See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259487429

Preliminary development and validation of the Social and Emotional Health

Survey for secondary students

Article in Social Indicators Research · July 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s11205-013-0373-0

CITATIONS READS

230 4,166

5 authors, including:

Michael James Furlong Sukkyung You

University of California, Santa Barbara Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
357 PUBLICATIONS 10,567 CITATIONS 104 PUBLICATIONS 3,504 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tyler L. Renshaw Douglas C Smith

Utah State University Southern Illinois University Carbondale
139 PUBLICATIONS 3,294 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 2,285 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael James Furlong on 12 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soc Indic Res (2014) 117:1011–1032
DOI 10.1007/s11205-013-0373-0

Preliminary Development and Validation of the Social

and Emotional Health Survey for Secondary School
Students

Michael J. Furlong • Sukkyung You • Tyler L. Renshaw •

Douglas C. Smith • Meagan D. O’Malley

Accepted: 17 June 2013 / Published online: 27 June 2013

! Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This study reports on the preliminary development and validation of the Social
and Emotional Health Survey (SEHS) with a sample of 4,189 (51 % female) California
students in Grades 8, 10, and 12. The SEHS was designed to measure the psychological
building blocks of adolescents’ positive mental health and is operationalized in the present
study by a theoretical model comprised of 12 measured indicators that form four first-order
domains (belief-in-self, belief-in-others, emotional competence, and engaged living) that,
in turn, contribute to one underlying, second-order meta-construct called covitality. This
study was the first to investigate the validity and utility of the adolescent covitality con-
struct, which is conceptualized as the synergistic effect of positive mental health resulting
from the interplay among multiple positive-psychological building blocks. Findings from
confirmatory factor analyses, invariance analysis, and latent means testing all supported the
theoretical model underlying the SEHS, indicating that the second-order covitality model
was the best fit for both males and females. Results from a path-modeling analysis indi-
cated that covitality was a strong predictor of students’ subjective well-being (operation-
alized as a composite of life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect), and findings

M. J. Furlong
Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA, USA

S. You (&)
College of Education, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 270 Imun-dong, Dongdaemun-Gu, Seoul,
Korea
e-mail: skyou@hufs.ac.kr

T. L. Renshaw
Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
e-mail: trenshaw@lsu.edu

D. C. Smith
Department of Psychology, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, USA

M. D. O’Malley
Health and Human Development Program, WestEd, Los Alamitos, CA, USA

123
1012 M. J. Furlong et al.

from additional concurrent validity analyses indicated that adolescents’ covitality level was
significantly associated with self-reported academic achievement, perceptions of school
safety, substance use, and experiences of depressive symptoms. Implications for theory,
practice, and future research are discussed.

Keywords Covitality ! Mental health ! Positive psychology ! Positive youth development !

Social-emotional learning ! Subjective well-being ! Resilience

1 Introduction

1.1 Cultivating the Well-Being of Youth

Traditionally, research and practice regarding the well-being of youth has been conducted
within a unidimensional model of mental health. This model assumes that psychological
distress is the opposite of psychological well-being, implying that reductions in distress are
automatically accompanied by—or are even synonymous with—increases in well-being
(Keyes 2007). Taking this view, researchers and practitioners have conceptualized
decreases in youths’ behavioral or emotional symptoms as equivalent to enhancements in
well-being or quality of life. Yet, over the past two decades, findings from several lines of
research have challenged the unidimensional model, providing evidence in favor of a
bidimensional model of mental health, which conceptualizes distress and well-being as
related-yet-distinct continua that, when considered together, yield a richer and more com-
plete understanding of human flourishing (Keyes 2005). Recent studies conducted in school
settings have extended the bidimensional model of mental health to children and adoles-
cents. For example, Kelly et al. (2012) found that many youths reporting low levels of
psychological distress (as evidenced by self-reported internalizing and externalizing
symptoms) also reported low levels of subjective well-being (as evidenced by self-reported
life satisfaction and positive affect), and vice versa. Additionally, studies by Suldo and
Shaffer (2008) and Suldo et al. (2011) found that both the presence of psychological distress
and the absence of psychological well-being are associated with impairments in school
performance, and that consideration of both positive and negative indicators of mental
health had additive value in predicting students’ attendance and academic achievement over
time.
Applied to youth, the bidimensional model of mental health suggests that efforts
seeking to cultivate positive mental health warrant shared attention with efforts aiming to
ameliorate psychological impairment and symptoms. Several subfields of applied psy-
chology—especially school, educational, counseling, and developmental psychology—
have embraced this approach to studying children and adolescents and, as a result, have
paid increasing attention to the positive aspects of youths’ mental health in recent years
(e.g., Gilman et al. 2009; Knoop 2011; Masten et al. 2009). Such increased attention to
positive youth mental health has resulted in several subfields of multidisciplinary and
interrelated inquiry, including positive psychology (e.g., Kirschman et al. 2009), resilience
studies (e.g., Masten 2001), positive youth development (e.g., Larson 2000), strength-
based approaches (e.g., Jimerson et al. 2004), and social-emotional learning (e.g.,
Greenberg et al. 2003). Historically, most of the works emanating from these subfields
have studied youths’ positive mental health within an isolated-asset or an independent-

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1013

assets framework, wherein the effects of either single indicators (e.g., gratitude; Froh et al.
2010) or multiple, distinct indicators (e.g., social supports at school and meaningful par-
ticipation; Shekhtmeyster et al. 2011) are studied as predictors of valued life outcomes
(e.g., academic achievement and prosocial behavior). Less commonly, research regarding
the positive mental health of youth has been conducted within a cumulative-assets
framework, wherein several indicators are synthesized into a composite assets index, which
is then taken as a meta-indicator that is used to predict valued life outcomes (e.g., Os-
taszewski and Zimmerman 2006).

1.2 From Cumulative Assets to Covitality

The cumulative-assets framework has proven useful in studying a range of positive mental
health indicators in youth. Probably the most robust and well-known studies are those
investigating the Search Institute’s 40 developmental assets model. Findings from this line of
research have shown that increased numbers of external assets (e.g., supportive family and
school relationships) and internal assets (e.g., achievement motivation and school engage-
ment) are positively associated with desirable developmental outcomes, such as academic
achievement, physical health, and helping behaviors, as well as negatively associated with
deleterious life outcomes, including substance use, violence perpetration, and victimization
(Scales 1999; Scales et al. 2000, 2006). Although the 40 developmental assets model is a
comprehensive and empirically-supported framework for conceptualizing the components
of youths’ positive mental health, we suggest that this model has some limitations. First, the
model’s extensiveness (i.e., covering 40 unique assets) hampers its generalizability and
social validity within service-provision settings (e.g., as an applied psychological assessment
instrument or intervention planning tool). Second, since its original development, various
aspects of the 40 developmental assets model have become empirically outdated (e.g., the
importance placed on self-esteem over self-efficacy). Third, the model has not been revised
or expanded to account for more contemporary positive mental health indicators that are
empirically linked with valued developmental outcomes and, just as importantly, have
proven to be amenable to intervention (e.g., empathy, gratitude, and self-regulation). And,
finally, the conceptual structure of the 40 developmental assets model has yet to be validated
via psychometric means, suggesting an empirically unsupported theoretical framework.
In an attempt to address some of the limitations of the 40 developmental assets model
while still using a cumulative-assets framework to understand youths’ positive mental
health, a recent line of research has proposed and investigated a new meta-construct called
covitality. As the counterpart to comorbidity, covitality is conceptualized as the synergistic
effect of positive mental health resulting from the interplay among multiple positive-
psychological building blocks. Statistically speaking, covitality can be described more
technically as the latent, second-order positive mental health construct accounting for the
presence of several co-occurring, first-order positive mental health indicators. One of the
first studies of covitality, conducted by Jones et al. (2013), found that this meta-construct
was a more parsimonious predictor of college students’ internalizing symptoms and per-
sonal adjustment than were the individual contributions of several positive-psychological
traits, including optimism, gratitude, hope, self-efficacy, and hedonia. Another recent
study, conducted by Furlong et al. (2013), found that school-grounded covitality was a
better predictor of elementary students’ (Grades 4–6) prosocial behavior, caring relation-
ships, school acceptance, and school rejection than were the individual contributions of
school gratitude, student zest, school optimism, and student persistence. Building from this
initial empirical groundwork, the present study aimed to further explore the positive

123
1014 M. J. Furlong et al.

dimension of youths’ mental health by investigating the validity and utility of the covitality
construct among adolescents.
For the purposes of this study, we investigated an expanded covitality model that was
comprised of several core positive-mental-health indicators that have been shown to be
associated with favorable developmental and quality-of-life outcomes. Given that adoles-
cent development is characterized by more complex and integrated psychological structures
than is early childhood development, the present study proposed a model of adolescent
covitality that is more robust than the model of student covitality investigated by Furlong
et al. (2013), which was intended to measure the positive-psychological building blocks of
children in elementary school. Our rationale for expanding this covitality model for ado-
lescents is grounded in part in the social-cognitive perspective of youth development, which
posits that as adolescents’ cognitive experiences become more complex, the meanings they
ascribe to their life experiences becomes increasingly important (Berzonsky 2011). Fur-
thermore, our rationale is also based in social-emotional learning theory, which posits that
the most important developmental tasks adolescents face are related to developing and
refining social and emotional competencies that help them succeed in various interpersonal
situations (e.g., Buckley et al. 2003; Greenberg et al. 2003). We also draw from positive
psychology theory, which shows that social-emotional competencies make key contribu-
tions to adolescents’ abilities to live engaging, purposeful, and meaningful lives (e.g.,
Gillham et al. 2011; Proctor et al. 2011). Moreover, our rationale for expanding the ado-
lescent covitality model is firmly grounded in identity development theory (e.g., Waterman
1982), which provides a broader context for all of the aforementioned theories—social-
cognitive, social-emotional, and positive psychology. Within this framework, an adoles-
cent’s most fundamental developmental challenge is the resolution of a pair of identity
questions: Who am I? (belief-in-self; Stewart and Wang 2013; Winheller et al. 2013) and
How do I fit in with others? (belief-in-others; Aminzadeh et al. 2013; Furlong et al. in press).
Based on the theoretical groundwork outlined above, our proposed adolescent covitality
model is comprised of 12 discrete positive-psychological buildings blocks that are
hypothesized to form four first-order positive-mental-health domains that, in turn, con-
tribute to one second-order meta-construct, which is covitality. The 12 positive-psycho-
logical building blocks selected for this model draw broadly from the interrelated subfields
of inquiry that center around youths’ positive mental health. For example, our first
hypothesized domain, belief-in-self, consists of core constructs drawn primarily from the
social-emotional learning (SEL) literature: self-efficacy, self-awareness, and persistence
(e.g., Durlak et al. 2011; Tough 2012). The second domain, belief-in-others, is comprised
of constructs derived mostly from the positive youth development and childhood resilience
literature: school support, peer support, and family coherence (e.g., Larson 2000; Masten
et al. 2009). Similar to the first domain, the third domain, emotional competence, also
consists of constructs that are also drawn largely from the SEL scholarship: emotional
regulation, empathy, and behavioral regulation (e.g., Greenberg et al. 2003; Zins et al.
2007). The final domain, engaged living, is comprised of constructs derived primarily from
the positive youth psychology literature: gratitude, zest, and optimism (e.g., Gilman et al.
2009; Kirschman et al. 2009). Although a detailed review of each of these constructs is
beyond the scope of the present work, an in depth description of our adolescent covitality
model—including operational definitions and a review of empirical support for each of the
12 positive-psychological building blocks—is provided by Renshaw et al. (in press). That
said, given that there are other positive-psychological indicators that could have been
selected to represent the four domains in our proposed model, we do not claim that our
model of positive adolescent mental health is exhaustive in scope. Rather, we offer it as a

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1015

parsimonious, well-rounded model that is grounded in face-valid and empirically-prom-

ising constructs that are likely to have both scholarly and practical utility.

1.3 Purposes of the Present Study

The purposes of the present study were threefold. First, this study aimed to extend the
current research base regarding covitality in youth by testing the psychometric validity and
utility of an independent-assets model of positive mental health (wherein each of the 12
positive-psychological building blocks are conceptualized separately) versus a cumulative-
assets, latent-trait model (wherein all of the positive-psychological building blocks are co-
conceptualized as a single synergistic phenomenon) for predicting students’ subjective
well-being. Relatedly, this study intended to develop a psychometrically sound and
practically feasible assessment instrument for enhancing applied practice related to culti-
vating adolescents’ positive mental health in the schools. To accomplish this aim, this
study situated the items used to assess each of the 12 positive-psychological building
blocks into a single measure of positive mental health, referred to as the Social and
Emotional Health Survey, and then confirmed and validated this measure’s factor structure.
Finally, this study aimed to investigate the utility of the covitality construct, which was
comprised of several internal (within the belief-in-self, emotional competence, and
engaged living domains) and a few external (within the belief-in-others domain) positive-
psychological building blocks, as a predictor of adolescents’ quality-of-life outcomes.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

The participants in this study were adolescent students enrolled in 12 schools (seven junior
high schools, four comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school) located in
central California. Within these 12 schools, all students in Grades 8, 10, and 12 were invited to
participate in the present study, yielding 6,737 eligible participants. Of those eligible for
participation, usable surveys (i.e., self-reports with few missing responses) were received
from 4,189 students (62 % of all eligible participants). For the purposes of the statistical
analyses described subsequently herein, this initial sample was randomly split into two
subsamples (using the case-selection random-sample utility in SPSS version 20), with
Subsample 1 (S1) containing 2,056 participants and Subsample 2 (S2) containing 2,133
participants. Both subsamples had the same mean age of 15.1 years (SD = 1.7; ran-
ge = 13–18 years), consisted of students who primarily self-identified as Latino/a
(S1 = 73 %; S2 = 71 %), and were characterized by comparable gender ratios (S1 = 51 %
female; S2 = 50 % female).

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 Social and Emotional Health Survey (SEHS)

The SEHS is a modification and extension of the Resilience Youth Development Module
(RYDM), which, as part of the suite of assessments associated with the California Healthy
Kids Survey (CHKS), is an instrument for measuring youths’ internal assets and external
resources (Furlong et al. 2009; Hanson and Kim 2007). The SEHS’s item content is based

123
1016 M. J. Furlong et al.

on the theoretical model of 12 core positive-psychological building blocks, all of which are
conceptualized as contributors to adolescents’ positive mental health. To create the initial
item bank for the SEHS, we pulled existing items from the RYDM, as well as from other
preexisting measures that assessed the constructs included in our proposed model (for a
representation of the SEHS’s subscales and their respective sources, see Fig. 1). Although
our primary objective was to develop and refine the SEHS as a high-quality measure, we
also intended to create an assessment instrument that could be feasibly used for applied
purposes within school contexts, and thus we intentionally kept the content of the measure
as brief as possible—making an a priori decision to select only the best three items to
represent each of the 12 core subscales. For seven of the 12 subscales included in the SEHS
(i.e., self-efficacy, self-awareness, family coherence, peer support, emotional regulation,
empathy, and gratitude), we selected the three highest-loading items from each preexisting
scale based on the results of previously published, peer-reviewed factor analyses. However,
previous research for the remaining five subscales (i.e., persistence, school support, self-
control, zest, and optimism) did not provide sufficient information about factor structure
and item loading; hence, we included all items from each of these scales within our initial
item bank, with the goal of selecting the three highest-loading items for each following the
first stage of factor analysis. Thus, the original development version of the SEHS consisted
of 51 items, while the revised and shortened version of the SEHS, based on findings from
the initial factor analysis (described in the Sect. 3), consisted of 36 items, including 3 items
from each of the 12 subscales (Cronbach’s a = 0.92 for the present sample). Table 1
shows the prompts, items, and response options for each subscale of the 36-item SEHS.

2.2.2 Subjective Well-Being

Based on the recommendations of other researchers (e.g., Long et al. 2012; Park 2004), in
the present study, measures of general life satisfaction combined with measures of recent
affective experiences were combined to form a general subjective well-being that was used
in a path analysis to examine the concurrent validity of the proposed covitality model.
Life satisfaction was measured with the Student Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS; Huebner
1991, 1995), a seven-item self-report measure that assesses students’ global life satisfac-
tion by asking them to respond to various appraisal statements using a six-point response

Fig. 1 Theoretical and measurement model underlying the Social and Emotional Health Survey.
RYDM = resilience youth developmental module; GAC = gratitude adjective checklist; YLOT = youth
life orientation test; BERS = Student version of the Behavioral Emotional Rating Scale; CSCRS = Child
Self-Control Rating Scale

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1017

Table 1 Standardized factor loadings for the Social and Emotional Health Survey
Items, response format, and scales Loadings

Belief-in-self
Self-efficacy
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how true you feel that this statement is about you
personally…
Response 1 = not at all true 2 = a little true 3 = pretty much true 4 = very much true
1. I can work out my problems 0.69
2. I can do most things if I try 0.81
3. There are many things that I do well 0.80
Self-awareness
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how true you feel that this statement is about you
personally…
Response 1 = not at all true 2 = a little true 3 = pretty much true 4 = very much true
4. There is a purpose to my life 0.66
5. I understand my moods and feelings 0.76
6. I understand why I do what I do 0.71
Persistence
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how much you feel that this statement is like you personally
Response 1 = not at all true 2 = a little true 3 = pretty much true 4 = very much true
7. When I do not understand something, I ask the teacher again and again until I understand 0.65
8. I try to answer all the questions asked in class 0.64
9. When I try to solve a math problem, I will not stop until I find a final solution 0.63
Belief-in-others
School support
Prompt At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult…
Response 1 = not at all true, 2 = a little true, 3 = pretty much true, 4 = very much true
10. …who always wants me to do my best 0.77
11. …who listens to me when I have something to say 0.78
12. …who believes that I will be a success 0.82
Family coherence
Prompt How much do you agree or disagree with this statement…
Response 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree
13. My family members really help and support one another 0.69
14. There is a feeling of togetherness in my family 0.94
15. My family really gets along well with each other 0.78
Peer support
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how true you feel that this statement is about you
personally…
Response I = not at all true, 2 = a little true, 3 = pretty much true, 4 = very much true
16. I have a friend my age who really cares about me 0.76
17. I have a friend my age who talks with me about my problems 0.87
18. I have a friend my age who helps me when I’m having a hard time 0.94

123
1018 M. J. Furlong et al.

Table 1 continued

Items, response format, and scales Loadings

Emotional competence
Emotional regulation
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how true you feel that this statement is about you
personally…
Response 1 = not at all like me, 2 = not very much like me, 3 = like me, 4 = very much like me
19. I accept responsibility for my actions 0.73
20. When I make a mistake I admit it 0.70
21. I can deal with being told no 0.64
Empathy
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how true you feel that this statement is about you
personally…
Response 1 = not at all like me, 2 = not very much like me, 3 = like me, 4 = very much like me
22. I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt 0.73
23. I try to understand what other people go through 0.71
24. I try to understand how other people feel and think 0.64
Behavioral self-control
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how true you feel that this statement is about you
personally…
Response 1 = really untrue 2 = sort of untrue, 3 = true, 4 = really true
25. I can wait for what I want 0.61
26. I don’t bother others when they are busy 0.63
27. I think before I act 0.58
Engaged living
Gratitude
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how much you have experienced this feeling ‘‘since
yesterday’’
Response 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite a bit, 5 = extremely
28. Grateful 0.82
29. Thankful 0.90
30. Appreciative 0.86
Zest
Prompt These words describe feelings people have. Please read each one carefully. How much do you
have this feeling right now?
Response 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite a bit, 5 = extremely
31. Energetic 0.75
32. Active 0.78
33. Lively 0.85
Optimism
Prompt Select the answer that best describes how true you feel that this statement is about you personally.
Response 1 = not true of me, 2 = sort of not true of me, 3 = sort of true of me, 4 = true of me
34. Each day I look forward to having a lot of fun 0.75
35. I usually expect to have a good day 0.81
36. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad things 0.81

All values were statistically significant at p \ .05

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1019

scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). To keep the overall survey protocol
as brief as possible, we used three high loading positively worded items (‘‘My life is going
well’’; ‘‘I have a good life’’; and ‘‘I have what I want in life’’) and two reverse coded items
(‘‘I would like to change many things in my life’’ and ‘‘I wish I had a different kind of
life’’). For the present sample of students, the internal consistency of this five-item version
of the SLSS was acceptable (Cronbach’s a = 0.81) and was comparable to that found in
previous studies investigating the seven-item SLSS (Cronbach’s a range = 0.81–0.86;
Huebner 1991; Lewis et al. 2011; Lyons et al. 2012).
The Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children (PANAS-C; Hughes and Kendall
2009) was used to measure the respondents’ recent emotional experiences. The PANAS-C
is a 27-item self-report measure that assesses youths’ overall emotional experiences by
asking them to rate, using a five-point response scale (i.e., 0 = not at all, 1 = a little,
2 = moderately, 3 = quite a bit, and 4 = extremely), how often they experienced various
aspects of positive affect and negative affect over the previous two weeks. For the present
study, we used an abbreviated list of PANAS items. First, we excluded items that had
content similar to what was measured by the SEHS Zest subscale (i.e., lively, energetic,
and active). PANAS items with high factor loadings (Villodas et al. 2011) were used to
measure positive affect (joyful, delighted, and cheerful) and negative affect (scared, lonely,
gloomy, nervous, upset, and sad). For the present study’s sample, the internal consistencies
were acceptable (Cronbach’s a = 0.87 and 0.84 for positive and negative affect, respec-
tively) and were comparable to those obtained in previous studies (Cronbach’s a
range = 0.87–0.92; Hughes and Kendall 2009; Laurent et al. 1999).
Using the Sample 1 data (described in the Sect. 2.4) we conducted a CFA using the EQS
(V6.1) structural equation modeling program (Bentler 2006) to confirm the factor structure
of a model that included the SLSS and PANAS positive and negative (reverse scored)
indicators loading onto a subjective well-being latent trait, with results indicating that the
model adequately fit the data, v2 = 618.36, df = 88, p \ .01, SRMR = 0.064,
RMSEA = 0.075, 90 % CI [0.069, 0.081].

2.2.3 Quality of Life

Beyond the SLSS and PANAS-C, which were used to validate the SEHS factor structure, we
also utilized several additional, brief measures to investigate the concurrent validity of the
covitality model underlying the SEHS for various quality of life outcomes. One of these
convergent validity measures, taken from the CHKS Core Module A (California Depart-
ment of Education n.d.), consisted of a single item asking students to self-report their
academic achievement: ‘‘During the past 12 months, how would you describe the grades
you mostly received in school?’’ (response options: 8 = mostly A’s, 7 = A’s and B’s,
6 = mostly B’s, 5 = B’s and C’s, 4 = mostly C’s, 3 = C’s and D’s, 2 = mostly D’s, and
1 = mostly F’s). Another convergent validity measure, taken from the Perceived School
Safety Index of the California School Climate Index (see http://californias3.wested.org),
consisted of two items asking students to self-report their perceptions of school safety: ‘‘I
feel safe in my school’’ (response options: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and
‘‘How safe do you feel when you are at school?’’ (reverse-coded response options: 1 = very
safe, 2 = safe, 3 = neither safe or unsafe, 4 = unsafe, 5 = very unsafe). Another measure
used to investigate discriminant validity, again taken from the CHKS Core Module A,
consisted of three items asking students to self-report their use of tobacco and marijuana,
and participation in binge drinking (i.e., five or more drinks within a 2-h period) within the
previous 30 days. Responses across all three items were dichotomized to reflect no use of

123
1020 M. J. Furlong et al.

any of the three substances (0) or use of one or more of the three substances (1). A final
discriminant validity measure, taken from the US Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey
(Eaton et al. 2012), consisted of a single item asking students to self-report regarding their
depressive symptoms: ‘‘During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless
almost every day for 2 weeks or more in a row that you stopped doing some usual activi-
ties?’’ (response options: 1 = yes or 2 = no).

2.3 Procedure

The original 51-item SEHS was included within a larger 126-item survey that also con-
tained selected items from the SLSS, PANAS-C, and Core Module A of the CHKS. The
survey was administered to students in a group format during regular schools hours as part
of the evaluation of a Safe Schools Healthy Students project (cf. Sharkey et al. 2012)
conducted in November 2011. Classroom teachers proctored the survey, following a script
prepared specifically for the CHKS to encourage students not to discuss their answers with
each other and to reduce potential distractions and interruptions. Positive parental consent
was obtained following California educational policy procedures and as approved by the
authors’ institutional review board. Students were informed that the survey was anonymous
and that they were not required to complete it. District and school coordinators oversaw
survey planning and implementation. The procedures to obtain informed consent and to
administer the surveys followed CHKS protocol, with which the district personnel had
extensive experience, given that they had conducted six previous annual data collection
cycles prior to administering the present survey. All surveys were completed using an
online, anonymous survey portal created by the researchers. Each item was presented one-
by-one on a refreshed computer screen.

2.4 Data Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in two stages of factor analyses. In the first stage,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to test the fit of the previously published
factor structure of constructs assessed by the SEHS to a split-half of the total sample
(Sample 1). In the second stage, using the remainder of the original sample (Sample 2),
structural equation modeling was used to test two alternative models of positive youth
mental health as well as to test invariance across genders via a series of multigroup CFAs.
The invariance testing process involved several steps, in which increasingly restrictive
levels of measurement invariance were explored in the following order: configural, metric,
and scalar (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). Configural invariance tested if the same
basic factor structure holds across groups. This level of invariance was designed to
examine whether the patterns of zero and nonzero factor coefficients were equivalent
across groups, and to establish baseline models with adequate fit for the subsequent
measurement invariance testing. Thus, this analysis provided information to evaluate if the
SEHS subscales fit for both gender groups. Once configural invariance was established,
then metric invariance was tested. Metric invariance tested the extent to which the rela-
tions between the factors and the items were equivalent across both gender groups. This
analysis provided information related to evaluating the equivalence of the factor loadings
on each of the SHES’s 12 subscales. If the latent factor had equal loadings across both
gender groups, this ensured that each group responded to the items in the same way. Once
metric invariance was obtained, then the last step involved testing scalar invariance, which
examined the equality of intercept terms to determine whether the two gender groups used

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1021

the response scales in a similar way. If these invariance tests were all met, then the results
would allow meaningful comparisons of latent means across gender groups.
In the present study, for all analyses, the degree of model fit was assessed from several
angles using several criteria: the Satorra-Bentler scaled statistic, comparative fit index
(CFI; Bentler 1990), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), and root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger and Lind 1980) with 90 % confidence
interval. Preliminary examination of students’ responses showed that these data were
multivariately kurtose; hence, all analyses were based on the robust statistics. Satorra-
Bentler scaled statistic (S–B v2) was used because it provides a correction to the test
statistics and standard errors when data are non-normally distributed. We used the two-
index strategy advanced by Hu and Bentler (1999). Specifically, SRMR was examined with
a value lower than 0.08 desired. In addition to acceptable SRMR, values lower than 0.06
for the RMSEA were used to determine a good-fitting model. In reporting on evidence of
invariance, two criteria must be met. The first is that the multigroup model exhibits an
adequate fit to the data. Cheung and Rensvold (2002) recommended that differences in CFI
values between models smaller than or equal to -0.01 indicate that the null hypothesis of
invariance should not be rejected. Further, Lagrange multiplier (LM) test modification
indices were examined to find which equality constraints are untenable. Moreover, as in
many studies using survey methods, the present dataset contained some missing responses.
In order to obtain unbiased estimates of the parameters of interest, despite the incom-
pleteness of the data, this study employed EM ML estimation (Yuan and Bentler 2000).

3 Results

3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Using the data from Sample 1, a CFA was conducted using the EQS (V6.1) structural
equation modeling program (Bentler 2006) to test the fit of the previously known factor
structure of constructs assessed by the original 51-item SEHS (i.e., self-awareness, self-
efficacy, perseverance, school support, peer support, family coherence, emotional regu-
lation, behavioral regulation, empathy, gratitude, zest, and optimism). The model ade-
quately fit the data, v2 = 3,093.97, df = 582, p \ .01; SRMR = 0.056; RMSEA = 0.062,
90 % CI [0.060, 0.064]. As expected, all items showed good factor loadings on their
corresponding hypothesized factors, and all parameter estimates were found to be statis-
tically significant (p \ .01; see Table 1). Following this analysis, in an attempt to
streamline the SEHS and enhance its utility as a feasible measure for research and applied
school practice, we shortened the overall measure by selecting the top-three items with the
highest loadings from the five subscales that were represented by more than three items to
begin with (i.e., persistence, school support, self-control, zest, and optimism)—resulting in
a revised, shortened 36-item SEHS that was maintained for the second stage of CFA.
In the second stage of analysis, a CFA was conducted on Sample 2 using the EQS (V6.1)
structural equation modeling program (Bentler 2006) to validate the identified factor
structure of the 36-item SEHS resulting from the stage 1 CFA. Because previous research
has not conclusively identified the factor structure of positive mental health constructs when
used in combination (cf. Jones et al. 2013), several alternative factor models were tested to
identify plausible models that could explain the relations among the items. Knowing that the
12 core positive-psychological subscales were significantly correlated, Model 1 tested a
fully correlated model. Findings from this model indicated that all subscales loaded well

123
1022 M. J. Furlong et al.

(ranging from 0.52 to 0.82) onto the four hypothesized first-order latent constructs (which
we conceptualized as higher-order positive mental health domains): belief-in-self, belief-in-
others, emotional competence, and engaged living (see Fig. 1). Moreover, the model was
found to adequately fit the data, v2 = 382.59, df = 48, p \ .05, CFI = 0.910,
SRMR = 0.047, RMSEA = 0.071, 90 % CI [0.068, 0.073]. Model 2 extended the analysis
by testing a second-order latent factor model, wherein the four first-order latent constructs
(or positive mental health domains) were loaded onto a general second-order latent con-
struct: covitality. Results from this model also indicated an adequate fit to the data,
v2 = 401.16, df = 50, p \ .05, CFI = 0.919, SRMR = 0.048, RMSEA = 0.071, 90 % CI
[0.067, 0.072]. Taken together, these results indicated that both models yielded close fits to
the data; however, given that parsimony is one of the scientific criteria used for model
selection, and considering that the four positive-mental-health domains loaded significantly
onto the adolescent covitality factor, we identified Model 2 as the preferred solution over
Model 1 (See Fig. 2 for the final model solution). Hence, the second-order factor model was
selected for use in the multigroup invariance analyses (Table 2).

3.2 Multigroup Invariance Testing

As previously noted, measurement invariance testing was performed in three steps: confi-
gural, metric, and scalar. The second-order factor model was examined for both gender
groups, with results showing adequate fit to the data for males, v2 = 272.36, df = 50,
p \ .05, CFI = 0.927; SRMR = 0.045; RMSEA = 0.065, 90 % CI [0.062, 0.068] and for
females, v2 = 314.66, df = 50, p \ .05, CFI = 0.913; SRMR = 0.048; RMSEA = 0.071,
90 % CI [0.066, 0.074]. For both gender groups, factor loadings were all of satisfactory
magnitude and were statistically significant at the p \ .01 level. Since the same factor
structure was tenable across groups, configural invariance was ascertained. Next, metric
invariance testing was conducted, with findings indicating that Model 2 constrained all
factor loadings to be equal across gender groups. Comparing Model 1 (baseline model) and
Model 2, DCFI was \ 0.01, indicating that the latent factors have the same effect on all of
their respective observed indicators. Finally, scalar invariance was evaluated, with results
indicating that the full scalar invariance model, Model 3, held based on acceptable change in
DCFI (see Table 3). In sum, the results suggested that the second-order covitality model
showed sufficient invariance across genders.

3.3 Test of Latent Mean Differences

Given that the assumptions of configural, metric, and scalar invariance were satisfied, the
next step was to test for differences in latent means. To accomplish this, mean differences
were examined across genders, with males set as the referent group. Results showed
significant latent mean group differences with a small effect size in respect to all covitality
factors except engaged living. Specifically, females were more likely to strongly endorse
belief-in-others and emotional competence items, while males were more likely to strongly
endorse belief-in-self items (see Table 3).

3.4 Path Model Testing

Using Sample 2, we examined the associations among the four first-order latent constructs
(or positive-mental-health domains), the hypothesized second-order latent construct

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1023

Fig. 2 Positive mental health and covitality model underlying the Social and Emotional Health Survey

Table 2 Model fit indices for invariance testing of the covitality model
Model and invariance level S–B v2 df SRMR RMSEA [CI] DCFI

Model 1 (baseline model) configural invariance 586.89 100 0.046 0.068 [0.063, 0.073] –
Model 2: full metric invariance 624.27 112 0.057 0.066 [0.061, 0.071] 0.004
Model 3: full metric and full scalar invariance 993.99 120 0.056 0.066 [0.061, 0.071] 0.000
2
S–B v = Satorra-Bentler scaled Chi square statistic, SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual,
RMSEA = robust root-mean-square error of approximation, CI = confidence interval, DCFI = difference
in robust comparative fit indices between baseline model

Table 3 Results of structured

Variable Factor intercept z Effect Size
means analyses with male group
(SE) (d)
as the reference group
Belief-in-self -0.080 (0.027) 3.00 -0.11*
Belief-in-others 0.099 (0.020) 4.92 0.19*
Engaged living -0.023 (0.039) 0.59 -0.02
Emotional competence 0.083 (0.028) 2.97 0.10*
The latent mean values for male
CoVitality (higher order 0.069 (0.011) 6.27 0.11*
group were set to zero
latent trait)
* p \ .05, small effect size

123
1024 M. J. Furlong et al.

(covitality), and adolescents’ subjective well-being outcomes within a structural path

model analysis. As expected, the analysis revealed significant, strong positive relations
between the four positive-mental-health domains and adolescents’ covitality, as well as
between covitality and the subjective well-being outcomes. Moreover, the overall struc-
tural model proved to be a good fit to the data, v2 = 942.81, df = 85, p \ .05,
SRMR = 0.047; RMSEA = 0.065, 90 % CI [0.061, 0.069] (See Fig. 2 for a complete
presentation of the resulting structural path model).

3.5 Concurrent Validity Analyses

To further examine the validity of the SEHS and the covitality construct it represents, we first
computed a covitality composite score (referred to hereafter as CoVi) for each student by
summing the composite scores of each of the SEHS’s 12 subscales. Following, we examined
the distribution of the CoVi scores within the present sample, with findings indicating that the
variable was normally distributed and provided a range of scores both above and below the
mean (range = 36–150, M = 109.78, SD = 18.40, skewness = - 0.54, kurtosis = 0.49).
The CoVi scores were then transformed to z-scores, which were used to form four CoVi
groups: very low (scores\- 1.0 SD, n = 623), low (scores -1.0 to 0 SD, n = 1,310), high
(score [ 0 and \?1.0 SD, n = 1,523), and very high (scores [ ?1 SD, n = 653). Finally,
this four-level CoVi grouping variable was used as the independent variable within a series of
inferential analyses examining group differences by covitality level (i.e., very low, low, high,
and very high) across several dependent variable outcomes: academic achievement, per-
ceptions of school safety, substance use, and depressive symptoms.
For the first convergent validity analysis, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to test the
relation between students’ CoVi level and their self-reported academic achievement (as
described in the Sect. 2.2). Results from this analysis yielded a CoVi main effect for
academic achievement, F (3, 4105) = 125.49, p \ .0001, R2 = 0.083, with Tukey post
hoc tests indicating significant mean differences between all CoVi levels—the very high
CoVi group having the highest course grades (M = 6.4, SD = 1.5), followed by students
in the high group (M = 5.9, SD = 1.6), the low group (M = 5.5, SD = 1.8), and, lastly,
the very low group (M = 4.6, SD = 2.2). Overall, Tukey post hoc comparisons showed
that all four groups’ self-reported grades were significantly different from each other.
In the second convergent validity analysis, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to test
the relation between students’ CoVi level and their self-reported perceptions of school
safety (as described in the Sect. 2.2). Similar to the previous analysis, this analysis yielded
a CoVi main effect for perceptions of school safety, F (3, 4070) = 191.07, p \ .0001,
R2 = 0.123, with students in the very high CoVi group having the highest self-reported
perceptions of school safety (M = 8.1, SD = 1.7), followed by students in the high group
(M = 7.6, SD = 1.5), the low group (M = 7.0, SD = 1.5), and, lastly, the very low group
(M = 6.10, SD = 1.9). Similar to self-reported academic achievement, Tukey post hoc
comparisons for perceptions of school safety also showed that all four groups were sig-
nificantly different from each other.
For the first discriminant validity analysis, a Chi square test of association was con-
ducted to test the relation between students’ CoVi level and their self-reported use (or not)
of tobacco, marijuana, and/or alcohol during the past 30 days (as described in the Sect.
2.2). Results from this analysis indicated significant differences in the proportion of stu-
dents in the four CoVi groups reporting any substance use in the past month, v2 (3,
N = 4,121) = 181.82, p \ .0001. Although most students reported not using any of the
three substances mentioned above, students in the very high CoVi group were the least

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1025

likely to endorse any substance use (9.2 %), followed by students in the high group
(12.8 %), the low group (19.9 %), and, lastly, the very low group (34.5 %). Moreover, post
hoc comparisons using a Bonferroni correction found that all four of the group proportions
significantly differed from all of the others.
In the second discriminant validity analysis, a Chi square test of association was con-
ducted to test the relation between students’ CoVi level and self-reported depressive
symptoms (as described in the Sect. 2.2). Similar to the previous analysis, there were
significant differences of self-reported depressive experiences among students in the four
CoVi groups, v2 (3, N = 4,075) = 160.78, p \ .0001. Students in the very high CoVi
group were the least likely to report having had depressive symptoms during the previous
year (20.9 %), followed by students in the high group (27.1 %), the low group (38.2 %),
and, lastly, the very low group (49.8 %). Again, post hoc comparisons using a Bonferroni
correction found that all four of the group proportions significantly differed from all of the
others.

4 Discussion

4.1 Interpretation of Results

The present study explored adolescents’ positive mental health by investigating an

expanded model of covitality that was comprised of 12 core positive-psychological
building blocks: self-awareness, self-efficacy, perseverance, school support, peer support,
family coherence, emotional regulation, behavioral regulation, empathy, gratitude, zest,
and optimism. The overarching purpose of this study was to initiate the development of an
empirically- and socially-valid assessment instrument—the Social and Emotional Health
Survey—for measuring this proposed model of positive adolescent mental health within
school settings. Moreover, the present study continued a new line of research investigating
covitality and its validity as a second-order, latent construct for predicting youths’ sub-
jective well-being and quality-of-life outcomes. Considering these aims, results from the
first-stage CFA, conducted with the original 51-item SEHS, confirmed that the items
selected to represent the 12 subscales underlying our hypothesized model did indeed load
well onto their respective factors and that there was good overall model fit, suggesting that,
even when taken together, each subscale can be considered as a conceptually-distinct
positive mental health construct.
Furthermore, results from the second-stage CFA, conducted on the revised and short-
ened 36-item SEHS, confirmed the statistical viability of the four proposed positive-
mental-health domains (i.e., belief-in-self, belief-in-others, emotional competence, and
engaged living) situated within our larger model, showing that the 12 distinct subscales
loaded well onto their hypothesized domains and that there was good overall model fit.
Findings from this analysis also indicated that the hypothesized covitality model, which
loaded the four general well-being domains onto the single, underlying latent construct of
covitality, also yielded a good fit to the data. Given that the covitality model was both
statistically sound and more parsimonious, we selected it as the best-fitting model for the
data and then used it within a larger path modeling analysis, which yielded results indi-
cating that youths’ self-reported covitality was highly predictive of their subjective well-
being (operationalized as a combination of life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative
affect; see Fig. 2). The identification of the second-order adolescent covitality factor and
its predictive utility in the present study replicated what has been found in previous studies

123
1026 M. J. Furlong et al.

with college students (Jones et al. 2013) and elementary school children (Furlong et al.
2013). These findings are also consistent with those from other recent studies, which have
demonstrated the additive effects of considering multiple positive-psychological traits in
combination, in comparison to isolated traits, when predicting youths’ mental health (e.g.,
Proctor et al. 2011), general physical health (e.g., Torsheim et al. 2001), and overall quality
of life (e.g., Gillham et al. 2011).
Importantly, results from this study also indicated that the SEHS had full factorial
invariance for males and females, supporting its utility as a sound measure of adolescent
covitality for both genders. Furthermore, although no latent mean differences were found
between genders on the engaged living domain, results did show significant differences
with small effect sizes for latent mean differences across all other domains, with females
having higher scores than males on emotional competence and belief-in-others, both of
which are consistent with previous research suggesting that adolescent females tend to
have more emotional control (e.g., Ang and Goh 2010) and are more trusting in inter-
personal relationships (e.g., Oberle et al. 2010) than their male counterparts, and males
having higher scores than females on the belief-in-self domain, which was measured by a
combination of items related to generalized self-efficacy, self-awareness, and academic
task persistence. Previous research examining adolescent self-efficacy differences by
gender have been mixed (Schunk and Meece 2006), but the small gender difference found
in the present study (d = 0.19) was nearly identical to the gender-difference effect size of
0.21 found in a meta-analysis of self-esteem measures (Kling et al. 1999).
Moreover, concurrent validity analyses conducted in the present study provided further
support for the adolescent covitality construct. Evidence of convergent validity was pro-
vided by findings from analyses of the relation between youths’ covitality level (i.e., very
low, low, high, and very high) and their self-reported academic achievement and per-
ceptions of school safety, which indicated that higher CoVi levels were significantly
associated with better academic achievement and more positive perceptions of school
climate—consistent with research showing that students who build more positive school
connections have a more successful school experience (Furlong et al. in press; Gillham
et al. 2011). Furthermore, initial discriminant validity was provided by findings indicating
that higher covitality levels were significantly associated with lower substance use and
fewer experiences of depressive symptoms, suggesting that boosting the 12 core positive-
psychological building blocks of adolescent covitality might have resilience enhancing
effects (cf. Masten 2001). Taken together, this initial convergent and discriminant validity
evidence suggests that adolescent covitality, as proposed herein, warrants further research
as a key positive-mental-health indicator for understanding and predicting important
developmental and quality-of-life outcomes of youth.

4.2 Implications for Theory and Practice

Findings from the present study have several implications for scholarship and practice that
is oriented toward progressing the positive dimension of youths’ mental health. Regarding
theory, this study, along with a recent investigation conducted by Furlong et al. (2013), is
one of the few empirical explorations of the covitality construct in youth—and it is the first
to investigate the viability of this construct within an adolescent sample. Although the
approach used in the present study to investigate the positive-psychological building blocks
of youth mental health was grounded in the traditional cumulative-assets framework
derived from childhood resilience research (e.g., Ostaszewski and Zimmerman 2006), the
methods and findings of this study also serve to enhance the original theory underlying this

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1027

framework—positing, investigating, and validating a synergistic, parsimonious, latent

positive-mental-health construct that links all of the positive-psychological building blocks
together: covitality. As the first empirical study to investigate the structural model of
adolescent covitality proposed herein, we recognize the need for future studies to replicate
and expand our model’s psychometric validity and predictive utility. That said, findings
from the present study suggest that our model of covitality and its associated constructs
could serve as a pragmatic representation of adolescents’ positive mental health. As
described in the Sect. 1, our model is similar to other cumulative-assets models (e.g., the
Search Institute’s 40 developmental assets model; Scales 1999; Scales et al. 2011) in that it
identifies the confluence of positive-psychological building blocks as being important to
understanding youths’ overall mental health; yet our model extends previous research in
this area by grounding adolescents’ positive mental health in multiple theoretical traditions
(including empirically-supported constructs from positive psychology, social-emotional
learning theory, and resilience studies) and, most importantly, by providing psychometric
support and validation of the conceptual structure underlying the overall model.
Beyond contributing to theory, the present study also has implications for applied
psychological practice with adolescents, particularly in the schools. Findings from the
present study suggest that school-based practitioners could use the SEHS as a brief, psy-
chometrically sound, developmentally appropriate instrument for measuring the core
building blocks of positive adolescent mental health. For example, for practitioners
working from a bidimensional model of mental health (Suldo and Shaffer 2008; Suldo
et al. 2011), the SEHS could be used as part of the individual psychoeducational assess-
ment and treatment-planning processes, to obtain a baseline measure of students’ positive
mental health that helps inform subsequent interventions and supports. The SEHS might
also be used within group counseling settings, as an assessment tool for progress-moni-
toring the growth of students’ positive mental health in response to intervention. Also, at
the schoolwide level, the SEHS might be used as a universal screening instrument for
assessing students’ covitality, allowing for the examination of the relations of covitality
with valued school outcomes as well as the use of such data for informing student support
services. That said, to examine the potential utility of the SEHS for this particular purpose,
we have recently used it, in conjunction with the Behavioral and Emotional Screening
System (Kamphaus and Reynolds 2007), as part of a mental health screening initiative at
several comprehensive high schools in southern California.

4.3 Limitations and Future Research

Although promising, the findings of the present study should be considered in light of its
methodological limitations. First, given that the sample was comprised wholly of sec-
ondary students from Grades 8, 10, and 12, who were enrolled in several central California
schools serving predominantly Latino/a and Hispanic youth, the findings have unknown
generalizability to secondary students from other cultural or ethnic backgrounds in the
USA (e.g., predominantly African-American or Asian-American students) and groups of
students from other countries. Within the local context, however, it is noteworthy that
Latino/a students currently comprise a majority of California’s student population, with
53 % of the students in Grades 4–6 being of Latino/a heritage—which amounts to more
than 10 % of all secondary school children in the USA. To address this limitation, we
recognize the need for research to evaluate the SEHS and its related constructs with
samples of students drawn from other regions across the USA as well as from other
nations, and thus we are currently involved in projects collecting data from 20 additional

123
1028 M. J. Furlong et al.

California secondary schools and have initiated similar studies in Australia, Japan, Korea,
and Peru. Second, given that the SEHS is a self-report scale, these data might be affected
by social desirability and other response biases. To investigate this possibility, our ongoing
SEHS research (described above) will be examining test–retest reliability. Third, because a
cross-sectional research design was employed, it is not possible to infer causality or to
assess the sensitivity-to-change of the SEHS and the relations of its constructs with valued
developmental outcomes. To begin to address these interests, there is a need for future
research to utilize the SEHS as an outcome measure for both treatment and longitudinal
studies, evaluating its concurrent validity with indicators of school performance (e.g.,
academic achievement and classroom behavior) and students’ quality of life outcomes
(e.g., subjective well-being and physical health status).

5 Conclusion

Using the SEHS, the present study is the first to propose and investigate a model of
adolescent positive mental health that contributes to covitality and predicts subjective well-
being and quality of life outcomes. For those who find the concept of covitality and its
empirical merits difficult to comprehend, we suggest that its development and utility be
considered in light of the evolution of intelligence theories (cf. Daniel 1997). At first,
cognitive ability measures were developed primarily in an atheoretical context, often with
a focus on pragmatic interests, such as the educational or vocational needs of clients. But as
intelligence theory evolved, measures of cognitive ability were eventually developed from
psychometrically derived first-order factors—and, ultimately, these psychometric factors
were shown to contribute to a single, underlying second-order general intelligence factor
(g). Similarly, we see covitality as a construct that is analogous to the g-factor of intel-
ligence measures, as it is made up of several psychometrically derived positive-psycho-
logical factors that were originally developed in atheoretical contexts but have been shown,
now, to contribute to a common underlying effect of positive mental health. Furthermore,
just as the g-factor has been shown to be a better predictor of academic performance and
quality of life outcomes than any particular cognitive ability factor considered indepen-
dently, results from the present study, along with those from previous studies (Furlong
et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2013) indicate that the covitality factor is a better predictor of
subjective well-being and quality of life than are its component constructs considered
separately. Moreover, similar to how the content and structure of intelligence theories have
evolved as research has progressed, we expect that the combination of positive-psycho-
logical building blocks and first-order positive-mental-health domains proposed in our
current model of covitality might also evolve as this line of research progresses—espe-
cially if future studies can demonstrate that particular structural models of covitality have
better psychometric validity and more predictive utility than other structural models.
In closing, we want to reaffirm the nature of the covitality model proposed herein,
which consists of the 12 SEHS subscales (self-awareness, self-efficacy, perseverance,
school support, peer support, family coherence, emotional regulation, behavioral regula-
tion, empathy, gratitude, zest, and optimism), four general positive-mental-health domains
(belief-in-self, belief-in-others, emotional competence, and engaged living), and the sec-
ond-order CoVi factor, by emphasizing that it is not intended as a direct measure of
adolescents’ subjective well-being. Rather, we conceptualize it is a measure of the posi-
tive-psychological building blocks that contribute to adolescents’ overall positive mental
health, which is predictive of—yet not limited to—aspects of subjective well-being. In this

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1029

regard, we conceptualize the 12 positive-psychological building blocks as having roots in

early childhood and, as they develop, becoming linked with and contributing to the
development of subjective well-being via an interdependent and iterative developmental
process. That said, we recognize that additional research is needed to better understand
which combinations of positive-psychological constructs are associated with particular
desired developmental outcomes (e.g., subjective well-being or academic achievement and
success) as well as to explore how the CoVi factor might enhance other research efforts
exploring the positive dimension of adolescents’ mental health. Thus we hope that other
scholars who are interested in progressing youths’ positive mental health will seek to both
replicate and extend our initial work with the SEHS and its underlying conceptual model.
And, likewise, we hope that such efforts will continue to shed light on and refine the two-
continua model of mental health in youth, giving as much priority to the positive
dimension of mental health as to the negative dimension.

References

Aminzadeh, K., Denny, S., Utter, J., Milfont, T. L., Ameratunga, S., Teevale, T., et al. (2013). Neigh-
bourhood social capital and adolescent self-reported wellbeing in New Zealand: A multilevel analysis.
Social Science and Medicine, 84(May), 13–21. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.012.
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive
empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 387–397. doi:10.1007/s10578-
010-0176-3.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2011). A social-cognitive perspective on identity construction. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 55–76). New York,
NY: Springer.
Buckley, M., Storino, M., & Saarni, C. (2003). Promoting emotional competence in children and adoles-
cents: Implications for school psychologists. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 177–191. doi:
10.1521/scpq.18.2.177.21855.
California Department of Education. (n.d.). California school district secondary school survey results fall
2009/spring 2010: Core module A. Retrieved from http://chks.wested.org/resources/a-text_0910.pdf.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
Daniel, M. H. (1997). Intelligence testing: Status and trends. American Psychologist, 52, 1038–1045.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of
enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based interventions.
Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
Eaton, D. A., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J., et al. (2012). Youth risk behavior
surveillance—United States, 2011. MMWR, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(4), 1–168.
Ey, S., Hadley, W., Allen, D. N., Palmer, S., Klosky, J., Deptula, D., et al. (2005). A new measure of
children’s optimism and pessimism: The Youth Life Orientation Test. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 46, 548–558. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00372.x.
Froh, J. J., Bono, G., & Emmon, R. (2010). Being grateful is beyond good manners: Gratitude and moti-
vation to contribute to society among early adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 144–157. doi:
10.1007/s11031-010-9163-z.
Froh, J. J., Fan, J., Emmons, R. A., Bono, G., Huebner, E. S., & Watkins, P. (2011). Measuring gratitude in
youth: Assessing the psychometric properties of adult gratitude scales in children and adolescents.
Psychological Assessment, 23, 311–324. doi:10.1037/a0021590.
Furlong, M. J., Froh, J. J., Muller, M. E., & Gonzalez, V. The role of gratitude in fostering school bonding.
In D. J. Shernoff & J. Bempechat (Eds.), National Society for the Study of Education yearbook:
Engaging youth in schools: Empirically-based model to guide future innovations. New York, NY:
Teachers College Record (in press).

123
1030 M. J. Furlong et al.

Furlong, M. J., Ritchey, K. M., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2009). Developing norms for the California Resilience
Youth Development Module: Internal assets and school resources subscales. California School Psy-
chologist, 14, 35–46.
Furlong, M. J., You, S., Renshaw, T. L., O’Malley, M. D., & Rebelez, J. (2013). Preliminary development of
the positive experiences at School Scale for elementary school children. Child Indicators Research.
Advanced online publication. doi:10.1007/s12187-013-9193-7.
Gillham, J., Adams-Deutsch, Z., Werner, J., Reivich, K., Coulter-Heindl, V., Linkins, M., et al. (2011).
Character strengths predict subjective well-being during adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psy-
chology, 6, 31–44. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.536773.
Gilman, R., Huebner, E. S., & Furlong, M. J. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of positive psychology in schools.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003).
Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and
academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.
Hanson, T. L., & Kim, J. O. (2007). Measuring resilience and youth development: the psychometric
properties of the Healthy Kids Survey. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 034). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology
International, 12, 231–243. doi:10.1177/0143034391123010.
Huebner, E. S. (1995). The Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale: An assessment of psychometric properties with
black and white elementary school students. Social Indicators Research, 34, 315–323. doi:
10.1007/BF01078690.
Hughes, A. A., & Kendall, P. C. (2009). Psychometric properties of the positive and negative affect scale for
children (PANAS-C) in children with anxiety disorders. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,
40, 343–352. doi:10.1007/s10578-009-0130-4.
Jimerson, S. R., Sharkey, J. D., Nyborg, V., & Furlong, M. J. (2004). Strength-based assessment and school
psychology: A summary and synthesis. The California School Psychologist, 9, 9–19.
Jones, C. N., You, S., & Furlong, M. J. (2013). A preliminary examination of covitality as integrated well-
being in college students. Social Indicators Research, 111, 511–526. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0017-9.
Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System manual.
Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Kelly, R. M., Hills, K. J., Huebner, E. S., & McQuillin, S. (2012). The longitudinal stability and dynamics of
group membership in the dual-factor model of mental health: Psychosocial predictors of mental health.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 337–355. doi:10.1177/0829573512458505.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental Illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state
model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.73.3.539.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complimentary strategy
for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62, 95–108. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.62.2.95.
Kirschman, K. J. B., Johnson, R. J., Bender, J. A., & Roberts, M. C. (2009). Positive psychology for children
and adolescents: Development, prevention, and promotion. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 133–148). Oxford: New York, NY.
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A
meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 125, 470–500.
Knoop, H. H. (2011). Education in 2025: How positive psychology can revitalize education. In S. I. Don-
aldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura (Eds.), Applied positive psychology: Improving everyday
life, health, schools, work, and society (pp. 97–116). New York, NY: Routledge.
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55,
170–183. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170.
Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E, Jr, Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., et al. (1999). A
measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary validation.
Psychological Assessment, 11, 326–338. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.11.3.326.
Lewis, A. D., Huebner, E. S., Malone, P. S., & Valois, R. F. (2011). Life satisfaction and student
engagement in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 249–262. doi:10.1007/s10964-
010-9517-6.

123
Social and Emotional Health Survey 1031

Long, R. F., Huebner, E. S., Wedell, D. H., & Hills, K. J. (2012). Measuring school-related subjective well-being
in adolescents. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 50–60. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01130.x.
Lufi, D., & Cohen, A. (1987). A scale for measuring persistence in children. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 51, 178–185. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5102_2.
Lyons, M. D., Huebner, E. S., Hills, K. J., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2012). The dual-factor model of mental
health: Further study of the determinants of group differences. Canadian Journal of School Psy-
chology, 27, 183–196. doi:10.1177/0829573512443669.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience process in development. American Psychologist, 56,
227–238. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227.
Masten, A. S., Cutuli, J. J., Herbers, J. E., & Reed, M. G. (2009). Resilience in development. In S. J. Lopez
& C. R. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 117–132). Oxford:
New York, NY.
Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Thomson, K. C. (2010). Understanding the link between social and
emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: Gender-specific predictors of peer
acceptance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1330–1342. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9.
Ostaszewski, K., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2006). The effects of cumulative risks and promotive factors on
urban adolescent alcohol and other drug use: A longitudinal study of resiliency. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 38, 237–249. doi:10.1007/s10464-006-9076-x.
Park, N. (2004). The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 25–39. doi:10.1177/0002716203260078.
Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related
quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 153–169. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9181-2.
Renshaw, T. L., Furlong, M. J., Dowdy, E., Rebelez, J., Smith, D. C., O’Malley, M. D., Lee, S.-Y., & Strøm,
I.F. Covitality: A synergistic conception of adolescents’ mental health. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, &
E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in the schools (2nd ed). New York, NY:
Routledge (in press).
Rohrbeck, C. A., Azar, S. T., & Wagner, P. E. (1991). Child Self-Control Rating Scale: Validation of a child
self-report measure. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 20, 179–183. doi:
10.1207/s15374424jccp2002_9.
Scales, P. C. (1999). Reducing risks and building developmental assets: Essential actions for promoting
adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 69, 113–119. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.1999.tb07219.x.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Applied Developmental Science, 4, 27–46.
doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0401_3.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2011). Adolescent thriving: The role of sparks,
relationships, and empowerment. Journal of youth and adolescence, 40, 263–277. doi:10.1007/s10964-
010-9578-6.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Semsa, A., & Van Dulmen, M. (2006). The role of
developmental assets in predicting academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 29, 691–708. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.09.001.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In F. Parjares & T. C. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71–96). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Sharkey, J. D., Furlong, M. J., Dowdy, E., Felix, E. D., Grimm, L., & Ritchey, K. (2012). The United States
Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative: Turning a national initiative into local action. In S. R. Jim-
erson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and
school safety: International research and practice (pp. 487–502). New York, NY: Routledge.
Shekhtmeyster, Z., Sharkey, J. D., & You, S. (2011). The influence of multiple ecological assets on
substance use patterns of diverse adolescents. School Psychology Review, 40, 386–404.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.
1086/209528.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, A. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA
Stewart, D., & Wang, D. (2013). Building resilience through school-based health promotion: a systematic
review. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. First published online Feb 28, 2013. doi:
10.1080/14623730.2013.770319.
Suldo, S. M., & Shaffer, E. J. (2008). Looking beyond psychopathology: The dual-factor model of mental
health in youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 52–68.
Suldo, S. M., Thalji, A., & Ferron, J. (2011). Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early adoles-
cents’ subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health status yielded from a dual-factor
model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 17–30. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.536774.

123
1032 M. J. Furlong et al.

Terry, P. C., Lane, A. M., Lane, H. J., & Keohane, L. (1999). Development and validation of a mood
measure for adolescents. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 861–872. doi:10.1080/026404199365425.
Torsheim, T., Aaroe, L. E., & Wold, B. (2001). Sense of coherence and school-related stress as predictors of
subjective health complaints in early adolescence: Interactive, indirect or direct relationships? Social
Science and Medicine, 53, 603–614. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00370-1.
Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Villodas, F., Villodas, M. T., & Roesch, S. (2011). Examining the factor structure of the positive and
negative affect schedule (PANAS) in a multiethnic sample of adolescents. Measurement and Evalu-
ation in Counseling and Development, 44, 193–203. doi:10.1177/0748175611414721.
Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and
review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18, 341–358.
Winheller, S., Hattie, J. A., & Brown, G. T. (2013). Factors influencing early adolescents’ mathematics
achievement: High-quality teaching rather than relationships. Learning Environments Research. First
published online 31, January 2013. doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9106-6
Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure
analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30, 165–200. doi:10.1111/0081-
1750.00078.
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking social
and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17,
191–210. doi:10.1080/10474410701413145.

123
View publication stats