Article Sidebar

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 28 Download : 21

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study addressed the need for a validated instrument to measure happiness among elderly individuals in Indonesia. The research aimed to examine the construct validity of a modified version of The Happiness Scale Interval Study (HSIS). Data were collected from 211 elderly individuals aged 60 years and above residing in Jakarta using a non-probability convenience sampling method. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with LISREL 8.70 software was employed to test the unidimensionality and construct validity of the scale. The initial model showed unsatisfactory fit, but after allowing for correlated errors among certain items, the model achieved a good fit with a final Chi-square value of 25.43, p-value = .22884, and RMSEA = .032. The results indicate that all items significantly measure a single factor of happiness, confirming the construct validity of the modified HSIS for elderly populations in Jakarta. This study provides evidence for the validity of this happiness scale as a tool for future research on happiness and well-being among the elderly population in Indonesia, informing the development of targeted interventions.

Keywords

affective cognitive Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) happiness scale validation

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with INSPIRA: Indonesian Journal of Psychological Research agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC 4.0, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the authors' work non-commercially, and although the others' new works must also acknowledge the authors and be non-commercial, they do not have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). In other words, authors can archive pre-print (submitted version),  post-print (accepted version), and publisher's version/PDF.
How to Cite
Adriani, Y. (2025). Validating happiness scale for the elderly: A confirmatory factor analysis study in Indonesia. INSPIRA: Indonesian Journal of Psychological Research, 6(1), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.32505/inspira.v6i1.10882

References

  1. American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association.
  2. Arif, I. S. (2016). Psikologi positif: Pendekatan saintifik menuju kebahagiaan. PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
  3. Berghella, V. (2014). Happiness: The scientific path to achieving well-being. Lulu.com.
  4. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.
  5. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
  6. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
  7. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. Blackwell Publishing.
  8. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
  9. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson.
  10. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  11. Kalmijn, W. M., Arends, L. R., & Veenhoven, R. (2011). Happiness scale interval study. Methodological considerations. Social Indicators Research, 102(3), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9688-2
  12. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
  13. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  14. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
  15. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. The Free Press.
  16. Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being across cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 10(1). http://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1076
  17. Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 223–239. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-8785-9
  18. Umar, J., & Nisa, Y. F. (2020). Uji validitas konstruk dengan CFA dan pelaporannya. JP3I: Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia, 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v9i2.16964
  19. Veenhoven, R. (2009). How do we assess how happy we are? Tenets, implications, and tenability of three theories. In A. K. Dutt & B. Radcliff (Eds.), Happiness, economics and politics (pp. 45–69). Edward Elgar Publishing.