Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569090›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Evaluating flourishing: a comparative analysis of four measures using item pool visualization.

Veronika Ploke, Bernad Batinic, Stefan Stieger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Enhancing Psychological Well-Being Assessment Through Data Mining: A Case Study from Thailand.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Veronika PlokeDepartment of Psychology and Psychodynamics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Bernad BatinicDepartment of Work, Organizational and Media Psychology, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria.
Stefan StiegerDepartment of Psychology and Psychodynamics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems an der Donau, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The construct of flourishing, which refers to a high level of wellbeing, is a key concept in the field of positive psychology. Nevertheless, despite the proliferation of questionnaires attempting to measure wellbeing and flourishing, there is still an ongoing debate in the scientific community about the definition and assessment of both, which makes the choice of appropriate measures a major challenge. This study addresses this uncertainty through a comparative analysis of four widely used flourishing measures in a German-speaking sample, to enable researchers to make a reasonable choice among the measures available: the PERMA-Profiler, the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form, the Flourishing Scale, and the Wellbeing Conceptual Framework. To enhance the understanding of these four measures, we compared and contrasted the instruments using Item Pool Visualization (IPV), an illustrative approach that generates item pools from the same dataset and displays them as nested radar maps. Our research indicates that all four measures are useful in measuring the concept of flourishing. However, they differ from each other depending on specific interest (from a broader to a narrower view). If the aim is to get a comprehensive overview of flourishing, then the PERMA-Profiler, the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form, and the Flourishing Scale are appropriate options. If the focus is on measuring a more central concept, the Wellbeing Conceptual Framework provides the most specific assessment of flourishing.

Indexed as

flourishingitem pool visualizationpositive psychologyself-reportstructural equation modelingwellbeing

Identifiers

PMID39569090
PMCPMC11576295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.