ArticleBMC psychology2026
Psychometric validation of the brief Chinese psychological well-being scale in a sample of Mainland Chinese adolescents.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRyff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS) has been widely used to assess eudaimonic well-being in adults and older populations within the framework of positive psychology. However, concerns have been raised regarding its length, factorial structure, and suitability for younger groups, particularly Chinese adolescents. While several abbreviated versions in different languages exist, few were specifically designed for adolescent samples, and many have demonstrated inadequate model fit and internal reliability. The brief Chinese PWBS version (BC-PWBS), developed by Chan et al. (2019), was translated and adapted for use in Chinese populations. While prior studies have supported its reliability and validity in Hong Kong adults and adolescents, its psychometric performance among adolescents in Mainland China has not yet been thoroughly investigated.
methodsA total of 855 Chinese adolescents aged 15–18 years in a sample of Northeast China completed the 24-item BC-PWBS. Internal consistency was evaluated through Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω. Construct validity was assessed via confirmatory factor analysis and convergent/discriminant indices (CR and AVE). Criterion-related validity was determined by correlating BC-PWBS scores with the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES). Multi-group CFA was employed to test measurement invariance across gender and age categories. Participants completed the 24-item scale in a single administration.
resultsThe BC-PWBS demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω > 0.95). CFA supported the theorized six-factor model with acceptable fit (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.069 [90% CI = 0.066–0.073], SRMR = 0.046). Criterion validity was supported by significant positive correlations between the BC-PWBS and the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES), consistent with theoretical expectations. Furthermore, the scale exhibited configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender and age groups, indicating structural stability and supporting its appropriateness for subgroup comparisons.
conclusionsThe present findings offer strong evidence for the psychometric soundness of the BC-PWBS among mainland Chinese adolescents, supporting its use as a concise measure for assessing psychological well-being in this population and establishing a foundation for future cross-cultural and developmental research.
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.