Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1-48. doi:10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526 Margaret L. Kern University of Melbourne & University of Pennsylvania margaret.kern@unimelb.edu.au Copyright belongs to the author(s) www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 1 ARTICLE The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing Julie Butler · Margaret L. Kern Abstract: In the book Flourish (2011), Seligman defined wellbeing in terms of five pillars: Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment, or PERMA. We developed the PERMA-Profiler as a brief measure of PERMA. We first compiled hundreds of theoretically relevant items. Three studies (N = 7,188) reduced, tested, and refined items, resulting in a final set of 15 questions (three items per PERMA domain). Eight additional filler items were added, which assess overall wellbeing, negative emotion, loneliness, and physical health, resulting in a final 23- item measure. A series of eight additional studies (N = 31,966) were conducted to test the psychometrics of the measure. The PERMA-Profiler demonstrates acceptable model fit, internal and cross-time consistency, and evidence for content, convergent, and divergent validity. Scores are reported visually as a profile across domains, reflecting the multidimensional nature of flourishing. The PERMA-Profiler adds to the toolbox of wellbeing measures, allowing individuals to monitor their wellbeing across multiple psychosocial domains. Keywords: wellbeing, flourishing, assessment, measure development, positive psychology 1. Introduction A growing number of individuals, organizations, and policy makers worldwide are focusing on wellbeing, and with good reason. Evidence indicates that subjective wellbeing, life satisfaction, optimism, happiness, and other positive constructs are associated with numerous desirable outcomes, including lower rates of divorce, greater educational and occupational success, stronger friendships, and better physical health (e.g., Diener & Chan, 2011; Huppert, 2009; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Understanding and supporting wellbeing is increasingly envisioned as an interdisciplinary issue that should be addressed at multiple levels within a system, including individuals, organizations, communities, and nations (Huppert & So, 2013). A key element in the promotion of wellbeing is the need to measure and document levels and changes in wellbeing at individual, community, and national levels. We present the development, psychometrics, and potential applications of one such measure: the PERMA-Profiler. 2. Defining wellbeing Definitions and theories of wellbeing abound (see Forgeard et al., 2011 and Hone, Jarden, Schofield, & Duncan, 2014 for reviews). Wellbeing can be defined and measured objectively (e.g., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 2 sufficient resources to meet basic needs, opportunities for education, lack of environmental pollutants) or subjectively; we focus here on the subjective side. In the literature, terms such as “happiness”, “subjective wellbeing”, “thriving”, and “flourishing” are often used interchangeably, and we use these terms interchangeably here. Some theories focus on emotion (hedonic wellbeing), some emphasize eudaimonic elements (i.e., the good life), and others blend hedonic and eudaimonic domains (Ryan & Deci, 2001). For example, over 30 years ago, Diener (1984) noted that subjective wellbeing includes affective and cognitive elements. Ryff and Keyes (1995) define psychological wellbeing across six domains (self-acceptance, positive relationships with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, personal growth). Keyes (2002) suggests flourishing requires “symptoms” of high emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing. Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model advocates that flourishing arises from five wellbeing pillars (positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, accomplishment). Huppert and So (2013) define 10 components of flourishing that are the opposite of the main symptoms of depression and anxiety (competence, emotional stability, engagement, meaning, optimism, positive emotion, positive relationships, resilience, self-esteem, vitality). Wong (2011) proposes that hedonic, prudential (being fully engaged in life), eudaimonic, and chaironic (feeling blessed) types of happiness all contribute to an overall sense of subjective wellbeing, but come together in different ways depending on the person, circumstances, and context. Through a quantitative analysis of studies with topics relevant to positive psychology, Rusk and Waters (2015) empirically derived a five-domain model of positive functioning (comprehension and coping, attention and awareness, emotions, goal and habits, virtues and relationships). Most consistently, from the positive psychology perspective, wellbeing is not simply the absence of negative function, but rather is something more. That is, a lack of negative affect, depression, loneliness, insecurity, and illness is not the same as the presence of positive affect, happiness, social connection, trust, and wellness. Further, while different theories include different domains, theorists have increasingly recognized that multidimensional models are needed to adequately capture the complexity of optimal psychological functioning (e.g., Baltes & Baltes, 1990; Forgeard et al., 2011; Huppert & So, 2013; Friedman & Kern, 2014; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). We define “flourishing” as a dynamic optimal state of psychosocial functioning that arises from functioning well across multiple psychosocial domains. We suggest that there is no single best model of wellbeing, but different conceptualizations can be helpful for taking the abstract construct of wellbeing and providing concrete domains that can be measured, developed, and sustained. Specifically, we focus here on the five domains defined by Seligman’s (2011) PERMA theory: positive emotion (P), engagement (E), relationships (R), meaning (M), and accomplishment (A). 2.1 Positive emotion Emotions can be classified as a circumplex consisting of valence (negative to positive) and activation (low to high) dimensions (Cacioppo, Berntson, Norris, & Gollan, 2011; Huelsmann, Nemanick, & Munz, 1998). People can experience both negative and positive emotions simultaneously (Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Numerous reviews support the value of positive Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 3 emotion across a range of life outcomes (Howell, Kern, & Lyubomirsky, 2007; Huppert, 2009; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Valid and reliable measures, at the individual and national level, have existed for several decades (OECD, 2013). 2.2 Engagement Research on engagement has occurred across several relatively disparate domains. In positive psychology, measures have focused on flow, or an extreme level of psychological engagement that involves intense concentration, absorption, and focus (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). In the organizational domain, work engagement has been defined in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Student engagement includes psychological, behavioral, cognitive, and academic domains (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong 2008). Engagement is also an important component of successful aging (Rowe & Kahn, 1987), but little work has attempted to measure engagement in older age beyond activity involvement. Across these fields, engagement seemingly involves emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, but it is not clear how to succinctly capture these dimensions in a brief measure. 2.3 Relationships Social relationships are fundamental to life (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). A review found over 18,000 articles published on social relationships and health in the past decade alone (Tay, Tan, Diener, & Gonzalez, 2012). Social support has been linked to less depression and psychopathology, better physical health, lower mortality risk, healthier behaviors, and other positive outcomes (Tay et al., 2012; Taylor, 2011). Sub-domains include social ties (number of persons in social sphere), social networks (number of ties and quality of those ties), received support (objective perspective of resources), perceived support (subjective perspective of resources), satisfaction with support, and giving support to others (Taga, 2006). The relationship dimension has a well-established place in most of the major existing wellbeing surveys used internationally. 2.4 Meaning A sense of meaning has been defined in terms of having direction in life, connecting to something larger than oneself, feeling that one’s life is valuable and worthwhile, and that there is a purpose to what one does (Steger, 2012). Meaning provides a sense that one’s life matters. It has been linked to better physical health, reduced mortality risk, and higher life satisfaction (Boyle, Barnes, Buchman, & Bennett, 2009; Ryff, Singer, & Love, 2004; Steger, 2012). Several of the national surveys, including the experimental opinions survey developed by the UK Office for National Statistics (2011), have included single items assessing a sense of value or purpose. 2.5 Accomplishment Superior performance is often recognized and acknowledged in Western societies. For example, each year Forbes magazine selects the 500 best companies in the US, and every two years Olympic events bring together the best athletes from around the world. However, objective success is also impacted by circumstances, opportunities, and personal ambitions. A mother who raises a connected, compassionate family might be considered a success, despite never receiving awards Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 4 for her efforts. Subjectively, accomplishment involves a sense of working toward and reaching goals, mastery, and efficacy to complete tasks. Indeed, Self-Determination Theory suggests that competence is a core basic human need (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Several of the existing wellbeing measures include items related to competence, mastery, or efficacy, whereas national surveys tend to focus on objective indicators of achievement. 3. Wellbeing measurement Although some critics have raised theoretical and practical concerns as to whether maximizing happiness is the best object to pursue (e.g., Ford & Mauss, 2014; Lazarus, 2003; Miller, 2008), for those who do want to pursue happiness and wellbeing, adequate measures are needed. Well- developed measurement tools help us refine our theories and understanding of wellbeing. They can complement more objective measures by providing subjective perspectives, help to identify problematic policies that unintentionally cause harm, and inform cost and benefit analyses. Further, adequate measures are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of a growing number of interventions to improve wellbeing. Of the various wellbeing theories, some have corresponding validated measures, whereas others do not (Huppert, 2014). As a whole, there are now valid measures of affect and life evaluations, but there is less evidence on the reliability and validity of eudaimonic and multidimensional measures (OECD, 2013). Keye’s Mental Health Continuum Short Form, Diener’s Flourishing Scale, and Huppert and So’s (2013) indicators of flourishing have been tested across multiple samples (Hone et al., 2014). Considerable research has occurred with satisfaction measures (Diener, Inglehart, & Tay, 2012). Ryff’s (2014) Psychological Well-Being Scales have been tested and used across diverse samples and applications, although questions have been raised about the measure’s psychometric properties (e.g., Abbott et al., 2006; 2009). As a relatively new theory, to date there are no brief validated instruments that specifically measure the five PERMA domains. Some measures include one or two components, with the greatest emphasis on emotion and relationships. Others, such as the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010), the flourishing items (Huppert & So, 2013), and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (Su, Tay, & Diener, 2014) include all five constructs, but with only one or two items per domain. Huppert and So (2013) include emotional stability, optimism, resilience, self-esteem, and vitality in the flourishing items in addition to the five PERMA domains, with single items representing each domain. The 54-item Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (Su et al., 2014) includes the PERMA components as well as a series of other domains (e.g., learning, self-worth, lack of autonomy, optimism). We present the development and validation of the PERMA-Profiler, which involved three parts. First, we created a bank of items theoretically relevant to the five PERMA domains. Using a sample of over 3,500 participants, we reduced the items to 15 core items. Second, we confirmed the factor structure across two samples, and examined correlations with other constructs. We chose to add eight filler items, creating a final 23-item measure. Third, we tested the final measure in eight additional samples, providing psychometric and norm information. The new measure adds a tool specifically designed to assess PERMA for the toolbox of wellbeing measures. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 5 4. Part 1: Measure development Our goal in developing the measure was to create a brief valid measure of PERMA. In creating such a measure, there is a tension between robustly capturing each domain and keeping the number of items as low as possible. Shorter measures can more easily be incorporated into other surveys or be answered repeatedly over time, but they also generally have poorer psychometric properties and lower reliability than the reliability of longer form versions (Widaman, Little, Preacher, & Sawalini, 2011). Validity of the questionnaire matters more than reliability (John & Soto, 2007), but reliability provides an upper bound on validity. In estimating a structural model, at least three items are needed to identify a factor and calculate reliability. To make the scale as short as possible while maintaining evidence of validity and acceptable reliability, we purposely compromised extremely high reliability to more comprehensively capture each construct (i.e., multiple sub-domains, rather than repetitive questions; Little, Linderberger, & Nesselroade, 1999). Thus, our final measure aimed to include three items per domain that were adequately reliable, content valid, and demonstrated preliminary support for construct validity. 4.1 The PERMA item bank We began by generating a large bank of items. Using Seligman’s (2011) definitions of each domain, we defined specific sub-domains for each PERMA component. 1 We then reviewed measures of these constructs, searching existing sources for relevant items, and generated additional questions that theoretically tapped each domain or sub-domain. Items were combined into an initial item bank with over 700 items (see Butler, 2011 for additional details). Repeated items were removed, and then three experts in positive psychology rated each of the compiled items, based on face valid relevance to the domains and sub-domains. If raters disagreed about an item, it was excluded from further consideration. After discussion, some revisions were made to wording, and the structure of some of the remaining items was adjusted to create consistency across items. The final item bank included 109 questions theoretically relevant to one of the PERMA components (33 emotion, 23 engagement, 21 relationships, 15 meaning, 17 accomplishment). Items and sub-domain labels are noted in Appendix 1; this constitutes the PERMA item bank and formed the foundation for the rest of our development process. Questions were placed on a graduated 0 to 10 scale, with 0 indicating extremely low levels and 10 indicating extremely high levels, and labels appearing only on the endpoints as anchors, as suggested by OECD (2013) guidelines. This 11-point Likert scaling allows a person to indicate, for example, that they are 7/10 (70%) on a question about excitement and interest for life. Pilot testing indicated that people understood the response scale. 1 Sub-domains: Positive emotion: valence and arousal for positive emotion; Engagement: absorption, interest, and involvement; Relationships: connection with others, satisfaction, and giving/receiving support; Meaning: sense of direction, transcendence (connecting to something bigger than oneself), and sense of value/worth; Accomplishment: self-efficacy, sense of accomplishment, and achieving personal goals. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 6 4.2 Additional measures Along with the main PERMA items, the initial questionnaire included several additional scales. These included the eight-item version of the Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CESD, Eaton, Muntaner, Smith, Tien, & Ybarra, 2004), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010), the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS, Stewart-Brown et al., 2009), and the PAC-10 (Personal Action Constructs) rating scales (Little, Salmela-Aro, & Phillips, 2007). Four health-related questions (e.g., “In general, how is your health?”) and several general demographic questions (gender, age, country, education, employment, marital status) were also included. Three free-response questions, asking how the person would describe his or her personality, and additional comments, allowed participants to express themselves and aided evaluations of the quality of participant responses. The resulting questionnaire included 199 items, which took an average of 27 minutes to complete. 4.3 Participants A set of participants (Sample 1, Development Sample) was recruited online through the Authentic Happiness website (www.authentichappiness.com). A link to the survey was posted on the site as a research study. Participants voluntarily completed the full 199-item questionnaire. Data were collected from 8 January 2012 through 16 August 2012. Sufficient responses (i.e., participants who completed the PERMA items) were received from 3,751 participants.2 Demographic information is summarized in Table 1 below. 2 The included responses are a self-selected sample of individuals who chose to complete the survey to help out with research, and completed the survey through the PERMA questions. 6,789 entries were begun. Many of the missing responses were due to people who started the survey, had computer troubles, and restarted the survey; we only included their full response. The survey was lengthy, so other participants dropped out before completing all of the PERMA items and thus were excluded. Demographic information was at the end, such that we could not examine characteristics of those who dropped out. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 7 Table 1a. Participant demographics by sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 9 Sample 10 Sample 11 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Total N 3751 3029 408 4717 23692 285 294 166 184 1846 782 Gender Male 1050 27.99 0804 26.54 234 57.35 1434 30.40 15390 64.96 085 29.82 150 51.02 061 36.75 027 14.67 0317 17.17 289 36.96 Female 2459 65.56 2014 66.49 167 40.93 3029 64.21 8184 34.54 195 68.42 144 48.98 099 59.64 150 81.52 1359 73.62 493 63.04 Other 0242 06.45 0211 06.97 007 01.70 0254 05.38 118 00.50 005 01.80 000 00.00 006 03.61 007 03.80 0170 09.21 000 00.00 Age group Under 18 0000 00.00 0000 00.00 000 00.00 0000 00.00 1495 06.31 000 00.00 000 00.00 001 00.60 003 01.63 001 00.05 000 00.00 18 to 24 0509 13.57 0562 18.55 112 27.45 0736 15.60 6921 29.21 030 10.53 046 15.65 027 16.27 041 22.28 293 15.87 782 100 25 to 34 0731 19.49 0607 20.04 184 45.10 1006 21.33 4714 19.90 107 37.54 200 68.03 051 30.72 052 28.26 400 21.67 000 00.00 35 to 44 0723 19.27 0555 18.32 065 15.93 0951 20.16 3992 16.85 037 12.98 024 08.16 035 21.08 033 17.93 352 19.07 000 00.00 45 to 54 0778 20.74 0577 19.05 024 05.88 0924 19.59 3320 14.01 041 14.39 022 07.48 030 18.07 026 14.13 361 19.56 000 00.00 55 to 64 0547 14.58 0401 13.24 013 03.19 0612 12.97 1802 07.61 034 11.93 000 00.00 012 07.23 015 08.15 224 12.13 000 00.00 65+ 0220 05.87 0124 04.09 003 00.74 0216 04.58 559 02.36 036 12.63 000 00.00 004 02.41 005 02.72 050 02.71 000 00.00 Unknown 0243 06.48 0203 06.70 007 01.72 0272 05.77 889 03.75 000 00.00 002 00.68 006 03.61 009 04.89 165 08.94 000 00.00 World region United States 1617 43.11 1384 45.69 062 15.20 2393 50.73 12001 50.70 285 0100 290 79.00 010 06.02 184 100 -- -- 182 100 United Kingdom 0294 07.84 0225 07.43 005 01.23 0308 06.53 1465 06.20 000 00.00 006 01.60 014 08.43 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Canada 0192 05.12 0148 04.89 007 01.72 0246 05.22 1531 06.50 000 00.00 003 00.80 005 03.01 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Central/ S. America 0113 03.01 0078 02.58 006 01.47 0160 03.39 641 02.70 000 00.00 000 00.00 004 02.41 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 West Europe 0132 03.52 0122 04.03 006 01.47 0222 04.71 913 03.90 000 00.00 021 05.70 006 03.61 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 N. Europe 0073 01.95 0048 01.58 001 00.25 0117 02.48 358 01.50 000 00.00 000 00.00 001 00.60 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 S/E. Europe 0077 02.05 0061 02.01 011 02.70 0130 02.76 368 01.60 000 00.00 000 00.00 002 01.20 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Middle East 0015 00.40 0006 00.20 009 02.21 0026 00.55 178 00.80 000 00.00 000 00.00 001 00.60 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Africa 0025 00.67 0015 00.50 000 00.00 0060 01.27 269 01.10 000 00.00 000 00.00 000 00.00 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 India/SE Asia 0069 01.84 0054 01.78 282 69.12 0091 01.93 914 03.90 000 00.00 000 00.00 004 02.41 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Asia 0092 02.45 0070 02.31 002 00.49 0126 02.67 380 01.60 000 00.00 000 00.00 002 01.20 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Australia/New Zealand 0620 16.53 0311 10.27 004 00.98 0559 11.85 2686 11.40 000 00.00 005 01.30 020 12.00 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Other 0432 11.52 0507 16.74 013 03.19 0279 05.90 1988 08.40 000 00.00 042 11.40 097 58.43 000 00.00 -- -- 000 00.00 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 8 Table 1b. Participant demographics by sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 9 Sample 10 Sample 11 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Education 0 0 No high school 0071 01.90 0062 02.00 012 02.94 0099 02.10 1628 06.87 -- -- 000 00.00 001 00.60 002 01.09 014 00.80 -- -- High school or equivalent 0254 06.77 0194 06.40 031 07.60 0297 06.30 1597 06.74 -- -- 003 01.02 007 04.22 005 02.72 073 03.95 -- -- Some college 0563 15.01 0537 17.73 035 08.58 0715 15.16 8827 37.26 -- -- 016 05.44 013 07.83 041 22.28 252 13.65 -- -- Associates 0246 06.56 0196 06.47 012 02.94 0282 05.98 2246 09.48 -- -- 004 01.36 004 02.41 017 09.24 116 06.28 -- -- Bachelors 0819 21.83 0616 20.34 172 42.16 1024 21.71 6305 26.61 -- -- 170 57.82 056 33.73 042 22.83 414 22.43 -- -- Some graduate 0359 09.57 0244 08.06 015 03.68 0417 08.84 2994 a 12.64 -- -- 016 05.44 020 12.05 025 13.59 133 07.20 -- -- Masters 0803 21.41 0661 21.82 099 24.26 1127 23.89 -- -- -- -- 074 25.17 046 27.71 035 19.02 483 26.16 -- -- Doctorate/ Professional 0399 10.60 0317 10.40 024 05.90 0511 10.80 -- -- -- -- 009 03.06 017 10.20 010 05.50 188 10.90 -- -- Other 0237 06.32 0202 06.67 008 01.96 0245 05.20 0095 00.40 -- -- 002 00.70 002 01.20 007 03.80 173 09.40 -- -- Employment status 0 Full-time employment 1845 49.19 1398 46.15 153 37.50 2191 46.45 -- -- -- -- 294 100 086 51.81 061 33.15 701 37.97 -- -- Part-time employment 0456 12.16 0386 12.74 086 21.08 0533 11.30 -- -- -- -- 000 00.00 014 08.43 022 11.96 223 12.08 -- -- Unemployed 0176 04.69 0127 04.19 034 08.33 0198 04.20 -- -- -- -- 000 00.00 005 03.01 007 03.80 124 06.72 -- -- Homemaker 0113 03.01 0080 02.64 036 08.82 0117 02.48 -- -- -- -- 000 00.00 003 01.81 005 02.72 081 04.39 -- -- Student 0553 14.74 0543 17.93 071 17.40 0700 14.84 -- -- -- -- 000 00.00 017 10.24 051 27.72 298 16.14 -- -- Retired 0182 04.85 0136 04.49 008 01.96 0187 03.96 -- -- -- -- 000 00.00 005 03.01 010 05.43 064 03.47 -- -- Other 0191 05.09 0163 05.38 014 03.43 0546 11.60 -- -- -- -- 000 00.00 034 20.60 021 11.40 195 10.60 -- -- Unknown 0235 06.26 0196 06.47 0v6 01.47 0245 05.19 -- -- -- -- 000 00.00 002 01.20 007 03.80 160 08.67 -- -- Note. Other includes unknown/ not reported. For location, N = north, S = south, E = east, W = west. For main norming sample, gradua te work refers to any post graduate training and degree, including certificates, masters, doctorate, and professional degrees. 1 = Development sample, 2 = Validation sample, 3 = Mturk sample, 4 = Brief measure test set, 5 = Main norming sample, 6 = Compassion study, 7 = Online company employees, 8 = Values study, 9 = Harvard University students, 10 = positive intervention study, 11 = William & Mary University students. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 9 4.4 Analyses and results In generating the initial items, we included both general and specific time scales (i.e., “in general” versus “in the past week”). For analysis, we chose to focus on more stable aspects of wellbeing rather than transient mood. There is no agreement over the best response period for wellbeing questions (OECD, 2013). Specific periods (e.g., yesterday, currently) capture momentary states and are more susceptible to change, whereas a general response captures more stable reflections of one’s wellbeing. Arguably, emotion is more transient in nature compared to the other PERMA domains. Still, Seligman (2011) discusses the five domains, including emotion, as outcomes that people seek, suggesting a more stable reflection on one’s emotional balance. We follow this framing here with the general response format, such that items with the stem “in the past week” were excluded from the analysis, whereas items with the stem “in general” were included. We also chose to only include positively worded items. It is often argued that inverse items are needed to deal with response set biases, but this assumes that positive and negative items measure the same construct, which both theoretically and empirically is not necessarily true. Numerous theorists in positive psychology have noted that it is misleading to interpret happiness as merely the opposite of unhappiness; one is not simply the lack of the other (e.g., Pawelski, 2013). Further, reversed-scored items often cluster on a separate factor, thus creating method-induced biases (e.g., Carlson et al., 2011; Dunbar, Ford, Hunt, & Der, 2000; Marsh, 1986). Marsh (1996) noted that additional analyses are needed to disentangle response versus method bias. Alternatively, additional negatively worded items can be included but not scored as part of the positive constructs, thus disrupting response biases but not introducing the method bias. We chose to follow this latter approach. As much of the psychological literature has focused on the negative end of psychological function, and the PERMA measure is intended to complement existing measures, we focus primarily on positively worded items, but add several negative emotion questions to the final measure. These exclusions resulted in 70 positively worded items that specifically measured PERMA. To further reduce the number of questions, participants were randomly split into two halves (Set 1: n = 1,877 (65.1% female); Set 2: n = 1,874 (66.0% female)). In each set, we conducted an exploratory principal components analysis (Jolliffe, 2002), specifying a five-factor structure and direct oblimin rotation (Δ = 0). We retained items that overlapped across the two sets. We examined response frequencies and item distributions. To ensure that items aligned with the PERMA theory, we returned to our original definitions. For the final set of items, we selected those that consistently appeared in the factor in both sub-samples in the principal components analyses, represented multiple sub-domains (e.g., absorption, effort, and interest for engagement), and had responses to the item that were normally distributed across the sample. Through these analyses, we narrowed the items down to the targeted three items for each domain (15 items total). We then calculated four estimates of internal consistency (Cronbach’s , Guttman’s 6, minimum and maximum split half reliability ( and 4)), using the psych package (Revelle, 2015) in R (version 3.0.3), based on 10,000 random draws across the data. As summarized in Table 2 below, the factors demonstrated acceptable reliability in the two subsets. In sum, through a combination of theory and empirical analyses, we first created a large pool of items containing questions theoretically relevant to each of the five PERMA domains, and then reduced these items to a brief measure that loaded on the expected factor and demonstrated adequate reliability. This set the stage for Part 2, in which we confirmed the factor structure in two additional samples and tested correlations with other constructs. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 10 Table 2a. Internal and test-retest reliability for the PERMA factors by sample P E R M A Overall NE H Internal Reliability Sample 1a (Development sample, subset 1, n = 1,877) Cronbach's  .82 .80 .82 .92 .84 .94 .74 .91 Guttman's 6 .75 .73 .77 .89 .81 .95 .66 .89 Minimum split half () .74 .64 .66 .82 .79 .89 .66 .74 Maximum split half (4) .74 .73 .75 .84 .80 .97 .69 .85 Sample 1b (Development sample, subset 2, n = 1,874) Cronbach's  .81 .79 .83 .92 .86 .95 .73 .90 Guttman's 6 .74 .73 .78 .89 .82 .95 .64 .88 Minimum split half () .73 .65 .67 .82 .80 .88 .64 .73 Maximum split half (4) .74 .72 .75 .84 .80 .96 .67 .84 Sample 2 (Validation sample, n = 3,029) Cronbach's  .81 .81 .83 .92 .85 .95 .73 .90 Guttman's 6 .75 .75 .78 .88 .81 .95 .64 .88 Minimum split half () .74 .65 .68 .81 .79 .88 .63 .73 Maximum split half (4) .75 .74 .76 .84 .80 .97 .68 .85 Sample 3 (Mturk sample, n = 408) Cronbach's  .71 .69 .79 .86 .82 .94 .76 .85 Guttman's 6 .63 .62 .72 .81 .77 .95 .68 .81 Minimum split half () .61 .62 .66 .76 .75 .89 .66 .70 Maximum split half (4) .71 .72 .70 .81 .75 .96 .66 .79 Sample 4 (Brief measure test set, N = 4,717) Cronbach's  .89 .72 .84 .91 .78 .94 .75 .92 Guttman's 6 .84 .64 .79 .87 .73 .95 .67 .89 Minimum split half () .79 .62 .68 .81 .72 .89 .65 .81 Maximum split half (4) .81 .68 .79 .82 .76 .97 .70 .83 Sample 5 (Main norming set, n = 23,692 Cronbach's  .88 .71 .81 .90 .79 .94 .73 .92 Guttman's 6 .83 .63 .76 .86 .73 .95 .64 .88 Minimum split half () .80 .63 .65 .80 .72 .88 .62 .80 Maximum split half (4) .80 .69 .77 .80 .76 .96 .62 .82 Sample 6 (Compassion study, n = 285) Cronbach's  .88 .80 .82 .89 .80 .93 -- -- Guttman's 6 .83 .74 .80 .85 .76 .95 -- -- Minimum split half () .76 .63 .58 .80 .74 .82 -- -- Maximum split half (4) .81 .76 .81 .82 .80 .97 -- -- Sample 7 (Online company employees, n = 294) Cronbach's  .84 .69 .77 .89 .70 .92 -- -- Guttman's 6 .79 .62 .71 .85 .68 .94 -- -- Minimum split half () .68 .63 .61 .79 .72 .82 -- -- Maximum split half (4) .79 .70 .73 .83 .73 .96 -- -- Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 11 Table 2b. Internal and test-retest reliability for the PERMA factors by sample P E R M A Overall NE H Sample 8 (Values study, n = 166) Cronbach's  .85 .67 .84 .90 .77 .93 .71 .92 Guttman's 6 .79 .59 .78 .87 .71 .95 .63 .88 Minimum split half () .74 .61 .69 .81 .69 .82 .59 .81 Maximum split half (4) .79 .64 .76 .83 .76 .97 .61 .82 Sample 9 (Harvard University students, n = 184) Cronbach's  .85 .73 .83 .85 .79 .92 .77 .94 Guttman's 6 .81 .65 .80 .81 .72 .95 .71 .91 Minimum split half () .79 .61 .64 .75 .69 .84 .63 .83 Maximum split half (4) .80 .70 .77 .82 .77 .97 .64 .83 Sample 10 (Positive intervention study, n = 1,846) Cronbach's  .88 .72 .85 .91 .78 .94 .73 .92 Guttman's 6 .84 .63 .81 .87 .73 .96 .65 .89 Minimum split half () .80 .63 .68 .81 .72 .88 .61 .81 Maximum split half (4) .80 .66 .78 .83 .77 .97 .64 .83 Sample 11 (William & Mary University students, n = 782) Cronbach's  .84 .60 .75 .90 .84 .93 .70 -- Guttman's 6 .78 .53 .70 .85 .79 .95 .61 -- Minimum split half () .75 .54 .56 .80 .70 .87 .63 -- Maximum split half (4) .76 .66 .73 .81 .80 .96 .65 -- Combined samples (Samples 4-11, n = 31,966) Cronbach's  .88 .72 .82 .90 .79 .94 .71 .92 Guttman's 6 .83 .64 .76 .86 .74 .95 .63 .88 Minimum split half () .80 .63 .65 .80 .73 .88 .59 .80 Maximum split half (4) .80 .69 .77 .81 .77 .96 .62 .82 Test-Retest Reliability (Pearson r) Sample 4 Time 2 (n = 1,073) .84 .78 .83 .86 .80 .88 .77 .86 Sample 5 Time 2 (n = 1372) .68 .61 .68 .67 .67 .80 .66 .78 Sample 5 Time 3 (n = 574) .65 .53 .66 .61 .62 .69 .67 .75 Sample 8 Time 2 (n = 45) .88 .81 .90 .83 .78 .87 .77 .81 Sample 9 Time 2 (n = 107) .72 .71 .75 .73 .67 .75 .66 .80 Sample 9 Time 3 (n = 86) .70 .51 .70 .69 .68 .69 .62 .79 Note. See method for sample details. Samples 1-3 completed the full 199-item bank; samples 4-11 completed the brief final measure (at least the 15 items and in most cases the 23-item measure, as well as other items (see Appendix 2 for details). P = positive emotion, E = engagement, R = relationships, M = meaning, A = accomplishment, Overall = overall wellbeing, NE = negative emotion, H = physical health. Minimum and maximum split halves are based on 10,000 random draws across the data, estimated with the psych package (Revelle, 2015) in R. 5. Part 2: Model testing and measure refinement 5.1 Participants While we were conducting our initial analyses of the data from Sample 1, the survey remained open on the Authentic Happiness website. Responses received between 17 August 2012 and 15 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 12 May 2013 were considered the Validation Sample (Sample 2). Of 5,724 responses that were started, 3,029 participants completed the PERMA questions. Participant demographics are summarized in Table 1 above. Another set of participants (Sample 3, MTurk Sample) were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowd sourcing online system in which “workers” complete tasks online for minimal payment. Several studies have found that Mturk samples are often more representative than many typical psychology studies (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2011; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011), although the quality and participant characteristics must be carefully examined (Shapiro, Chandler, & Mueller, 2013). We required that participants be proficient in English and have an approval rating of 95% or above3. Participants were paid $0.20 for completing the survey, which was a typical payment amount for such a survey at the time. Survey responses were excluded if they were missing responses to the PERMA questions, completed the survey in less than five minutes (average response time for this sample was 18 minutes), or had free response questions that appeared problematic (e.g., random letters). Out of 579 individuals who started the survey, 408 participants (43.1% female) had sufficient data to be included in our analyses. Table 1 above summarizes demographic information. 5.2 Data analyses and results Using data from Samples 2 and 3, we tested the 15-items in a confirmatory factor model (see Figure 1 below) using the lavaan package (version .5.16, Rosseel, 2012) in R (version 3.0.3). Model fit was evaluated using the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR), which are population-based measures not affected by sample size. A RMSEA of .06 or lower combined with an SRMR of .09 or lower are considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We also examined the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) as alternative incremental fit metrics; values closer to 1 are considered good fit. Factor reliabilities are summarized in Table 2 above, and factor loadings and fit statistics are summarized in Table 3 below. In both samples, the model adequately fit the data (Sample 2: n = 3,029, RMSEA = .055 [90% confidence interval = .051, .058], SRMR = .037, CFI = .976, TLI = .968; Sample 3: n = 408, RMSEA = .077 [.067, .087]; SRMR = .034, CFI = .946, TLI = .929), and factors were generally reliable, although engagement was the weakest factor in both samples. To consider initial evidence for convergent and divergent validity, we then examined correlations of each factor with the additional measures included in the full 199-item questionnaire. Average correlations across Samples 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 are summarized in Table 4 below, and correlations for each sample are summarized in Appendix 2. The strength of correlations varied for the different PERMA factors, but all showed a similar pattern. The PERMA factors were strongly correlated with flourishing and life satisfaction, with the factor of meaning being the strongest correlate and engagement the weakest. The PERMA factors were moderately correlated with physical health, and inversely correlated with negative emotion and loneliness. The factors were also strongly correlated with the PAC-10, which asks how meaningful, exciting, enjoyable, and manageable personal projects and goals are, as well as how much these projects and goals benefit and are supported by others. In sum, the factors all correlated in the expected directions with all other measured variables. 3 To help control quality, MTurk includes an approval system. If a worker provides poor data (e.g., cheating, clearly not attending to the task), an experimenter can report the worker, dropping that worker’s approval rating. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 13 Figure 1. Five-factor model based on the 15 PERMA measure. See Table 3 below for estimated latent factor loadings and fit indices Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 14 Table 3a. Latent factor loadings and fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis for the main 15 PERMA items Factor/Question 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Combo Positive Emotion How often do you feel joyful? p1 .78 .72 .84 .87 .89 .70 .81 .87 .85 .80 .86 How often do you feel positive? p2 .85 .76 .88 .87 .80 .86 .85 .88 .86 .85 .87 To what extent do you feel contented? p3 .68 .51 .83 .79 .83 .84 .78 .71 .84 .73 .80 Engagement How often do you become absorbed in what you are doing? e1 .79 .79 .57 .65 .85 .61 .62 .57 .59 .63 .64 To what extent do you feel excited and interested in things? e2 .70 .81 .88 .86 .65 .54 .82 .90 .88 .83 .86 How often do you lose track of time while doing something you enjoy? e3 .82 .88 .48 .44 .80 .72 .46 .48 .49 .21 .46 Relationship To what extent do you receive help and support from others when you need it? r1 .69 .77 .68 .65 .55 .63 .71 .62 .67 .55 .66 To what extent have you been feeling loved? r2 .82 .85 .87 .84 .92 .76 .81 .87 .89 .82 .85 How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? r3 .87 .79 .85 .84 .91 .83 .88 .90 .87 .80 .84 Meaning To what extent do you lead a purposeful and meaningful life? m1 .93 .79 .87 .86 .91 .88 .90 .83 .91 .89 .87 To what extent do you feel that what you do in your life is valuable and worthwhile? m2 .87 .68 .88 .87 .85 .91 .90 .87 .88 .87 .88 To what extent do you generally feel you have a sense of direction in your life? m3 .85 .85 .87 .86 .81 .77 .84 .75 .84 .82 .86 Accomplishment How much of the time do you feel you are making progress towards accomplishing your goals? a1 .89 .86 .86 .87 .92 .90 .94 .80 .86 .76 .87 How often do you achieve the important goals you have set for yourself? a2 .89 .91 .80 .78 .84 .81 .71 .79 .82 .89 .80 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 15 Table 3b. Latent factor loadings and fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis for the main 15 PERMA items Factor/Question 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Combo How often are you able to handle your responsibilities? a3 .66 .91 .56 .57 .50 .36 .46 .65 .54 .78 .58 Latent Factor Covariances Positive Emotion ~ Engagement p,e .73 .77 .91 .88 .59 .82 .84 .81 .91 .86 .88 Positive Emotion ~ Relationship p,r .72 .87 .78 .78 .71 .77 .79 .53 .78 .79 .78 Positive Emotion ~ Meaning p,m .80 .83 .87 .84 .68 .73 .76 .79 .86 .86 .85 Positive Emotion ~ Accomplishment p,a .70 .82 .84 .79 .66 .63 .70 .72 .80 .73 .80 Engagement ~ Relationship e,r .58 .84 .68 .64 .30 .67 .55 .36 .63 .72 .65 Engagement ~ Meaning e,m .77 .95 .81 .81 .54 .70 .74 .72 .86 .87 .82 Engagement ~ Accomplishment e,a .78 .92 .79 .79 .59 .83 .72 .62 .78 .77 .80 Relationship ~ Meaning r,m .71 .93 .69 .69 .65 .74 .54 .49 .68 .73 .69 Relationship ~ Accomplishment r,a .62 .89 .64 .64 .46 .53 .49 .46 .58 .65 .64 Meaning ~ Accomplishment m,a .81 .96 .92 .93 .66 .57 .89 .83 .86 .79 .91 Model Fit N 3029 408 4717 23692 285 294 166 184 1846 782 31966 RMSEA .055 .077 .064 .066 .081 .098 .098 .107 .082 .081 .064 RMSEA 90% confidence interval .051, .058 .067, .087 .062, .067 .065, .067 .069, .094 .087, .110 .081, .114 .092, .122 .078, .086 .074, .088 .063, .065 SRMR .037 .034 .031 .032 .067 .068 .063 .074 .04 .043 .031 2 (df = 80) 790 274 1639 8347 231 308 207 249 1070 489 10606 CFI .976 .946 .967 .964 .944 .905 .919 .896 .949 .941 .967 TLI .968 .929 .957 .953 .927 .875 .894 .864 .932 .923 .956 Note. Confirmatory factor analysis estimated using the lavaan package (version 0.5.16) in R (version 3.0.3). See Figure 1 above for the estimated model. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Residual, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis Index. 2 = Validation sample, 3 = Mturk sample, 4 = Brief measure test set, 5 = Main norming sample, 6 = Compassion study, 7 = Online company employees, 8 = Values study, 9 = Harvard University students, 10 = Positive intervention study, 11 = William & Mary University students. Combo combines samples 4-11 (participants who completed the final brief measure). Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 16 Table 4. Evidence for convergent and divergent validity: Average correlations with other constructs n K P E R M A Overall NE H Initial 199 survey (Samples 1a, 1b, 2, and 3) Positive emotion 6995 4 Engagement 7000 4 .59 Relationship 7016 4 .61 .52 Meaning 7004 4 .69 .68 .65 Accomplishment 6999 4 .61 .65 .56 .74 Overall wellbeing 7066 4 .83 .80 .81 .90 .84 Negative emotion 6979 4 -.49 -.34 -.42 -.45 -.43 -.52 Physical health 6791 4 .36 .31 .34 .37 .41 .43 -.28 Loneliness 6942 4 -.40 -.29 -.55 -.42 -.36 -.49 .41 -.23 Depression 6733 4 -.65 -.53 -.64 -.66 -.59 -.74 .61 -.42 Flourishing 6739 4 .67 .64 .68 .81 .70 .84 -.48 .40 Life satisfaction 6830 4 .65 .53 .68 .73 .65 .79 -.48 .43 Pac-10 6640 4 .64 .62 .64 .75 .66 .80 -.50 .41 WEMWBS 6696 4 .66 .61 .67 .73 .67 .80 -.55 .43 Note. Values are based on the average correlation across samples that measured the construct (K), weighted by the number within that sample (n). See Appendix 2 for correlations by sample and for details on how the constructs were measured. WEMWBS = Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, PAC-10 = Personal Action Constructs rating scales, P = positive emotion, E = engagement, R = relationships, M = meaning, A = accomplishment, Overall = overall wellbeing, NE = negative emotion, H = physical health. 5.3 Measure refinement Overall, the 15 items demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. Over the two-year data collection period, we received various qualitative comments and emails. Some participants had voluntarily noted confusing words, errors, and order effects. Based on this feedback, we refined item wording. In addition, we chose to add eight additional items: one item assessing overall wellbeing; three negative emotion items assessing sadness, anger, and anxiety; one item assessing loneliness; and three items assessing self-perceived physical health. The final 23-item measure is provided in Table 5 below. Domain scores are created by taking the average of the three items (for each PERMA domain, negative emotion, and health; range = 0 to 10). Overall wellbeing is the average of the main 15 PERMA items and the overall happiness item. Loneliness is a single item. We had two reasons for including the additional items, beyond the 15 main PERMA items. First, these items act as filler items. By including the negative emotion and loneliness items, these disrupt response tendencies, addressing the issue of not including inversely scored items as part of the PERMA constructs (Marsh, 1986). Second, these items provide additional information that may be useful for many users. The positive focus of PERMA does not negate the importance of negative emotion; by including negative emotions, the measure acknowledges the importance of considering both positive and negative elements of the mental health spectrum. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 17 Table 5. The final 23-item PERMA-Profiler measure Label Question Response Anchors A1 How much of the time do you feel you are making progress towards accomplishing your goals? 0 = never, 10 = always E1 How often do you become absorbed in what you are doing? P1 In general, how often do you feel joyful? N1 In general, how often do you feel anxious? A2 How often do you achieve the important goals you have set for yourself? H1 In general, how would you say your health is? 0 = terrible, 10 = excellent M1 In general, to what extent do you lead a purposeful and meaningful life? 0 = not at all, 10 = completely R1 To what extent do you receive help and support from others when you need it? M2 In general, to what extent do you feel that what you do in your life is valuable and worthwhile? E2 In general, to what extent do you feel excited and interested in things? Lon How lonely do you feel in your daily life? H2 How satisfied are you with your current physical health? 0 = not at all, 10 = completely P2 In general, how often do you feel positive? 0 = never 10 = always N2 In general, how often do you feel angry? A3 How often are you able to handle your responsibilities? N3 In general, how often do you feel sad? E3 How often do you lose track of time while doing something you enjoy? H3 Compared to others of your same age and sex, how is your health? 0 = terrible, 10 = excellent R2 To what extent do you feel loved? 0 = not at all, 10 = completely M3 To what extent do you generally feel you have a sense of direction in your life? R3 How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? P3 In general, to what extent do you feel contented? Hap Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are? 0 = not at all, 10 = completely The single item on loneliness is a strong predictor of many negative life outcomes (Caccioppo, Hawkley, & Berntson, 2003). Although PERMA focuses on psychosocial function, physical health is a correlated outcome that arguably could be considered a core part of flourishing (Friedman & Kern, 2014; Norrish, 2015). Indeed, physical health was moderately to strongly correlated with Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 18 each of the PERMA factors. The overall happiness item is similar to other overall assessments included in many surveys. It not only provides a link to other surveys, but also allows participants to provide an overall assessment of their own wellbeing, after reflecting on specific facets from the other questions. Thus, for both methodological and theoretical reasons, we believe there is value in including the eight additional items. 6. Part 3: Testing the final measure 6.1 Participants In 2013, we made the final questionnaire available to other researchers and made an online version available for potential participants to complete. We conducted a series of studies that included the measure, and several other researchers included the measure within their battery of assessments, sharing de-identified data with us to contribute to norm and validity information. Each study included at least the 15 PERMA items and some demographic information. Most also included other measures, providing additional tests of convergent and divergent validity. Demographic information for each sample is summarized in Table 1 above, and the specific measures included in each sample are provided in Appendix 2. All procedures were approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. One study was designed specifically to test the reliability of the final measure in its reduced form (Sample 4, brief measure test set). During the collection of Sample 4, we posted the survey at www.permaquestionnaire.org and advertised the survey on the AuthenticHappiness.com website. Between 19 February and 10 October 2013, 4,717 participants (64.2% female) completed the PERMA survey and were included in our analyses. At the end of the survey, participants were asked if they would be willing to complete the survey two weeks later to help establish cross-time stability. Willing participants provided contact information. Approximately two weeks later, participants were sent an invitation to complete the measure again. Between 6 March and 10 October 2013, 1,073 individuals (71.6% female) completed the measure again and could be successfully matched to their time 1 responses. The Authentic Happiness website offers registered users the opportunity to complete various measures. The 23-item PERMA-Profiler was added to the website in May 2014. Between 21 May 2014 and 15 March 2016, 23,692 participants (34.5% female) from around the world completed the survey (Sample 5, main norming set). Basic demographic information (gender, age category, country, education, occupation) was also available. In addition, some participants returned at a later date, allowing us to consider stability over time. Of these, 1,372 participants (34.3% female) completed the measure twice, with length of time between the two assessments ranging from one day to up to two years later (M = 68.9 days, SD = 89.94, Median = 49.00). Of these, 535 participants (41.4% female) completed the measure three or more times, with the length of time between the first and third assessment ranging from 1 to 633 days (M = 92.7 days, SD = 77.9, Median = 101). In a cross-sectional study focused on activism and self-compassion (Sample 6, compassion study), participants completed an online survey that included the main 15 PERMA items and the overall happiness item from the PERMA-Profiler, as well as measures of self-compassion, hope, life satisfaction, perceived success, self-determination motivation, and compassion for others. A total of 285 participants (68.4% female) completed the survey and were included in the current analysis. In collaboration with a creative online organization, 294 employees (49.0% female; Sample 7, online organization employees) completed a survey that included the 15 main PERMA items and the overall happiness item from the PERMA-Profiler, as well as measures of social capital, work Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 19 performance, and an evaluation of the organization’s practices. About 85% of employees participated, including 24 teams from five global offices. In a study focused on personal values and wellbeing (Sample 8, values study), 166 individuals (59.6% female) completed an online survey that included the PERMA-Profiler and questions asking the extent to which 13 different values (e.g., work, balance, material wellbeing, health, helping others) mattered to the person. Values were based on Schwartz’s (2012) theory of basic values. A composite summed values score was calculated. After completing the survey, participants were invited to track their values and happiness each day for two weeks, and then were invited to complete the survey again. Follow-up responses were received from 45 participants (75.6% female). Sample 9 (Harvard University students) came from data collected from students from Harvard University enrolled in a positive psychology course. As a class learning activity, students completed a survey around weeks one, nine, and 12 that included the PERMA-Profiler, along with measures of hope, self-efficacy, gratitude, perceived stress, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and life satisfaction. After the second assessment, some students completed an online positive intervention. Data was collected across two semesters, with 184 students (81.5% female) completing the baseline measure, 107 students (76.6% female) completing the second assessment, and 86 students (75.6% female) completing the final assessment. As part of an online intervention study, the same survey used with Sample 9 was completed by an additional 1,846 individuals (73.6% female; Sample 9, positive intervention study). Data from the baseline survey was included in the current analysis. In addition, 782 students (63% female) from William and Mary University completed a 20- item version of the PERMA-Profiler (main 15 PERMA items, overall happiness, negative emotion, loneliness). The de-identified scores were shared with the authors to contribute to norm information (Sample 11, William and Mary University students). 6.2 Results Table 6 below summarizes descriptive information for the full combined sample (all participants who completed the reduced measure, Samples 4-11; see Appendix 3 for descriptive information split by gender, age group, and country region). Table 6. Descriptive information for full combined sample (Samples 4-11) N Mean Median SD Min 25th 50th 75th Max Full Sample Positive emotion 31965 6.69 7.00 1.97 0.00 5.67 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 31962 7.25 7.67 1.71 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Relationships 31940 6.90 7.33 2.15 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 31931 7.06 7.67 2.17 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 31963 7.21 7.67 1.78 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 31966 7.02 7.38 1.66 0.00 6.13 7.38 8.25 10.00 Negative emotion 31386 4.46 4.33 2.06 0.00 3.00 4.33 6.00 10.00 Physical health 30601 6.94 7.33 2.18 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Reliability and model fit for each sample is summarized in Tables 2 and 3 above. Without intervention, the factors were generally stable over time. Correlations ranged from r = .51 for the engagement factor from baseline to time 3 in Sample 9 (12 week period) to r = .90 for the Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 20 relationship factor between baseline and time 2 in Sample 8 (two week period). Associations were strongest when there were two weeks or less between measurement occasions, but correlations remained high even with longer periods of time. Intervention effects were not directly tested, but may contribute to the observed variance. To examine convergent and divergent validity, effect sizes for the constructs assessed in each sample were meta-analytically combined (Table 7 below; see Appendix 2 for measure information and correlations within each sample). Table 7. Evidence for convergent and divergent validity: Average correlations with other constructs (Samples 4-11) n K P E R M A Overall NE H Positive emotion 31965 8 Engagement 31962 8 .64 Relationship 31940 8 .68 .46 Meaning 31931 8 .75 .60 .60 Accomplishment 31963 8 .68 .57 .54 .78 Overall wellbeing 31966 8 .90 .76 .80 .89 .84 Negative emotion 31386 6 -.53 -.28 -.40 -.42 -.38 -.49 Physical health 30601 5 .48 .32 .40 .43 .46 .50 -.31 Loneliness 31331 6 -.45 -.25 -.50 -.38 -.32 -.46 .54 -.23 Depression 1974 2 -.61 -.38 -.49 -.55 -.49 -.61 .59 -.32 Anxiety 1984 2 -.53 -.34 -.35 -.43 -.44 -.50 .68 -.29 Fatigue 1919 2 -.42 -.30 -.27 -.32 -.37 -.40 .47 -.47 Perceived stress 1880 2 -.58 -.34 -.44 -.46 -.48 -.55 .67 -.36 Gratitude 1919 2 .58 .42 .55 .52 .45 .60 -.44 .29 Hope 2225 3 .66 .56 .45 .68 .69 .73 -.45 .36 Life satisfaction 2098 3 .76 .51 .65 .68 .64 .78 -.53 .44 Self-efficacy 1905 2 .59 .51 .40 .60 .65 .65 -.44 .36 Values 163 1 .20 .18 .13 .30 .20 .26 -.15 .23 Burnout 195 1 -.42 -.43 -.34 -.46 -.57 -.56 Compassion 264 1 .13 .25 .02 .19 .15 .17 Identifies as an activist 285 1 .01 .18 -.04 .20 .01 .07 Political orientation 245 1 -.09 -.15 -.12 -.16 .07 -.12 Self-compassion 277 1 .49 .29 .45 .45 .35 .52 Self-determination 250 1 -.53 -.35 -.47 -.54 -.46 -.60 Organization practices 294 1 .33 .38 .34 .24 .38 .41 Social capital 293 1 .37 .26 .35 .22 .26 .37 Work performance 293 1 .14 .25 .20 .21 .19 .24 Note. Values are based on the average correlation across samples that measured the construct (K), weighted by the number within that sample (n). See Appendix 2 for correlations by sample and for details on how the constructs were measured. P = positive emotion, E = engagement, R = relationships, M = meaning, A = accomplishment, Overall = overall wellbeing, NE = negative emotion, H = physical health. The PERMA domains generally followed similar patterns of results, but the correlation strengths varied by factor. Capturing the hedonic side of wellbeing, positive emotion was the strongest Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 21 inverse correlate of negative emotion, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and perceived stress. Positive emotion was very strongly correlated with life satisfaction (r = .76), and was only weakly correlated with compassion, a strong sense of values, political orientation, and self-rated workplace performance. Of the PERMA factors, engagement was the weakest correlate of most other variables. However, it was the strongest correlate of compassion, identifying as an activist, and workplace performance. Relationship was the strongest correlate (inverse) of loneliness; otherwise it was moderately correlated with most factors and was weaker than other factors. Meaning was the strongest correlate of having a strong sense of values and identifying as an activist – both of which represent what could be considered meaningful activities or orientations. Hope was equally correlated with meaning and accomplishment. Accomplishment was the strongest correlate of self-efficacy and less burnout. 7. General discussion Through an extensive theoretical and empirical process, we developed a 23-item measure that assesses wellbeing across five domains (positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, accomplishment). Seligman (2011) suggests that these five domains can be defined and measured as separate but correlated constructs. Maximizing brevity while still maintaining psychometric integrity, the scale includes acceptable internal reliability for each of the five domains and good overall model fit across over 30,000 participants worldwide. A particular benefit of the measure is that it assesses wellbeing across multiple domains. We suggest that in presenting individual or group results, the multidimensional structure of the measure should be retained, rather than condensing responses to a single flourishing score (see Figure 2 below for an example). Figure 2. Example way of presenting a respondent’s scores, which explicitly identifies multiple domains of wellbeing. P = positive emotion, E = engagement, R = positive relationships, M = meaning/purpose in life, A = accomplishment, N = negative emotion, H = physical health. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 22 A single score assumes that the underlying measure is unidimensional, but the PERMA-Profiler was specifically designed to be multidimensional in nature. Further, while a single overall flourishing score might provide a global indication of wellbeing, it obscures potentially meaningful variation amongst the domains. For instance, if a person scores particularly low in relationships, interventions might target strategies for building social connections (see Kern, Waters, Adler, & White, 2015; Kern, Waters, White, & Adler 2014 for further discussion of theoretical and practical benefits of a multidimensional approach). At this point we cannot recommend an ideal profile. Indeed, the measure is intended to be descriptive – not prescriptive – in nature. Different profiles may be more or less adaptive for different people at different times, depending on their personality, history, and social context. Future research should test downstream associations between different profiles and outcomes such as objective physical health, income, and education, as well as the moderating role of other factors such as age, culture, and life events. The PERMA-Profiler demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties across a large, diverse, international sample. Subsequent work should examine discriminate, predictive, and additional convergent validity, and item order might be further examined. In addition, sensitivity to change with intervention should be tested. Further, stability over even longer periods of time and variations across different cultures should be examined, taking into account response styles, cultural differences, proper translation of concepts, and judgment biases (Oishi & Schimmack, 2010). Developing a valid measure of psychological constructs is a long process – if not a lifetime pursuit – requiring multiple samples and refinements in both items and theory (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000). Although the PERMA-Profiler is not the only measure that captures the five PERMA domains, it is the only measure to date that focuses primarily on the PERMA domains while also addressing the desirability of including several items per feature, instead of just one or two (Huppert and So, 2013). Future research might examine whether the PERMA-Profiler or an alternative measure will prove to be the most appropriate within different contexts and applications. In conclusion, through an intensive process, we created a measure that at both content and analytical levels captures the five PERMA domains. The measure demonstrates acceptable reliability, cross-time stability, and evidence for convergent and divergent validity. The PERMA- Profiler provides another tool for the wellbeing measurement toolbox. Ultimately, we hope that this tool can help people better understand themselves, note their strengths and weaknesses, and find ways to more fully flourish in life. Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Felicia Huppert, founder of the University of Cambridge Well-being Institute and one of the world’s leading experts in wellbeing measurement, for her guidance and comments throughout the development process. We thank Rosie Hancock, MAPP, for her assistance and support in data collection and response management. We are also grateful to all the anonymous people who completed versions of the survey, provided feedback, and helped us develop, refine, and establish support for the measure. Author Note Support for this publication was provided by the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Positive Psychology, the University of Pennsylvania’s Positive Psychology Center, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s “Exploring Concepts of Positive Health" grant awarded to Martin E. P. Seligman. Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 23 Authors Julie Butler University of Pennsylvania Margaret L. Kern University of Melbourne & University of Pennsylvania margaret.kern@unimelb.edu.au Publishing Timeline Received 12 April 2016 Accepted 18 September 2016 Published 14 October 2016 References Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., & Croudace, T. J. (2009). An evaluation of the precision of measurement of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales in a population sample. Social Indicators Research, 97(3), 357-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9506-x Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., Wadsworth, M. E. J., & Croudace, T. J. (2006). Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(76). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-76 Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 379-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303 Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes (Eds.), Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences (pp. 1-34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665684 Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk as a subject recruitment tool for experimental research. http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/MT.pdf Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Boyle, P. A., Barnes, L. L., Buchman, A. S., & Bennett, D. A. (2009). Purpose in life is associated with mortality among community-dwelling older persons. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71(5), 574-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181a5a7c0 Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 Butler, J. (2011). Measuring facets of human flourishing: Developing the well-being theory questionnaire. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Norris, C. J., & Gollan, J. K. (2011). The evaluative space model. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., & Berntson, G. G. (2003). The anatomy of loneliness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 71-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01232 Carlson, M., Wilcox, R., Chou, C.-P., Change, M., Yang, F., Blanchard, J., …, & Clark, F. (2011). Psychometric properties of reverse-scored items on the CES-D in a sample of ethnically diverse older adults. Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 558-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022484 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9506-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-76 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665684 http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/MT.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181a5a7c0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022484 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 24 Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 Diener, E., & Chan, M. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective wellbeing contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Wellbeing, 3(1), 1-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758- 0854.2010.01045.x Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2012). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112(3), 497-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0076-y 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y Dunbar, M., Ford, G., Hunt, K., & Der, G. (2000). Question wording effects in the assessment of global self-esteem. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16(1), 13-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1015- 5759.16.1.13 Eaton, W. W., Muntaner, C., Smith, C., Tien, A., & Ybarra, M. (2004). Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and revision (CESD and CESD-R). In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (3rd ed., pp. 363-377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2014). The paradoxical effect of pursuing positive emotions: When and why wanting to be happy backfires. In. J. Gruber & J. T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion: Integrating the light sides and dark sides (pp. 363-381). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199926725.003.0020 Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring well-being for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1), 79-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15 Friedman, H. S., & Kern, M. L. (2014). Personality, well-being, and health. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 719-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115123 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.v4i1.1 Howell, R., Kern, M. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Health benefits: Meta-analytically determining the impact of well-being on objective health outcomes. Health Psychology Review, 1(1), 83-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437190701492486 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Huelsman, T. J., Nemanick, R. C. Jr., & Munz, D. C. (1998). Scale to measure four dimensions of dispositional mood: Positive energy, tiredness, negative activation, and relaxation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(5), 804-819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058005006 Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 1(2), 137-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x Huppert, F. A. (2014). The state of well-being science: Concepts, measures, interventions, and policies. In F. A. Huppert & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Interventions and policies to enhance well-being. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell. 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), 837-861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7 John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validity, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0076-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.16.1.13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.16.1.13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199926725.003.0020 http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115123 http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v4i1.1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437190701492486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058005006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 25 John, O. P., & Soto, C. J. (2007). The importance of being valid: Reliability and the process of construct validation. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 461-494). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Jolliffe, I.T. (2002). Principal components analysis. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. Kern, M. L., Waters, L., Adler, A., & White, M. (2015). A multidimensional approach to measuring wellbeing in students: Application of the PERMA framework. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 262-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962 Kern, M. L., Waters, L., White, M., & Adler, A. (2014). Assessing employee wellbeing in schools using a multifaceted approach: Associations with physical health, life satisfaction, and professional thriving. Psychology, 5(6), 500-513. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.56060 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3090197 Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 93- 109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1402_02 Little, B., Salmela-Aro, K., & Phillips, S. (2007). Personal project pursuit: Goals, action and human flourishing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Little, D., Linderberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 192-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.192 Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 Marsh, H. W. (1986). Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive- developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 37-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.22.1.37 Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 810-819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.70.4.810 Miller, A. (2008). A critique of positive psychology – or ‘the science of happiness’. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 591-608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00646.x Norrish, J. (2015). Positive education: The Geelong Grammar School journey. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702580.001.0001 Office for National Statistics (2011, December). Initial investigation into subjective well-being from the opinions survey. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_2 44488.pdf Oishi, S., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Culture and well-being: A new inquiry into the psychological wealth of nations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 463-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375561 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). OECD Guidelines on Measuring SubjectiveWell-being. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/statistics/Guidelines%20on%20Measuring%20Subjective%20Well-being.pdf Pawelski, J. O. (2013). Happiness and its opposites. In J. O. Pawelski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of happiness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0025 Revelle, W. (2015). Package ‘psych’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/psych.pdf Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(1), 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: Usual and successful. Science, 237(4811), 143-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3299702 Rusk, R. D., & Waters, L. (2015). A psycho-social system approach to well-being: Empirically deriving the five domains of positive functioning. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(2), 141-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.920409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.56060 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3090197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1402_02 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00646.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702580.001.0001 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_244488.pdf http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_244488.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375561 http://www.oecd.org/statistics/Guidelines%20on%20Measuring%20Subjective%20Well-being.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0025 https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/psych.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3299702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.920409 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 26 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000353263 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Love, G. D. (2004). Positive health: Connecting well-being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359(1449), 1383-1394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1521 Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471 Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York, NY: Free Press. Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 213-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167702612469015 Steger, M. F. (2012). Experiencing meaning in life: Optimal functioning at the nexus of spirituality, psychopathology, and wellbeing. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning (2nd ed., pp. 165–184). New York, NY: Routledge. Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(15), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 Su, R., Tay, L., & 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027 Taga, K. A. (2006). The measurement and health outcomes of social support. (Doctoral dissertation). Proquest (ID # 1273110621). Tay, L., Tan, K., Diener, E., & Gonzalez, E. (2012). Social relations, health behaviors, and health outcomes: A survey and synthesis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 5(1), 28-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12000 Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support: A review. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 189-214). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0009 Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219 Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalini, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39-61). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12350-003 Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology, 52(2), 69-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022511 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000353263 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471 http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167702612469015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12350-003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022511 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 27 Appendix 1. The PERMA item bank Domain Sub-domain Question Used Response Scale Source Positive Emotion General positive Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are? 0=extremely unhappy, 10=extremely happy ESS Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Positive 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Negative 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Good 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Bad 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Pleasant 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Unpleasant 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Happy 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Sad 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Afraid 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Joyful 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Angry 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Contented 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Anxious 0=never, 10=always ESS Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Cheerful 0=never, 10=always WEMWBS Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 28 Domain Sub-domain Question Used Response Scale Source Positive Emotion Recent positive During the past week, how often have you felt: Relaxed 0=never, 10=always WEMWBS Positive Emotion Recent negative During the past week, how often have you felt: Nervous 0=never, 10=always PANAS Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Positive 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Negative 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Good 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Bad 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Pleasant 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Unpleasant 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Happy 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Sad 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Afraid 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Joyful 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Angry 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Contented 0=never, 10=always SPANE Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Anxious 0=never, 10=always ESS Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Cheerful 0=never, 10=always WEMWBS Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 29 Domain Sub-domain Question Used Response Scale Source Positive Emotion General positive In general, how often do you feel: Relaxed 0=never, 10=always WEMWBS Positive Emotion General negative In general, how often do you feel: Nervous 0=never, 10=always PANAS Engagement Absorption How much of the time during the past week were you absorbed in what you were doing? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time ESS Engagement Absorption How much of the time do you become absorbed in what you are doing? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time ESS Engagement Absorption How much of the time do you lose track of time while doing something you enjoy? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time ESS Engagement Absorption How much of the time during the past week were you absorbed in something you enjoyed doing? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time ESS Engagement Absorption How much of the time do you do things that you find interesting or challenging? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time ESS Engagement Absorption In general, how often do you find that you become completely engrossed in something? 0=never, 10=always Flow Engagement Absorption To what extent do you become unaware of what is going on around you when engaged in activities that are important to you? 0=not at all, 10=completely Lab Engagement Effort How much effort do you generally devote to the things that are important to you? 0=none at all, 10=complete Engagement Engagement Effort How much attention do you generally focus on the things that are important to you? 0=none at all, 10=complete Engagement Engagement Effort How much energy do you generally give to the things that are important to you? 0=none at all, 10=complete Engagement Engagement Effort How challenging for you are the activities you are involved in? 0=not at all, 10=extremely Lab Engagement Effort In general, how often do you exert your full effort on the activities you engage in? 0=never, 10=always Lab Engagement Interest How much of the time are you really interested in what you are doing? 0=none of the time, 10= all of the time AHI Engagement Interest How much of the time during the past week have you felt bored? 0=none of the time, 10= all of the time ESS Engagement Interest How engaged and interested are you in your daily activities? 0=not at all, 10=extremely FS Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 30 Domain Sub-domain Question Used Response Scale Source Engagement Interest During the past week, to what extent did you feel particularly excited or interested in something? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ABS Engagement Interest In general, to what extent do you feel particularly excited or interested in things? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ABS Engagement Interest To what extent do you love learning new things? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ESS Engagement Involvement During the past week, to what extent have you been managing to keep yourself busy and occupied? 0=not at all, 10=extremely GHQ-30 Engagement Involvement To what extent would you describe yourself as committed and involved? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal OHI Engagement Involvement How involved are you in activities that are important to you? 0=not at all,10=extremely Lab Engagement Involvement In general, how often do you participate in activities that are important to you? 0=never, 10=always Lab Engagement Involvement How much of the time do you spend doing things you enjoy? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time Lab Relationships Giving In general, to what extent are you a giving person? 0=not at all, 10=extremely SPWB Relationships Giving To what extent are you willing to give of your time to others in need? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal SPWB Relationships Giving How satisfied are you with your ability to provide support for others? 0=extremely dissatisfied, 10=extremely satisfied WHO-QOL 100 Relationships Giving To what extent do you actively contribute to the happiness and wellbeing of others? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal FS Relationships Giving To what extent do you provide help and support to others when they need it? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ESS Relationships Embedded How well do you generally get on with people around you? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ONS Relationships Embedded How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? 0=extremely dissatisfied, 10=extremely satisfied WHO-QOL 100 Relationships Embedded In general, how often do you meet or talk with family and friends? 0=never, 10=always ISEL Relationships Embedded In general, to what extent has maintaining close relationships been difficult for you? 0=not at all, 10=extremely SPWB Relationships Embedded How much of the time during the past week have you been feeling close to other people? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time WEMWBS Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 31 Domain Sub-domain Question Used Response Scale Source Relationships Embedded How many close friends do you have? Please also include members of your family you consider to be close friends. Text box, type in the number ESS Relationships Perceived To what extent have you been feeling loved? 0=not at all, 10=completely WEMWBS Relationships Perceived To what extent do you feel that there are people in your life who really care about you? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ESS Relationships Perceived To what extent do you feel appreciated by the people you know? 0=not at all, 10=completely ONS Relationships Perceived To what extent do you feel that people treat you with respect? 0=not at all, 10=completely ONS Relationships Perceived How lonely do you feel in your daily life? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ONS Relationships Perceived To what extent do you feel that there is no one with whom you can share your most private worries and fears? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ISEL Relationships Perceived To what extent do you feel you have someone with whom you can discuss intimate and personal matters? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ESS Relationships Perceived How supportive and rewarding are your social relationships? 0=not at all, 10=extremely FS Relationships Perceived To what extent do you receive help and support from others when you need it? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ESS Relationships Perceived How satisfied are you with the support that you get from others? 0=extremely dissatisfied, 10=extremely satisfied WHO-QOL 100 Meaning Worth In general, to what extent do your daily activities seem trivial and unimportant? 0=not at all, 10=extremely SPWB Meaning Worth In general, to what extent do you feel what you do in your life is valuable and worthwhile? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ESS Meaning Worth In general, to what extent do you feel that what you do in your daily activities is valuable and worthwhile? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ESS Meaning Worth How useful a role do you feel you play in the world around you? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ONS Meaning Worth How much of the time during the past week have you been feeling useful? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time WEMWBS Meaning Transcendent Has your life had a very clear goal or purpose? 0=no clear goal or purpose, 10=a very clear goal or purpose SOC Meaning Transcendent During the past week, to what extent have you been feeling inspired? 0=not at all, 10=extremely PANAS Meaning Transcendent To what extent do you have a sense of purpose in what you do? 0=not at all, 10=completely GAT Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 32 Domain Sub-domain Question Used Response Scale Source Meaning Transcendent To what extent do you live your life with purpose? 0=not at all, 10=completely Lab Meaning Transcendent In general, to what extent do you lead a purposeful and meaningful life? 0=not at all, 10=extremely FS Meaning Direction To what extent do you live in accordance with your values and beliefs? 0=not at all, 10=completely Lab Meaning Direction To what extent do you generally feel you have a sense of direction in your life? 0=none at all, 10=complete ONS Meaning Direction To what extent do you plan and prepare for the future? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ESS Meaning Direction To what extent do you like planning and preparing for the future? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal ESS Meaning Direction To what extent do you have personal projects or goals that you feel it is important for you to pursue? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal Lab Accomplishment Goals How easy is it for you to stick to your aims? 0=not at all, 10=extremely GSE Accomplishment Goals How much of the time do you feel you are making progress towards accomplishing your goals? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time GSE Accomplishment Goals To what extent do you accomplish the things you set out to do in your daily activities? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal SPWB Accomplishment Goals How much of the time do you achieve the important goals you have set for yourself? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time Lab Accomplishment Goals How much of the time are you successful in achieving the goals you set for yourself? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time Lab Accomplishment Efficacy To what extent can you usually handle whatever comes your way? 0=handle extremely poorly, 10=handle extremely well GSE Accomplishment Efficacy How much of the time are you able to handle your responsibilities? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time SPWB Accomplishment Efficacy In general, to what extent do you feel able to deal with important problems in your life? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ONS Accomplishment Efficacy In your daily life, how much opportunity do you feel you have to show how capable you are? 0=no opportunity at all, 10=a great deal of opportunity ONS Accomplishment Efficacy To what extent do you feel you can do just about anything you really set your mind to? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal SMS Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 33 Domain Sub-domain Question Used Response Scale Source Accomplishment Efficacy In general, to what extent are you competent and capable in the activities that are important to you? 0=not at all, 10=extremely FS Accomplishment Subjective During the past week, to what extent did you feel pleased about having accomplished something? 0=not at all, 10=extremely ABS Accomplishment Subjective How much of the time do you feel a sense of accomplishment from what you do? 0=none of the time, 10=all of the time ESS Accomplishment Subjective To what extent do you feel a sense of accomplishment from the things you do in your daily life? 0=none at all, 10=complete ONS Accomplishment Subjective To what extent do you feel a sense of accomplishment from the things you have achieved in your life up until now? 0=none at all, 10=complete Lab Accomplishment Subjective In general, to what extent do you feel proud of what you have achieved? 0=not at all, 10=extremely PANAS Accomplishment Subjective To what extent do you feel disappointed about your achievements in life? 0=not at all, 10=a great deal SPWB Note. ABS = Affect Balance Scale (Bradburn, 1969); AHI = Authentic Happiness Inventory (Seligman, 2002); Engagement = Engagement (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010); ESS = European Social Survey (Huppert, et al., 2009); Flow = Flow Questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988); FS = Flourishing Scale (Diener, et. al., 2010); GAT = Global Assessment Tool (Peterson, Park & Castro, 2011); GHQ-30 = General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972); GSE = Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995); ISEL = Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983); Lab = Lab Generated Questions; OHI = Oxford Happiness Inventory (Hills & Argyle, 2001); ONS = UK Office for National Statistics Experimental Opinion Survey Questions (Office for National Statistics, 2011); PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988): SMS = Self-Mastery Scale (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978); SOC = Sense of Coherence (Antonovsky, 1987); SPANE = Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (Diener, et. al., 2010); SPWB = Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995); WEMWBS = Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (Stewart-Brown, et al., 2009); and WHO- QOL 100 = World Health Organization Quality of Life (Power, et al., 1998). Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 34 Appendix 1 References Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco, CA: Joseey-Bass. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 99-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb02325.x Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511621956 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London, England: Oxford University Press. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1357-1364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00229-4 Huppert, F. A., Marks, N., Clark, A., Siegrist, J., Stutzer, A., Vitterso, J., & Wahrendorf, M. (2009). Measuring well-being across Europe: Description of the ESS Well-being Module and preliminary findings. Social Indicators Research, 91(3), 301-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9346-0 Office for National Statistics (2011, December). Initial investigation into subjective well-being from the opinions survey. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_2 44488.pdf Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). Structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136319 Peterson, C., Park, N., & Castro, C. A. (2011). Assessment for the U.S. Army Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program: The Global Assessment Tool. American Psychologist, 66(1), 10-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021658 Power, M., Kuyken, W., Orley, J., Herrman, H., Schofield, H., Murphy, B., . . . Sartorius, N. (1998). The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine, 46, 1569-1585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00009-4 Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio, causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, England: Nfer-Nelson. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, NY: Free Press. Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(15), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb02325.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511621956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869%2800%2900229-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9346-0 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_244488.pdf http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_244488.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536%2898%2900009-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 35 Appendix 2. PERMA correlations with other variables by sample N Mean SD 0Min 0Max P E R M A Overall NE H Sample 1a (Development sample subset 1) Positive emotion 1824 06.56 01.95 00.00 010.00 Engagement 1820 07.44 01.86 00.00 010.00 .59** Relationships 1824 06.74 02.31 00.00 010.00 .61** .49** Meaning 1820 06.94 02.45 00.00 010.00 .71** .68** .65** Accomplishment 1820 07.15 01.90 00.00 010.00 .62** .64** .55** .72** Overall wellbeing 1837 06.94 01.78 00.00 010.00 .84** .79** .81** .91** .83** Negative emotion 1818 03.97 02.11 00.00 010.00 -.51** -.33** -.43** -.47** -.44** -.53** Physical health a 1757 03.50 00.99 01.00 005.00 .37** .30** .34** .35** .42** .43** -.31** Loneliness b 1804 04.37 03.31 00.00 010.00 -.39** -.29** -.58** -.43** -.37** -.51** .42** -.24** Depression c 1768 15.41 05.75 08.00 032.00 -.65** -.51** -.65** -.66** -.57** -.74** .62** -.42** Life satisfaction d 1787 22.74 07.86 05.00 035.00 .65** .51** .68** .72** .63** .78** -.50** .42** Flourishing e 1755 43.25 09.35 11.00 056.00 .65** .59** .67** .78** .67** .81** -.48** .38** WEMWBS f 1740 25.12 05.16 07.00 035.00 .67** .59** .67** .73** .65** .80** -.57** .43** PAC-10 g 1720 75.77 18.88 10.00 110.00 .67** .60** .65** .77** .66** .81** -.51** .40** Sample 1b (Development sample subset 2) Positive emotion 1828 06.56 01.95 0.00 010.00 Engagement 1826 07.45 01.82 0.00 010.00 .59** Relationships 1830 06.80 02.32 0.00 010.00 .61** .52** Meaning 1828 06.97 02.45 0.00 010.00 .69** .68** .64** Accomplishment 1824 07.11 01.98 0.00 010.00 .60** .64** .57** .74** Overall wellbeing 1845 06.95 01.79 0.00 010.00 .83** .80** .81** .90** .84** Negative emotion 1824 03.89 02.05 0.00 010.00 -.53** -.34** -.42** -.48** -.45** -.54** Physical health a 1776 03.48 00.99 1.00 005.00 .35** .30** .33** .38** .42** .43** -.31** Loneliness b 1814 04.28 03.29 0.00 010.00 -.43** -.32** -.56** -.45** -.38** -.52** .42** -.25** Depression c 1760 15.22 05.66 8.00 032.00 -.65** -.52** -.63** -.67** -.60** -.75** .61** -.41** Life satisfaction d 1780 22.94 07.76 5.00 035.00 .66** .54** .69** .74** .65** .80** -.49** .42** Flourishing e 1764 43.55 09.56 8.00 056.00 .66** .63** .65** .79** .68** .82** -.46** .39** WEMWBS f 1757 25.17 05.26 7.00 035.00 .67** .62** .68** .74** .67** .81** -.56** .42** PAC-10 g 1738 75.87 18.95 10.00 110.00 .64** .64** .64** .75** .67** .80** -.49** .40** Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 36 N Mean SD 0Min 0Max P E R M A Overall NE H Sample 2 (Validation sample) Positive emotion 2938 06.51 02.00 0.00 010.00 Engagement 2946 07.36 01.92 0.00 010.00 .60** Relationships 2954 06.66 02.39 0.00 010.00 .61** .51** Meaning 2948 06.83 02.50 0.00 010.00 .68** .69** .63** Accomplishment 2947 07.06 02.01 0.00 010.00 .60** .66** .55** .73** Overall wellbeing 2976 06.85 01.84 0.25 010.00 .84** .81** .80** .90** .84** Negative emotion 2932 03.99 02.07 0.00 010.00 -.51** -.37** -.42** -.47** -.43** -.53** Physical health a 2855 03.45 01.01 1.00 005.00 .36** .33** .34** .38** .41** .44** -.27** Loneliness b 2919 04.47 03.33 0.00 010.00 -.43** -.32** -.57** -.44** -.36** -.52** .41** -.24** Depression c 2824 15.70 05.82 8.00 032.00 -.66** -.56** -.65** -.67** -.60** -.76** 605** -.42** Life satisfaction d 2864 22.57 07.82 5.00 035.00 .66** .55** .67** .73** .66** .79** -.50** .43** Flourishing e 2833 43.16 09.32 8.00 056.00 .69** .68** .69** .83** .73** .87** -.51** .42** WEMWBS f 2820 24.79 05.21 7.00 035.00 .66** .62** .66** .73** .68** .81** -.57** .43** PAC-10 g 2787 74.80 19.49 10.00 110.00 .63** .64** .63** .74** .65** .80** -.52** .41** Sample 3 (Mturk sample) Positive emotion 405 06.78 01.80 01.00 010.00 Engagement 408 06.92 01.80 00.67 010.00 .52** Relationships 408 07.08 02.09 00.00 010.00 .64** .63** Meaning 408 07.00 02.06 00.00 010.00 .65** .71** .75** Accomplishment 408 06.85 01.93 00.00 010.00 .62** .70** .72** .82** Overall wellbeing 408 06.91 01.67 01.25 010.00 .79** .81** .88** .92** .90** Negative emotion 405 04.39 02.17 00.00 009.67 -.20** -.14** -.27** -.20** -.29** -.26** Physical health a 403 03.40 00.86 01.00 005.00 .39** .30** .41** .37** .40** .44** -.17** Loneliness b 405 05.29 03.02 00.00 010.00 -.12* -0.03 -.19** -.10* -.16** -.15** .39** -.09 Depression c 381 16.82 05.26 08.00 032.00 -.49** -.36** -.56** -.51** -.58** -.59** .50** -.40** Life satisfaction d 399 23.76 06.74 05.00 035.00 .61** .46** .72** .69** .68** .75** -.26** .50** Flourishing e 387 42.33 08.31 17.00 056.00 .66** .69** .79** .81** .77** .87** -.32** .46** WEMWBS f 379 25.70 04.85 10.00 035.00 .62** .54** .66** .68** .68** .75** -.30** .45** PAC-10 g 395 75.15 17.72 26.00 110.00 .58** .50** .69** .71** .67** .75** -.34** .49** Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 37 N Mean SD 0Min 0Max P E R M A Overall NE H Sample 4 (Brief measure test set) Positive emotion 4717 06.43 01.97 00.00 010.00 Engagement 4717 06.92 01.76 00.00 010.00 .66** Relationships 4717 06.63 02.20 00.00 010.00 .69** .48** Meaning 4717 06.77 02.20 00.00 010.00 .78** .60** .61** Accomplishment 4717 06.78 01.80 00.00 010.00 .70** .56** .54** .78** Overall wellbeing 4717 06.70 01.67 00.00 010.00 .91** .76** .80** .90** .84** Negative emotion 4717 04.19 02.00 00.00 010.00 -.58** -.33** -.46** -.46** -.44** -.55** Physical health h 4715 07.02 02.09 00.00 010.00 .49** .34** .40** .44** .46** .51** -.32** Loneliness 4702 04.00 02.86 00.00 010.00 -.45** -.29** -.50** -.39** -.32** -.47** .50** -.22** Sample 5 (Main norming set) Positive emotion 23692 06.81 01.95 00.00 010.00 Engagement 23692 07.38 01.67 00.00 010.00 .64** Relationships 23692 06.98 02.14 00.00 010.00 .68** .46** Meaning 23692 07.16 02.16 00.00 010.00 .75** .60** .60** Accomplishment 23692 07.39 01.74 00.00 010.00 .68** .57** .54** .79** Overall wellbeing 23692 07.14 01.64 00.00 010.00 .90** .76** .80** .89** .84** Negative emotion 23692 04.51 02.08 00.00 010.00 -.51** -.27** -.39** -.41** -.36** -.47** Physical health h 23692 06.96 02.20 00.00 010.00 .48** .32** .40** .43** .46** .50** -.31** Loneliness b 23692 04.13 03.04 00.00 010.00 -.44** -.24** -.50** -.38** -.32** -.46** .55** -.24** Sample 6 (Compassion study) Positive emotion 285 07.12 01.48 01.33 010.00 Engagement 282 07.64 01.45 02.33 010.00 .53** Relationships 285 07.53 01.77 01.33 010.00 .65** .33** Meaning 279 07.93 01.76 01.00 010.00 .60** .50** .56** Accomplishment 282 07.35 01.47 01.67 010.00 .56** .48** .43** .57** Overall wellbeing 285 07.50 01.27 01.81 009.81 .85** .70** .79** .84** .75** Political orientation i 245 02.31 01.49 01.00 007.00 -.09 -.15* -.12 -.16* .07 -.12 Identifies as an activist j 285 36.96 13.39 08.00 056.00 .009 .18** -.04 .20** .01 .07 Life satisfaction d 285 24.21 06.54 05.00 035.00 .63** .36** .60** .50** .50** .67** Self-compassion k 277 03.13 00.62 01.42 004.58 .49** .29** .45** .45** .35** .52** Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 38 N Mean SD 0Min 0Max P E R M A Overall NE H Hope l 265 51.41 07.84 11.00 064.00 .58** .55** .41** .64** .65** .72** Compassion m 264 05.67 01.00 02.60 007.00 .13* .25** .02 .19** .15* .17** Activist orientation n 256 02.13 00.86 01.00 004.50 -.16* .004 -.12 -.07 -.20** -.14* Burnout o 195 02.15 00.42 01.00 003.56 -.42** -.43** -.34** -.46** -.57** -.56** Self-determination p 250 02.20 00.66 01.00 004.40 -.53** -.35** -.47** -.54** -.46** -.60** Sample 7 (Online organization employees) Positive emotion 294 07.26 01.52 01.67 010.00 Engagement 294 07.84 01.26 03.33 010.00 .57** Relationships 289 07.75 01.61 01.00 010.00 .66** .46** Meaning 288 07.63 01.64 00.00 010.00 .63** .49** .60** Accomplishment 294 07.41 01.36 03.00 010.00 .57** .65** .48** .51** Overall wellbeing 294 07.59 01.18 03.31 010.00 .86** .76** .80** .82** .77** Work performance q 293 08.09 01.13 03.00 010.00 .14* .25** .20** .21** .19** .24** Organization practices r 294 07.99 01.34 02.25 010.00 .33** .38** .34** .24** .38** .41** Social capital s 293 07.63 01.50 03.25 010.00 .37** .26** .35** .22** .26** .37** Sample 8 (Values study) Positive emotion 166 006.27 01.80 01.00 009.67 Engagement 166 006.95 01.69 01.67 010.00 .61** Relationships 166 006.85 02.02 00.67 010.00 .69** .40** Meaning 166 006.51 02.24 00.33 010.00 .67** .58** .48** Accomplishment 166 06.82 01.65 01.33 009.67 .63** .48** .52** .71** Overall wellbeing 166 06.67 01.54 01.50 009.44 .89** .73** .77** .85** .81** Negative emotion 166 04.41 01.84 00.33 008.67 -.54** -.22** -.44** -.33** -.35** -.47** Physical health h 166 06.57 02.07 00.00 010.00 .44** .22** .39** .37** .52** .48** -.41** Loneliness b 166 04.05 02.85 00.00 010.00 -.55** -.31** -.63** -.44** -.43** -.59** .54** -.30** Values t 163 77.14 15.26 02.00 111.00 .20** .18* .13 .30** .20** .26** -.15 .23** Sample 9 (Harvard University students) Positive emotion 184 06.67 01.73 02.00 010.00 Engagement 184 07.25 01.60 01.33 010.00 .54** Relationships 184 07.11 02.06 01.00 010.00 .55** .22** Meaning 184 07.12 01.70 01.67 010.00 .70** .49** .48** Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 39 N Mean SD 0Min 0Max P E R M A Overall NE H Accomplishment 184 07.01 01.52 02.00 010.00 .62** .39** .45** .71** Overall wellbeing 184 07.03 01.34 03.07 009.73 .87** .66** .72** .86** .79** Negative emotion 184 04.33 01.86 00.33 009.00 -.48** -.17* -.20** -.35** -.33** -.39** Physical health h 184 07.09 02.06 00.33 010.00 .54** .38** .26** .47** .45** .53** -.26** Loneliness b 184 04.77 02.84 00.00 010.00 -.44** -.21** -.45** -.36** -.25** -.45** .45** -.18** Hope u 182 05.46 00.96 02.60 007.00 .64** .48** .44** .67** .69** .74** -.46** .41** Self-efficacy v 181 05.76 00.88 02.50 007.00 .53** .37** .33** .53** .60** .59** -.43** .39** Gratitude w 181 06.16 00.84 03.00 007.00 .39** .09 .55** .22** .24** .40** -.30** .16* Perceived stress x 179 03.23 01.23 01.17 007.00 -.45** -.20** -.35** -.39** -.43** -.47** .58** -.30** Depression y 184 02.68 01.96 01.00 009.50 -.35** -.12 -.38** -.37** -.31** -.40** .57** -.18* Anxiety y 184 02.84 01.34 01.00 006.50 -.44** -.21** -.30** -.38** -.39** -.44** .66** -.25** Fatigue y 181 03.35 01.40 01.00 007.00 -.45** -.26** -.27** -.40** -.38** -.45** .53** -.58** Life satisfaction z 176 06.65 01.84 01.00 010.00 .68** .45** .55** .65** .70** .77** -.43** .39** Sample 10 (Positive intervention study) Positive emotion 1846 05.83 02.08 00.00 010.00 Engagement 1846 06.63 01.87 00.00 010.00 .67** Relationships 1825 06.39 02.23 00.00 010.00 .69** .46** Meaning 1825 06.34 02.28 00.00 010.00 .77** .64** .61** Accomplishment 1846 06.24 01.90 00.33 010.00 .68** .59** .50** .73** Overall wellbeing 1846 06.28 01.75 00.20 010.00 .91** .79** .79** .90** .83** Negative emotion 1845 04.84 01.96 00.67 010.00 -.56** -.31** -.40** -.43** -.38** -.50** Physical health h 1844 06.55 02.16 00.00 010.00 .45** .29** .34** .40** .43** .45** -.31** Loneliness b 1825 04.94 02.92 00.00 010.00 -.46** -.28** -.46** -.37** -.31** -.45** .50** -.19** Hope u 1778 04.83 01.27 01.00 007.00 .67** .57** .46** .69** .70** .73** -.45** .36** Self-efficacy v 1724 05.29 01.14 01.00 007.00 .60** .52** .41** .61** .65** .66** -.44** .36** Gratitude w 1738 05.70 01.08 01.00 007.00 .60** .45** .55** .55** .47** .62** -.46** .30** Perceived stress x 1701 03.64 01.38 01.00 007.00 -.59** -.36** -.45** -.47** -.49** -.56** .68** -.37** Depression y 1790 03.40 02.21 01.00 010.00 -.64** -.41** -.50** -.57** -.51** -.63** .59** -.33** Anxiety y 1800 03.17 01.37 01.00 007.00 -.54** -.35** -.36** -.43** -.45** -.51** .68** -.29** Fatigue y 1738 03.64 01.45 01.00 007.00 -.42** -.30** -.27** -.31** -.37** -.40** .46** -.46** Life satisfaction z 1637 05.78 02.25 00.00 010.00 .79** .54** .67** .71** .66** .80** -.54** .44** Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 40 N Mean SD 0Min 0Max P E R M A Overall NE H Sample 11 (William & Mary University sample) Positive emotion 781 06.30 01.63 00.00 010.00 Engagement 781 06.55 01.43 01.67 010.00 .56** Relationships 782 06.74 01.85 00.33 010.00 .65** .48** Meaning 780 06.77 02.00 00.00 010.00 .73** .58** .61** Accomplishment 782 06.80 01.56 00.00 010.00 .63** .49** .56** .71** Overall wellbeing 782 06.64 01.41 01.06 009.63 .87** .72** .81** .89** .82** Negative emotion 782 04.02 01.68 00.00 009.00 -.63** -.34** -.42** -.53** -.48** -.59** Loneliness b 762 04.18 02.42 00.00 010.00 -.52** -.34** -.58** -.46** -.37** -.57** .54** Note. P = positive emotion, E = engagement, R = relationship, M = meaning, A = accomplishment, Overall = overall wellbeing, NE = negative emotion, H = physical health. a Four physical health items adapted from the Short-Form 36 (Ware & Sherbourne) physical function subscale; b single item (“How lonely do you feel in your daily life?”); c Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D, Radloff, 1977); d Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985); e Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010); f Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS, Stewart-Brown et al., 2009); g the PAC-10 (Personal Action Constructs) rating scales (Little, Salmela- Aro, & Phillips, 2007); h final three health items included in the 23-item PERMA-Profiler measure; i single item on political orientation (1 = liberal, 7 = conservative); j Activist Identity Scale (Klar & Klassar, 2009); k Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003); l 12-item Adult Hope Scale (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991); m Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale (Hwang, Plante, & Lackey, 2008); n Activist Orientation Scale (Corning & Myers, 2002); o Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997); p Self-determination Scale (Sheldon & Deci, 1996); q single item self-rating on overall work performance (0 = low, 10 = high); r organizational practices subscale from the Organizational Virtuousness Scale (Cameron, Bright, & Caza, 2004); s four self-rated items (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree: I feel a sense of belonging at work; I socialize with my co-workers outside of work; I can trust and depend on my co-workers; I have positive feelings towards my co-workers); t average self-ratings across 13 values (work, time balance, education, achievement, material wealth, health, good time, helping others, security, nature, family, spirituality, other) adapted from Schwartz (2012); u 8-item Hope Scale (Snyder, 1995); v General Self-efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001); w Gratitude Questionnaire (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002); x Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983); y PROMIS short-form scales (Pilkonis et al., 2011); z average of two self-ratings on overall life satisfaction (Cantril’s Ladder and “Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?”). Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 41 Appendix 2 References Cameron, K., Bright., D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260209 Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001).Validation of a new General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004 Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136404 Corning, A., & Myers, D. (2002). Individual orientation towards engagement in social action. Political Psychology, 23(4), 702-739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00304 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. http://dx.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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y Hwang, J. Y., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr's Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychology, 56(4), 421- 428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2 Klar, M., & Kasser, T. (2009). Some benefits of being an activist: Measuring activism and its role in psychological well-being. Political Psychology, 30(5), 755-777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9221.2009.00724.x Little, B., Salmela-Aro, K., & Phillips, S. (2007). Personal project pursuit: Goals, action and human flourishing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory. (3rd ed.). In C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (pp. 191-218). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112 Neff, K. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027 Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS™): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411667 Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306 Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 Sheldon, K., & Deci, E. (1996). The self-determination scale. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Snyder, C. R. (1995) Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73(3), 355-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01764.x Snyder, C. R., Irving, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1991). In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Hope and health. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(15), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136404 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00724.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00724.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411667 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306 http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01764.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 42 Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473-483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650- 199206000-00002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 43 Appendix 3. PERMA-profiler norms N Mean Median SD Min 25th 50th 75th Max Full Sample Positive emotion 31965 6.69 7.00 1.97 0.00 5.67 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 31962 7.25 7.67 1.71 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Relationships 31940 6.90 7.33 2.15 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 31931 7.06 7.67 2.17 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 31963 7.21 7.67 1.78 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 31966 7.02 7.38 1.66 0.00 6.13 7.38 8.25 10.00 Negative emotion 31386 4.46 4.33 2.06 0.00 3.00 4.33 6.00 10.00 Physical health 30601 6.94 7.33 2.18 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Gender: Male Positive emotion 17752 6.79 7.33 1.92 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Engagement 17752 7.32 7.67 1.67 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 17751 7.00 7.33 2.12 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 17746 7.13 7.67 2.12 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 17752 7.35 7.67 1.72 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 17753 7.11 7.50 1.61 0.00 6.25 7.50 8.31 10.00 Negative emotion 17517 4.55 4.67 2.05 0.00 3.00 4.67 6.00 10.00 Physical health 17229 6.89 7.33 2.21 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Gender: Female Positive emotion 13653 6.57 7.00 2.01 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 13650 7.17 7.33 1.73 0.00 6.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Relationships 13650 6.78 7.33 2.17 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 13646 6.98 7.67 2.23 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 13651 7.08 7.33 1.82 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 13653 6.91 7.27 1.69 0.00 5.94 7.27 8.13 10.00 Negative emotion 13314 4.34 4.33 2.05 0.00 2.67 4.33 6.00 10.00 Physical health 12821 7.03 7.67 2.14 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Gender: Unknown Positive emotion 557 6.21 6.33 2.02 0.00 5.00 6.33 8.00 10.00 Engagement 557 6.76 7.00 1.86 1.50 5.50 7.00 8.00 10.00 Relationships 536 6.48 7.00 2.24 0.00 5.00 7.00 8.25 10.00 Meaning 536 6.48 7.00 2.18 0.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 Accomplishment 557 6.35 6.50 1.94 0.00 5.00 6.50 8.00 10.00 Overall wellbeing 557 6.45 6.60 1.74 1.25 5.25 6.60 7.81 10.00 Negative emotion 555 4.90 5.00 2.13 0.00 3.33 5.00 6.50 10.00 Physical health 551 6.72 7.00 2.15 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.33 10.00 Age: Under 18 Positive emotion 1500 6.85 7.33 1.83 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Engagement 1500 7.54 7.67 1.49 0.00 6.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 1500 6.84 7.33 2.02 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 1500 6.79 7.33 2.07 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Accomplishment 1500 7.02 7.33 1.77 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 1500 7.01 7.31 1.53 0.00 6.08 7.31 8.13 10.00 Negative emotion 1500 4.98 5.00 2.08 0.00 3.33 5.00 6.67 10.00 Physical health 1500 6.95 7.33 2.21 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Age: 18-24 Positive emotion 8875 6.85 7.00 1.77 0.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 8875 7.33 7.67 1.52 0.00 6.67 7.67 8.33 10.00 Relationships 8876 7.05 7.33 2.00 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.67 10.00 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 44 N Mean Median SD Min 25th 50th 75th Max Meaning 8874 7.11 7.67 1.98 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 8876 7.26 7.67 1.67 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 8876 7.12 7.38 1.48 0.00 6.31 7.38 8.19 10.00 Negative emotion 8799 4.66 4.67 1.97 0.00 3.33 4.67 6.00 10.00 Physical health 8018 6.88 7.33 2.09 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Age 25-34 Positive emotion 6530 6.58 7.00 1.95 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 6528 7.11 7.33 1.75 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Relationships 6526 6.97 7.33 2.09 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 6521 6.95 7.33 2.21 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 6528 7.13 7.67 1.82 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 6530 6.94 7.31 1.66 0.13 6.00 7.31 8.13 10.00 Negative emotion 6223 4.60 4.67 2.03 0.00 3.00 4.67 6.00 10.00 Physical health 6223 6.80 7.33 2.19 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Age 35-44 Positive emotion 5424 6.54 7.00 2.06 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 5424 7.14 7.67 1.79 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Relationships 5424 6.75 7.33 2.26 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 5423 6.96 7.67 2.27 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 5424 7.15 7.67 1.83 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 5424 6.90 7.27 1.74 0.00 5.88 7.27 8.19 10.00 Negative emotion 5363 4.43 4.33 2.06 0.00 2.67 4.33 6.00 10.00 Physical health 5363 6.88 7.33 2.22 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Age 45-54 Positive emotion 4724 6.63 7.33 2.14 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Engagement 4724 7.22 7.67 1.84 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 4723 6.78 7.33 2.28 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 4723 7.10 7.67 2.28 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 4724 7.27 7.67 1.82 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 4724 6.99 7.44 1.79 0.00 5.94 7.44 8.31 10.00 Negative emotion 4661 4.16 4.00 2.07 0.00 2.33 4.00 5.67 10.00 Physical health 4661 7.05 7.67 2.24 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Age 55-64 Positive emotion 2699 6.72 7.33 2.13 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Engagement 2698 7.39 7.67 1.77 0.00 6.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 2699 6.84 7.33 2.28 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 2698 7.33 8.00 2.25 0.00 6.33 8.00 9.00 10.00 Accomplishment 2698 7.42 8.00 1.77 0.00 6.67 8.00 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 2699 7.13 7.63 1.76 0.00 6.19 7.63 8.44 10.00 Negative emotion 2665 3.92 3.67 2.08 0.00 2.00 3.67 5.33 10.00 Physical health 2665 7.24 8.00 2.18 0.00 6.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Age 65+ Positive emotion 870 6.91 7.33 2.08 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Engagement 870 7.58 8.00 1.78 0.00 6.67 8.00 9.00 10.00 Relationships 870 7.03 7.67 2.25 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Meaning 870 7.48 8.17 2.28 0.00 6.67 8.17 9.00 10.00 Accomplishment 870 7.56 8.00 1.72 0.00 6.67 8.00 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 870 7.30 7.81 1.77 0.00 6.44 7.81 8.63 9.94 Negative emotion 834 3.60 3.33 2.04 0.00 1.67 3.33 5.00 10.00 Physical health 834 7.51 8.00 2.15 0.33 6.33 8.00 9.00 10.00 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 45 N Mean Median SD Min 25th 50th 75th Max Age: Unknown Positive emotion 1343 6.63 7.00 1.92 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 1343 7.12 7.33 1.75 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Relationships 1322 6.76 7.00 2.17 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.33 10.00 Meaning 1322 6.93 7.33 2.12 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.50 10.00 Accomplishment 1343 6.94 7.33 1.86 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 1343 6.87 7.22 1.66 0.00 5.83 7.22 8.11 10.00 Negative emotion 1341 4.76 4.67 2.10 0.00 3.33 4.67 6.33 10.00 Physical health 1337 6.91 7.33 2.14 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 United States Positive emotion 12296 6.83 7.33 1.98 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Engagement 12293 7.45 7.67 1.68 0.00 6.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 12296 7.02 7.67 2.17 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Meaning 12290 7.28 8.00 2.19 0.00 6.33 8.00 9.00 10.00 Accomplishment 12293 7.50 8.00 1.74 0.00 6.67 8.00 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 12296 7.21 7.63 1.66 0.00 6.38 7.63 8.42 10.00 Negative emotion 12011 4.48 4.33 2.11 0.00 3.00 4.33 6.00 10.00 Physical health 12011 6.95 7.67 2.23 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 United Kingdom Positive emotion 1479 6.57 7.00 1.99 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 1479 7.23 7.67 1.73 0.67 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Relationships 1479 6.82 7.33 2.16 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 1479 6.90 7.33 2.22 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 1479 7.13 7.67 1.75 0.33 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 1479 6.92 7.25 1.67 0.69 6.06 7.25 8.13 10.00 Negative emotion 1479 4.49 4.67 2.01 0.00 3.00 4.67 6.00 10.00 Physical health 1479 6.81 7.33 2.25 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.67 10.00 Canada Positive emotion 1536 6.69 7.00 1.97 0.00 5.67 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 1536 7.39 7.67 1.69 0.00 6.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 1536 6.90 7.33 2.13 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Meaning 1536 6.95 7.33 2.19 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 1536 7.27 7.67 1.76 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 1536 7.03 7.44 1.65 0.00 6.13 7.44 8.25 10.00 Negative emotion 1536 4.57 4.67 1.99 0.00 3.00 4.67 6.00 10.00 Physical health 1536 6.84 7.33 2.23 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.67 10.00 Australia/New Zealand Positive emotion 2593 6.68 7.00 1.94 0.00 5.67 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 2593 7.29 7.67 1.68 0.67 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Relationships 2593 6.90 7.33 2.12 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 2593 7.05 7.67 2.12 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 2593 7.26 7.67 1.74 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 2593 7.03 7.44 1.62 0.69 6.19 7.44 8.19 10.00 Negative emotion 2593 4.33 4.33 1.99 0.00 2.67 4.33 5.67 10.00 Physical health 2593 6.79 7.33 2.23 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Western Europe Positive emotion 919 6.82 7.33 1.79 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.00 10.00 Engagement 919 7.16 7.33 1.67 0.00 6.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Relationships 919 6.95 7.33 2.04 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 919 6.88 7.33 2.06 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Accomplishment 919 7.23 7.67 1.57 0.33 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 46 N Mean Median SD Min 25th 50th 75th Max Overall wellbeing 919 7.01 7.31 1.50 0.88 6.19 7.31 8.06 10.00 Negative emotion 919 4.27 4.00 2.09 0.00 2.67 4.00 5.67 10.00 Physical health 919 7.21 7.67 1.99 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Northern Europe Positive emotion 359 6.70 7.00 1.89 0.00 5.67 7.00 8.00 9.33 Engagement 359 7.23 7.67 1.65 0.33 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 359 7.12 7.67 2.10 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Meaning 359 7.13 7.67 2.15 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 359 7.25 7.67 1.74 0.67 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 359 7.07 7.44 1.56 0.19 6.31 7.44 8.19 9.56 Negative emotion 359 3.95 3.67 1.95 0.00 2.33 3.67 5.33 9.67 Physical health 359 7.22 7.67 2.12 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Eastern Europe/Russia Positive emotion 279 6.65 7.00 2.03 1.00 5.33 7.00 8.00 10.00 Engagement 279 7.16 7.33 1.70 1.67 6.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Relationships 279 6.86 7.33 2.16 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 279 6.61 7.00 2.47 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 279 7.03 7.33 1.86 1.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 279 6.86 7.25 1.71 2.25 5.69 7.25 8.06 10.00 Negative emotion 279 4.46 4.33 2.15 0.33 2.67 4.33 6.00 9.33 Physical health 279 7.20 7.67 2.05 1.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Middle East Positive emotion 179 6.75 7.00 1.85 0.00 5.67 7.00 8.33 10.00 Engagement 179 7.16 7.33 1.87 0.00 6.33 7.33 8.67 10.00 Relationships 179 6.69 7.33 2.18 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 179 6.99 7.33 2.00 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Accomplishment 179 7.04 7.67 1.85 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 179 6.92 7.25 1.60 0.00 5.94 7.25 8.13 9.94 Negative emotion 179 4.81 4.67 2.17 0.00 3.33 4.67 6.33 10.00 Physical health 179 7.06 7.67 2.24 0.00 5.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Mexico/ Central America Positive emotion 310 7.85 8.33 1.61 0.67 7.00 8.33 9.00 10.00 Engagement 310 8.13 8.33 1.26 2.00 7.33 8.33 9.00 10.00 Relationships 310 7.83 8.33 1.76 1.00 7.25 8.33 9.00 10.00 Meaning 310 7.94 8.33 1.77 0.67 7.33 8.33 9.08 10.00 Accomplishment 310 7.91 8.33 1.47 1.33 7.33 8.33 9.00 10.00 Overall wellbeing 310 7.93 8.25 1.29 2.31 7.38 8.25 8.81 10.00 Negative emotion 310 4.67 4.67 2.21 0.33 3.00 4.67 6.33 9.33 Physical health 310 7.80 8.33 1.81 0.67 7.00 8.33 9.00 10.00 South America Positive emotion 275 7.03 7.33 1.78 1.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Engagement 275 7.44 7.67 1.56 1.33 6.67 7.67 8.33 10.00 Relationships 275 7.08 7.33 1.95 1.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 275 7.28 7.67 2.04 0.33 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Accomplishment 275 7.30 7.67 1.75 0.67 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 275 7.22 7.56 1.49 1.06 6.56 7.56 8.38 10.00 Negative emotion 275 4.93 5.00 1.99 0.00 3.67 5.00 6.33 10.00 Physical health 275 7.47 8.00 2.06 0.67 6.33 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pacific Islands Positive emotion 113 7.70 7.67 1.53 0.33 7.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Engagement 113 7.77 8.00 1.30 3.33 7.00 8.00 8.67 10.00 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 47 N Mean Median SD Min 25th 50th 75th Max Relationships 113 7.51 7.67 1.69 0.33 6.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Meaning 113 7.74 8.00 1.81 0.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Accomplishment 113 7.63 8.00 1.62 0.67 7.00 8.00 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 113 7.68 7.88 1.34 1.06 7.13 7.88 8.56 10.00 Negative emotion 113 4.96 4.67 2.22 0.00 3.33 4.67 6.67 10.00 Physical health 113 7.31 7.67 1.85 1.00 6.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Caribbean Positive emotion 60 7.45 7.67 1.61 2.33 6.42 7.67 8.67 10.00 Engagement 60 7.73 7.67 1.30 4.67 7.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 60 7.26 7.67 1.96 2.33 6.33 7.67 8.67 10.00 Meaning 60 7.67 8.00 1.77 2.33 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Accomplishment 60 7.66 8.00 1.33 3.67 7.08 8.00 8.59 9.67 Overall wellbeing 60 7.56 7.72 1.37 3.63 6.95 7.72 8.55 9.88 Negative emotion 60 4.89 5.17 2.13 1.00 3.00 5.17 6.59 8.67 Physical health 60 7.36 7.84 1.96 1.00 6.33 7.84 8.67 10.00 Mediterranean Positive emotion 91 6.65 7.00 1.83 1.00 5.67 7.00 8.00 9.67 Engagement 91 7.04 7.33 1.75 1.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Relationships 91 6.66 7.00 2.18 0.33 5.67 7.00 8.33 10.00 Meaning 91 6.81 7.33 2.12 0.33 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Accomplishment 91 7.19 7.67 1.76 1.00 6.00 7.67 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 91 6.87 7.13 1.54 2.00 6.13 7.13 8.00 9.81 Negative emotion 91 5.18 5.00 2.14 1.00 3.67 5.00 6.67 10.00 Physical health 91 7.47 8.00 1.86 0.67 6.67 8.00 9.00 10.00 Africa Positive emotion 269 7.03 7.67 1.85 0.00 6.33 7.67 8.33 10.00 Engagement 269 7.42 7.67 1.56 0.00 6.67 7.67 8.67 10.00 Relationships 269 7.14 7.67 2.10 0.00 6.17 7.67 8.67 10.00 Meaning 269 7.39 8.00 2.06 0.00 6.50 8.00 9.00 10.00 Accomplishment 269 7.41 8.00 1.81 0.00 6.67 8.00 8.67 10.00 Overall wellbeing 269 7.27 7.75 1.67 0.00 6.56 7.75 8.44 10.00 Negative emotion 269 4.39 4.67 1.93 0.00 3.00 4.67 5.67 8.67 Physical health 269 7.09 7.67 2.21 0.00 6.00 7.67 8.67 10.00 India/Southeastern Asia Positive emotion 918 7.02 7.33 1.60 0.33 6.33 7.33 8.00 10.00 Engagement 918 7.15 7.33 1.49 0.33 6.33 7.33 8.00 10.00 Relationships 918 7.09 7.33 1.81 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Meaning 918 7.07 7.33 1.74 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Accomplishment 918 7.09 7.33 1.52 0.33 6.33 7.33 8.00 10.00 Overall wellbeing 918 7.10 7.25 1.34 1.31 6.38 7.25 8.00 10.00 Negative emotion 918 5.05 5.00 1.97 0.00 3.67 5.00 6.67 10.00 Physical health 918 6.88 7.33 1.98 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Asia Positive emotion 382 6.90 7.33 1.83 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.00 10.00 Engagement 382 6.98 7.33 1.57 1.00 6.00 7.33 8.00 10.00 Relationships 382 6.77 7.00 1.93 0.00 5.67 7.00 8.00 10.00 Meaning 382 6.97 7.33 2.06 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Accomplishment 382 7.06 7.33 1.77 0.67 6.25 7.33 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 382 6.95 7.31 1.54 0.75 6.13 7.31 8.00 10.00 Negative emotion 382 4.45 4.33 1.98 0.00 3.00 4.33 5.67 10.00 Physical health 382 6.82 7.33 2.08 0.00 5.33 7.33 8.33 10.00 Measuring PERMA Butler & Kern www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 48 N Mean Median SD Min 25th 50th 75th Max Country: Unknown Positive emotion 9907 6.42 6.67 1.98 0.00 5.33 6.67 8.00 10.00 Engagement 9907 6.96 7.33 1.75 0.00 6.00 7.33 8.33 10.00 Relationships 9882 6.70 7.00 2.17 0.00 5.33 7.00 8.33 10.00 Meaning 9879 6.80 7.33 2.19 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Accomplishment 9908 6.83 7.33 1.81 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.33 10.00 Overall wellbeing 9908 6.74 7.06 1.67 0.00 5.69 7.06 8.00 10.00 Negative emotion 9613 4.40 4.33 2.01 0.00 3.00 4.33 6.00 10.00 Physical health 8828 6.92 7.33 2.13 0.00 5.67 7.33 8.67 10.00 Note. SD = standard deviation, Min = minimum, 25th, 50th, 75th = percentile scores, Max = maximum