The document introduces the Multidimensional Well-Being Assessment (MWA), a new measure of well-being developed to be more inclusive and culturally informed. The MWA assesses well-being across 5 contexts - psychological, physical, relational, collective, and transcendent - using 160 items. Initial testing with over 1,000 participants from diverse backgrounds found strong reliability and validity. The MWA shows potential as a more comprehensive and culturally sensitive measure of well-being.

1. Introducing The
Multidimensional Well-Being
Assessment (MWA):
An Inclusive, Multiculturally-
Informed Measure
Shelly P. Harrell, Ph.D.
Pepperdine University

2.  Studies show that the presence of well-being, not just
the absence of negative symptoms, is related to
physical health, longevity, and reduced mortality (Ryff
and Singer, 1998; Lindfors, 2013).
 Positive well-being is receiving increasingly greater
attention in the theoretical, empirical and applied
literature in psychology and mental health.
Importance of Well-Being

3.  There is consistent evidence that positive well-being and
psychopathology are separate, but related, constructs (Keyes,
Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002).
 The absence of mental illness does not automatically confer
optimal mental health and functioning.
 There is a need for instruments to comprehensively assess
positive well-being outcomes of psychotherapy and other
psychosocial interventions
Foundations of MWA Development:
The Clinical Context

4.  The primary conceptual frameworks for
understanding and measuring well-being have been
◦ Subjective evaluation of life satisfaction and experience of
positive emotion (the hedonic tradition)
◦ Psychological and meaning-oriented aspects (the
eudaimonic tradition)
◦ Domain-specific quality of life (e.g., social, functional,
physical health)
Conceptualizing Well-Being

5.  Developing an understanding of well-being in the context of
diversity is critical. Existing measures of well-being have
given limited attention to diversity in their conceptual
foundation and in the development of item content.
 Conceptions of well-being have not commonly been developed
the in a way that integrates culture and context from inception,
 As such, measures of well-being generally have not emerged
from a conceptualization that is inclusive and multiculturally-
grounded.
Well-Being in Culture and Context

6.  Some scales have attempted to gain cross-cultural validity AFTER
the scale has been developed within a relatively monocultural lens
 These efforts have mainly been accomplished through gathering
international data and comparing countries, rather than examining
diverse experiences of well-being within the same national
context.
 The conceptualization, measurement, and empirical study of well-
being should include attention to these groups in the context of
their sociopolitical histories and current conditions.
Culture and Well-Being Measurement

7.  Psycho: Biopsychorelational Processes
◦ Multiple interacting person processes (e.g., cognitive,
affective, somatic, etc.)
 Eco: Socioecological Contexts
◦ Multiple environmental levels of analysis (e.g.,
organizational, social networks, institutional,
sociohistorical, geopolitical)
 Cultural: Patterns of Knowledge, Meaning, Behavior
◦ Multiple, intersecting dimensions of sociocultural
diversity
My Lens: “Psychoecocultural”
(Harrell, 2014; 2015)

8. The Person-Environment-and-Context Emergence
(PEaCE) Framework

9.  The Multidimensional Well-Being Assessment (MWA)
was developed to meet the need to establish a
multiculturally-informed, inclusive, and
comprehensive measure of well-being that takes into
account the multiple contexts of living and the
variability of valuing these contexts between and
within cultures.
Multicultural Lens of Well-Being

10.  More spectifically, two primary goals guided the
development of The Multidimensional Well-Being
Assessment (MWA):
◦ (1) to develop a well-being measure more inclusive of aspects
of well-being that may be particularly relevant to racial/ethnic
groups that are not white or of European decent, people from
more collectivistic cultures, as well as those of lower
socioeconomic status, and
◦ (2) to develop a measure that has utility in applied contexts,
particularly with respect to psychologically-based
interventions such as psychotherapy and life coaching.
Goals of the Developing the MWA

11.  Development of the MWA was informed by
guidelines for scale construction offered by DeVellis
(2012) and Clark and Watson (1995).
 A comprehensive literature review on the construct
of well-being, measures of well-being, and well-
being in diverse cultural groups was conducted that
resulted in the Multidimensional-Contextual Model
of Well-Being (Harrell, et. al., 2012) positing five core
life contexts within which well-being is experienced:
Relational, Collective, Transcendent, Psychological,
and Physical.
Scale Development

13.  An exhaustive pool of over 200 items was
systematically generated for consideration that
reflected the literature and was consistent with the
conceptual model.
 These items were evaluated by an open-discussion
content validation process with a culturally diverse
group of doctoral and master’s level students in
psychology familiar with both multicultural
psychology and the well-being literature
Initial Generation of Items

14.  The number of items were reduced and assigned to
theoretically-derived well-being dimensions using a Q-sort
procedure.
 A preliminary scale was developed and piloted in a sample of 60
African American women in prison (Grills & Villaneuva, 2012)
where it was sensitive to pre-post change in a re-integration
program intervention.
 Additional literature review and content validation discussion
resulted in the addition of dimensions within the Collective and
Physical wellness contexts resulting in a final 160-item scale
with five primary wellness context domains, and fifteen well-
being dimensions (2-4 within each domain).
Scale Development

15.  Individual and subjective well-being; positive, behavioral, emotional, and self-
awareness; also includes transformational processes, that is, personally-defined
indicators of progress on desired outcomes and subjective assessment that change or
growth is occurring.
 4 Dimensions, 40 Items
 Emotional Well-Being (12 items): “I felt strong and empowered”. “I was confident in
myself; my self-esteem was high”. “I felt joy and happiness inside”; “I felt inspired or
excited about something”.
 Functional Well-Being (10 items): “I was productive; I got things done”; “I did a good
job at work, school, or with other responsibilities”; “I kept my word or followed
through, did what I said I would do”; “I had a positive event or activity to look forward
to”.
 Awareness/Experiential Well-Being (6 items): “I was aware of the connection
between my mind, my emotions, and what was going on in my body”; “I took time to
‘smell the roses’, really noticing and enjoying things from my senses”.
 Transformational Well-Being (12 items): “I made progress dealing with a problem or
getting rid of a bad habit”; “I learned something new, became more knowledgeable”; “I
did something to move my life forward or head in the right direction”.
The Psychological Wellness Context Domain

16.  Includes personal safety, health status and health-enhancing behaviors, as
well as well-being related to the conditions of one's physical environment.
 3 Dimensions, 31 items
 Safety-related Well-Being (8 items): “I felt safe in the neighborhood
where I live”; “I felt safe from sexual violence or exploitation”; “My loved
ones were safe from violence, abuse, or harassment”; I felt safe from
threats, verbal abuse, emotional abuse, or stalking”.
 Health-related Well-Being (12 items): “I felt physically healthy and strong
enough to handle the demands of my daily activities”; “I took good care of
my health”; “I got enough hours of peaceful, uninterrupted sleep”; “I felt
comfortable with my sexuality”.
 Environmental Well-Being (11 items): “I spent time in places with lots of
grass, flowers, trees, and/or clean rivers, lakes, beaches, etc.”; “The place
where I live was mostly free from very loud noises such as traffic, trains,
gunshots, sirens, etc.”.
The Physical Wellness Context Domain

17.  The nature and quality of one's interpersonal relationships.
 2 Dimensions, 27 Items
 Relationship Quality (15 items): “I was able to be myself, to be
“real” with the people I care about”; “There was someone in my
life who really understands me and knows me well”; “I felt
supported and encouraged”; “I felt good about my friendships”.
 Prosocial Behavior: (12 items): “I did or said something to lift
someone’s spirits”; “I showed patience with a person or
situation”; “I helped someone in need”; “I expressed gratitude or
appreciation to someone”; “I gave good advice or guidance to
someone”.
The Relational Context Domain

18.  Includes a positive sense of community i.e., connection, belonging), social group
identity (e.g., racial/ethnic, sexual orientation), civic participation, and sense of
positive sociopolitical processes
 4 Dimensions, 35 items
 Sociocultural Identity-related Well-Being (12 items): “I felt strongly and emotionally
connected to my culture or another group in society that is important to me”; “I felt
secure and grounded by my roots in my culture or other community I identify with”;
“Things that I did during my leisure time reflected my culture or another community I
identify with”.
 Community Well-Being (10 items): “I felt accepted and welcomed by people at my
workplace, school, or other place where I spend a lot of time”; “ I felt a strong sense of
belonging in my neighborhood”
 Participatory Well-Being (8 items): “I volunteered my time in service of people in need,
animals, the environment, or another cause important to me”; “I participated in or
contributed to positive change on a social justice issue or cause”.
 Sociopolitical-National Well-Being (5 items): “I have positive feelings about my home
country”; “My home country was strong and stable in terms of leadership and political
matters”.
The Collective Wellness Context Domain

19.  Indicates spirituality, peak experience and higher states of
consciousness or higher purpose. It can also be a connection
with nature, Spirit/Higher Power/God, or meaningful purpose..
 2 Dimensions, 27 items
 Meaning-related Well-Being (14 items): “I was ‘in the zone’, did
something with excellence or perfection”; “I felt connected to all
of humanity regardless of race, nationality, social class, etc.”; “I
felt like my life had meaning, like I’m here for a purpose”.
 Spiritual-Religious Well-Being (13 items): “I enjoyed expressing
and sharing my spirituality with other people or in a faith
community”; “I felt positively connected with the soul or spirit
of another person (living or deceased)”; “I witnessed or
experienced spiritual healing”.
The Transcendent Wellness Context
Domain

20.  A comprehensive demographic questionnaire, the MWA, and selected
validation instruments were administered online and in-person to a diverse
sample recruited from university, community, and social network settings
between 2014-2017.
 Hardcopy participants completed the MWA and demographics only. Online
participants had the option to complete demographics and the MWA only, or
to complete all scales.
 Of the 1297 participants who completed the MWA, 686 (52%) were online
participants. This represents a 56% completion rate of the 1,272 people who
began a questionnaire online.
 In the context of the total number of participants, 478 (37%) completed
validation scales. This represents 70% of the 686 who participated online.
Methods

21.  The Satisfaction with Life Questionnaire (SWLQ; Diener et
al., 1985)
 Personal Well-Being Index (PWI; Cummins et al., 2003)
 Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (QEWB;
Waterman et al., 2010)
 Scale of Positive and Negative Emotion (SPANE; Diener et
al., 2009)
 Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2009)
 Short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
Validation Scales Administered

25.  Participants rated their well-being quite positively overall
with Safety, Physical Health, and Relationship Quality
being the highest areas of well-being and Community
Participation, Sociopolitical- National Context, and
Spiritual-Religious dimensions being the lowest.
 There is evidence of strong internal consistency reliability
across domains and dimensions with Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients ranging from .76-.96
 The pattern of validity coefficients suggest strong
convergent and adequate discriminant validity– the
scales performed as expected.
Summary

26.  It is important to assess dimensions of well-being that reflect
the lived experience of diverse groups and take into account
multiple levels of analysis
 Exploratory Factor Analysis procedures are currently underway.
Initial results suggest five factors characterized generally as
follows:
◦ One primary factor that includes items from multiple dimensions
most heavily represented by Psychological, Prosocial, Meaning, and
Identity
◦ Physical Environment and Safety
◦ Spiritual-Religious Well-Being
◦ Relationship Quality
◦ Community Belongingness
Implications and Future Steps

27.  The MWA is the first well-being instrument to explicitly
identify cultural diversity considerations in the
development of a comprehensive scale and content of
items
 In addition, the MWA incorporates some aspects of well-
being that have been given minimal attention by other
comprehensive scales, such as transformational well-
being and collective well-being.
 The initial psychometric properties are strong and
encouraging of further development
Conclusion

28. Contact:
Shelly Harrell, Ph.D.
shelly.harrell@pepperdine.edu