ArticleBMC psychology2025
Assessing the construct validity of a 36-item multidimensional life satisfaction assessment - a novel tool for measuring life satisfaction among older adults in Thailand.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of life satisfaction is influenced by cultural factors, making it important to consider the unique cultural backgrounds of individuals. However, there has been a lack of assessment tools specifically designed for evaluating life satisfaction in Thai older adults based on their own cultural context. The Multidimensional Life-Satisfaction Assessment (MLSA) was developed to address this gap, integrating well-recognized concepts of the Sufficiency Economy within Thai social values to expand more on the social and environmental aspects. This study aimed to develop and preliminarily test the construct validity of the MLSA.
methodsA research and development process was employed to generate relevant items for the MLSA. The final version of the MLSA consisted of 36 items, encompassing nine dimensions: Zest, Resolution, Fortitude, Congruence between desired and achieved goals, Positive self-concept, Sense of Control, Mood Tone, Forgiveness, and Sufficiency Economy. The scale was tested with 600 mentally healthy Thai older adults to evaluate model fitness, convergent and discriminant validity. Concurrent validity was assessed using the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSES) and the EuroQoL-5-dimension (EQ5D). A two-week retest analysis assessed the scale’s stability over time.
resultsThe 36-item MLSA demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for each dimension. The nine-factor solution model exhibited adequate fit statistics. While the scale demonstrated adequate convergent validity, discriminant validity was not initially established due to overlapping dimensions. However, discriminant validity was established after modelling a second-order factor. Significant correlations between MLSA scores and RSES and EQ5D were observed, indicating concurrent validity. The MLSA also demonstrated satisfactory test-retest reliability.
conclusionThe MLSA shows promise as a new tool with an integrated new concept for assessing life satisfaction in older adults. Using a total score, MLSA can be used as a total score to represent overall life satisfaction or can be used as a separate dimension. However, utilizing some dimensions should be careful as they share some variance with other dimensions. Given that the study was specifically conducted with mentally healthy older adults, further replication studies across different settings and cultures are encouraged to confirm the construct validity of the MLSA definitively. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
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.