler PM. Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociol Methodol. 2000;30:165–200.CrossRef
55.
Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006.
56.
Steiger JH, Lind JC. Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Iowa City, IA: Annual meeting of the Psychometric Society; 1980.
57.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef
58.
Bentler P, Bonett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88:588–606.CrossRef
59.
Nunnally J, Bersntein I. Psychometric theories. Madrid, Spain: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
60.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
61.
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2002;9:233–55.CrossRef
62.
Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2007;14:464–504.CrossRef
63.
Stevens G, Van Dorsselaer S, Boer M, De Roos S, Duinhog E, Ter Bogt T, et al. HBSC 2017. Gezondheid en welzijn van jongeren in Nederland. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht; 2018. p. 194.
64.
McCloughen A, Foster K, Huws-Thomas M, Delgado C. Physical health and wellbeing of emerging and young adults with mental illness: an integrative review of international literature. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2012;21:274–88.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Dutch adolescents
Authors
Chantie C. Luijten
Sofie Kuppens
Daphne van de Bongardt
Anna P. Nieboer
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1221-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research

Content validity of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network – Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form with advanced breast cancer patients

Research

Mapping function from FACT-B to EQ-5D-5 L using multiple modelling approaches: data from breast cancer patients in China

Research

Association between oral health-related quality of life and depressive symptoms in Chinese college students: Fitness Improvement Tactics in Youths (FITYou) project

Research

The frequency and availability of population-specific patient reported outcome measures and minimal clinically important differences among approved drugs in Canada

Research

Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire

Research

Psychological distress and resilience of mothers and fathers with respect to the neurobehavioral performance of small-for-gestational-age newborns