ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2026
Construct validity of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in a diverse urban population.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) has been validated in samples across several countries it has yet to be validated in the US. This study examines the validity of the SWEMWBS within a diverse urban population of US adults.
methodsA population representative sample of adults living in NYC was obtained from the NYC Neighborhood Wellness Survey (NWS). Respondents answered questions about their mental health, emotional and social support, demographics (i.e., age, sex at birth, gender identity, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity) and completed the SWEMWBS. Using a combination of Rasch analyses and classical test theory (CTT), we assessed the SWEMWBS for unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, differential item functioning, and measurement invariance.
results95% of eligible participants completed all seven items of the SWEMWBS (N = 41,484). The measure showed high internal consistency (α = 0.88), and all items were highly correlated with the overall score. Assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence were supported. Differential item functioning was identified between age groups (18-24 vs. 65-74; 18-24 vs. 75+; 25-29 vs. 65-74; 25-29 vs. 75+; 30-44 vs. 75+) for SWEMWBS item 1 (I've been feeling optimistic about the future). Measurement invariance was assessed for key demographic variables, but no significant differences between configural and metric models were identified.
conclusionDespite differences in item functionality by age, this assessment shows that the SWEMWBS is a useful tool for evaluating mental well-being in a diverse population and should be studied further among smaller groups and rural communities in the US.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42189182What 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.