ArticleBMJ mental health2025
Internal structure, reliability and cross-cultural validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale in three European populations.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dental Educators' Stress and Wellbeing in the Workplace-An International Perspective.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Positive Mental Well-Being in Children: A Preliminary Structural Validation of the Factor Structure of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Psychometric validation of the German Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) in an undergraduate health professions students cohort in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study.BMC psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), a questionnaire designed for the assessment of mental well-being, is widely used in different countries and cultures worldwide. However, there is a lack of studies examining its metric performance and measurement invariance across countries.
objectiveThis study aims to examine the internal structure, reliability and cross-country validity of the WEMWBS in three European populations.
methodsWEMWBS data collected in 2016 from three representative population health surveys from an autonomous region in Spain (Catalonia) and two countries (Denmark and the UK) were used (n=13 940). The mean WEMWBS Scores were compared between populations. The internal consistency (ω coefficients), internal structure (confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and bifactor exploratory structural equation models), reliability (item response theory models, item and test information functions), and cross-cultural comparability (multigroup CFA) of the WEMWBS were assessed.
findingsDifferences in mean scores observed between regions merit further study. The WEMWBS showed high internal consistency across countries (ω=0.942). The unidimensionality of the scale was confirmed overall and for each population. Evidence of reliability and of measurement invariance at the configural, scalar and metric levels was found. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The results support the use of the WEMWBS in different cultures to inform the understanding of population well-being in public health and its possible use as an outcome measure in clinical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.