Manual

for
GENERAL
WELL-BEING
SCALE
GWBS-cVDR Prof. Dr. Vijay Laxmi Chauhan
Former Dean, Prof. &HOD
Department of Psychology
Former Director of UGC Centre for Women Studies
M. L. Sukhadia University
President, Academy of Well-being, Udaipur
UDAIPUR (Raj.)
&
Ravi Kirti Didwania
Research Scholar, Deptt. of Psychology
M. L. Sukhadia University
UDAIPUR (Raj.)

T.M. Rogt. No 56483a

Copyright Regd. Nu. ) A73256/2005 Dt. 13.5.05

ISBN : 978-93-85002-04-5
Estd. 1971 www.npcindia.com :(0562) 2464926
NATIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION
4/230, KACHERI GHAT, AGRA-282 004
(|NDIA)
 INTRODUCTION
Well-being, Quality of life, happiness, life satisfaction and active and positive life
style all are issues related to human being that require wider link and greater
understanding. For better comprehension,there isa need to visualise these concepts
and toevolve composite indices with due covefage of the conplex dimensions. Well
being has become an increasingly important factor for health and social policy. As
every human go through his life span and face changes.The surroundingand the
situations always effects human being's life style and surprissed harmony of their life.
Ones feel happy and satisty may another feels isolated lonely and negatively charged.
All have decisions to make and their lives may have to adopt to both their environment
and situation for their quality of life and well-being.
An earily attempt to define well-being was done by Bradburn's (1969) classic
research on psychological well-being. His work marked a move away from the diagnosis
ofpsychiatric cases to the study of psychologicalreactions of ordinary people in their
daily lives. His discussion stemmed from his interest in how individuals coped with the
daily difficulties that they faced. Bradburn highlighted how psychological well-being
(which he also referred to as happiness) was the variable that, stands out as being of
primary importance (p. 6). He linked this to Aristotle's idea of eudaimonia, which is
nowmore commonly translated as well-being. Aristotle believed this to be the
overarching goal of all human actions. The majority of Bradburn's research focused on
the distinction between positive and negative effect. His model specified that :an
individual will be high in psychological well-being in the degree to which he has an
excess of positive over negative afect and will be low in well-being in the degree to
which negative affect predominates over positive (Bradburn, 1969,p. 9)
Over 30 yearsago, Shinand Johnson (1978) seemed to move closer to defining
wel-being by stating that it is, aglobal assessmentof a person's quality of lte according
to his own chosen criteria' (p. 478) and this judgment is stil reflected in today's literature
(Zikmund, 2003; Rees, Goswami, &Bradshaw 2010; Stratham &Chase, 2010). But
what,exactly, is,quality of life ?
The World Health Organízation defined quality of life as: an individual's perception
of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live
and in relation to their goals,expectations, standards and concerns. It is abroad ranging
concept affected in acomplex way by the person's physical health, psychological state,
personal beliefs, social relationships and their relationship to salient features of their
environment. (World Health Organization, 1997).
 4 Manual for GWBS-CVDR
Definition of well-being
Well-being includes human slrengths and positive psychological outcomes which
enables the human being to maintain healthy relationship to the surroundings for the
purpose of being happy, healthy and harmonious. Positive relationship and active
engagement with family and society are the important part in well-being definition.
(Kahneman, Diener &Schwarz 1999, Seligman &Csiksentmihalyí 2000).
.The Well-beingis a state of being Happy Healthy and Harmonious for prosperous
life. Psychological definition of well-being includes six general characteristics for
process of being H-H-H (H3) life. These are as:
¢ The active pursuit of well-being
A
balance of attributes
Positive effects of life satisfaction
+ Pro socialbehavior
Multiple dimension
Personal optimization.
The most important dimension for well-being in the later life is active participation.
Many of psychological studies have proved that the active engagement in various
household work as wellas economic dependency, social support network and relation
tothe family and outer world are the determinative factors for the life satisfaction and
wel-being of elderly population.
Chouhan and Didwania (2013) conducteda study on senior citizens life satistaction.
30 respondents had been selected randomly and divided in to two groups. Group first
was institutionalized and second group of household senior citizens. Research showed
family living leads to life satisfaction and happiness in old age.
Chouhan and Didwania (2013) had done study on 30 senior citizens to find out the
impact of active life style on death anxiety. No significant difference was found between
active life style and under active life style but the level of Death Anxiety was quite
higher in under active elderly group.
Chouhan and Mogra (2008) conducted study to find out the impression of the
creative activates in later life.The hypothesis was that creativity brings joy, happiness
andvalue to elderiy lite. Result indicate that non-creative elderly people have shown
no interest in life and like toremain being stuck up and lonely whereas other elderly
creative people love to try out different things which energizes nind, body and keeps
them positive. Creativity taught thern how to synchronies and lepth to life. Creativity
developsa fem.sense for things thalenrich everybody as a respected person in late life.
 Manual for GWBS-cVDR 5
Development of Scale
To prepare scale many of psychological journals and research papers has been
reviewed and on the basis of their resulls and conclusions 60 statements were
prepared. These Statements were based on the various constructs and variables
affecting well-being phenomenon., They were subjected to expertjudgment where every
item was required to be passed on its relevance to the content and criterion of well
being. Experts were requested to valicdate content of the scale items. This was done
with aviewto establish content validity ofscale items. On the basis oftheir opinion
and comments 20 items were reframed and 10 items were deleted for over al
preparation of the scale. Alist of fifty items was finalized. The items were prepared in
Hindi and English;The item analysis was done as per procedure laid down.
TABLE1
Showing Table Item Correlation
Item No.| Correlation Item No. Correlation Item No. Correlation Item No.Correlation
455 16 545 31 .430 46 355

2 .251 17 562 32 .590 47 .293

410 18 .295 33 .520 48 .275

425 19 520 34 780 49 430

5 -.430 (|.R.) 20 -.120 (1.R.) 35 432 50 -.236 (1.R.)

21 .254 36 .675 51 .695
6 .265

7 405 22 435 37 715 52 .129 (1.R.)

23 .505 38 360 53 .375
.142 (1.R.)
24 .275 39 .801 54 .295
315

25 582 40 .705 55 .701

10 -.126 (|.R.)
.785 41 .305 56 .721
11 .134 (1.R.) 26
27 895 42 520 57 -.479 (1.R.)
12 .445
28 .520 43 .435 58 -.156 (1.R.)
13 215
441 29 .410 44 .635 59 .630
14

.260 475 45 .225 60 -.432 (.R)

15 30

(P <.05 0.1946; P<.01= 0.254)

Based on Fisher and Yates Table (L. R. Gay and P. L. Diehl 1992)
 Manual for GWBS-CVDR
Purpose
Thewell-being scale intends to measure tho well-being of elderly which includes
the all relative constructs and aspects of aging life. The tool may conveniently be
administered to the adults also becauso.statements are adult free.
Instructions
There are statements regarding your behavior pattern, life and relations. The
statement does noi have any right or wrong answer but you are free to respond
accordingto your behavior. There are five options youhave to tick only one without
wasting time to think the first response of yours is required. Options are as followed.
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree
YOu just have to select the one which represents your nearest feeling to such
statement.

Scoring
The scale consists of 50 items, each item is to be rated on five point scale. Thera
are 36 positive and 14negative statements.o Indicate Negative ltem in Booklei.
TABLE 2
Scoring System
Sr. Type of Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
No. items Agree Disagree
Positive 5 4 3 2 1

4
Negative 2

This scale includes various aspects of well-being. The statements were arranged
random order to minimize the error of expectancy and practice.
 Manual for GWBSvoR | 7
TABLE3
Serial Number-wise Distribution of ltems in Dimensions &
Nature of
Positive/Negative TvDo
Sr. No. Dimensions No. of Iterns Total No. Total
Items of items
Physical Well-being Positive 1 01 03
Negative 2, 3 02
II.
PsychologicalWell-being Positive 20 01
11
Negative 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 33, 41, 42, 43 10
. Social WNell-being Positive 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 49
07
Negative 14 01

Happiness Positive 17, 19, 26, 39, 46, 50 6

06
Negative
V. Spiritual Well-being Positive 16, 21 02
Negative
VI. Cultural& Positive 22, 23 2
02
Religious Well-being Negative
Positive 24, 25, 27,29, 48 5
VI. Active Life-Style 05
Negatíve
VilI. Positivity Positive 28, 33, 44, 45 04
Negative
IX. Economical Positive 31 1
01
independency Negative
X. Self Awareness Positive 18, 30, 32, 47 05
Negative 40

XI. Farnily Relations Positive 36, 37 2

02
Negative
XII. Environmental Positive 34, 35 2
02
Adjustrment Negalive
Positive Items = 36 Negative ltems = 14 Total ltems 50
 GWBS-CVDR
8 Manual for
Reliability of Scale
the no. of 380 respondents found
The Cronbach's Alphareliability compuled wilh found 0.72. Both the results
month and it was
0.78. The test retest was dongaftor a
are significant at .01level of signilicavce.
Validity
validily of theGeneral WelI-beingscale coefficients of correla
Todetermine tho Well-being Measure of
present scale and PGI General
tion between the scoro of the
Verma (1989) was cormputed the correlation of coeficient was
S. K. Vermaand K. coefficient with Life Satisfaction Scale
correlation of
found to be 0.83. When computed found to be 0.76. Both the results
Joseph (2000) was
of Promila Singh and George and con
face
.01 levelof significant. The scale also passed through
aresignificant at by experts.
tentvalidity since each tem was judged
Standardization of the Scale

Well-beingScale for Adults(30 Age group) was administered on

The General and female in the state of Rajasthan,
of 380 persons, both male
a sample population
India.
Statistical Results
presented in Table 4.
The statisticalresults are being
TABLE 4: Statistical Results
Mean SD

162.67 15.71
380

Norms
Norms have beenprepared and pre
On the basis of the above results, z-Score
sented in Table 5.
Well-being have been presented in
Norms for interpretation of the level of
Table 6.
 Manual for GWBS-cVDA 9
TABLE5
Z-Score Norns for General Well-being Scale
Mean:162-67 SD: 15-71 N380
RAW RAW RAW RAW
Score Score Scorc Score Score Score Score Score
121 -2-64 143 -125 165 +0-14 187 +1-53
122 --258 144 18 166 +0-21 188 +1.60

123 -2.51 145 --1.12 167 +0-27 189 +1-66

124 -2.45 146 -1-06 (168 +0.33 190 +1-72

125 -239 147 169 +0.40 191 L4.20

-099
192 +1-86
126 -2-32 148 -0-93 170 +0.46

+0-52 193 +1-92

127 -2-26 149 -0-87 171

+0-59 194 +1-90

128 -2.20 150 -0-80 172

+0-65 195 +205

129 -2.13 151 -0.73 173

+0-71 196 +2-11

-2-07 152 -0-67 174
130
+0-78 197 +2.18
-2-01 153 -0-61 175
131
+0-84 198 +2-24
-1.94 154 -0:54 176
132
177 +0-90 199 +2-30
-1-88 155 -0.48
133
178 +0-97 200 +2-37
-1-82 156 -0.42
34
+1-03 201 -2.43
157 -0-35 179
135 -1-75
180 +1-09 202 +2.49
-1-69 158 -0.29
136
181 +1-15 203 +2.56
137 -1-63 159 -0-23
+1-22 204 +2-62
-1-56 160 -).16 182
133
+1-23 205 +2-69
-1-50 161 -0·10 183
139
-0-04 134 +1:34 206 +2.75
140 --1.44 162

185 207 +281

141 -137 163 1002

I0-08 186 208 +2-88

142 -131 164
 Manualfor GWBS-CVDR

TABLE6
Norms for Interpretation of the Level of Well-being
Sr. No. Range of z-Scores Grade Level of Well-being

1. +2-01 and above A Extremely High Well-being feelings

2. +1-26 to +2-00 B High Wel-being feelings

3. +0-51 tO + 1-25 Above Average VWell-being feelings

4. -0-50 to + 0-50 D Average Well-being feelings

5. -1.25 tO 0.51 E Below Average Weli-being feelings

6. -2.00to - 1.26 F Low Level Well-being feelings

7. -2-01 and below G Extremely LowWell-being feelings

 Manual forGWBS-CVDÉ 11
REFERENCES

Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago :Aldine.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology ofoptimal experience. New York :
Harper Collins Publishers.
satisfaction of senior
Chouhan and Didwania (2013). The Impact of Living setup on life
citizens, Journal of well-being, 7(2), 17-21.
death anziety in
Chouhan and Didwania (2013). Astudy of active participation and
University, Jodhpur, 21, 23 March.
agingpersonalities. National Seminar, JNV
well-being of elderly person,
Chouhan and Mogra (2008). Creativity :An effective tool for
presented in National Seminar on Behavioural challenges in Elderly people.
paper
January 11, 12-2008.
science of happiness, and a proposal
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: the
34-43.
for a national indexX. American Psychologist, 55,
(1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, and N.
Kahneman,.D.
Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: the foundations of hedonicpsychology (pp. 3-25).
New York:Russell Sage.
(1999). Well-being. The foundations
Kahneman, D., Diener, E. and Schwarz, N. (Eds.).
of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage.
National Psychological
Kalia, A. K. (2011). General Well-being Scale. Agra :
Corporation.
Kaur, R. (2014). Well-being Scale. Agra: Manasvi.
assessment of the
Shin, D. and Johnson, D. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall
quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 5/(1), 475-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007
BFO0352944.

Verma and Verma (1989). Manual for PGIGeneral Well-Being measure, Lucknow
Ankur Psychological Agency.
Zikmund, V. (2003). Health, well-being, and the quality of life: some psychosomati
reflections. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 2/6), 401-403.
2015. All rights reserved. No portion of this inventory material should be teprotucod in any form without tne
written permission of the publisther. Manual for CGeneral Wall- Beng Scale (GWBS-CVDR). NPC-RP