Single-Item Happiness Measure Features Adequate Validity Among Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Happiness is becoming increasingly relevant in recent research, including adolescents. Many studies are using the single-item measure for adolescent happiness, however, its validity is not well known. We aimed to examine the validity of this measure among adolescents in three countries from distinct European regions - Eastern (Lithuania), Southern (Portugal), and Western (Scotland). Materials and Methods: The analysis included data from Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study from three countries and three last surveys (2009/10, 2013/14, and 2017/18). The total sample comprised 47,439 schoolchildren. For validity, the indicators reflecting subjective health, life satisfaction, quality of life, well-being, social support, health complaints, bullying, and self-directed violence were assessed. The calculations were conducted in the total sample and by gender, age, survey year, and country. Results: The different indicators of concurrent and convergent validity revealed consistent correlations with happiness, with better well-being, health, and subjective perceptions being related to higher happiness. Meanwhile, health complaints, bullying behaviors, and self-directed violence were related to lower happiness. The subgroup differences were consistent across gender, age groups, countries, and survey rounds. The extent of differences was more expressed among girls. Conclusion: The single item for adolescent happiness measurement features a consistent pattern of validity concerning indicators of concurrent and convergent validity. Higher self-reported happiness is associated with better mental and physical health and well-being, and less expressed negative factors (complaints, bullying, and self-directed violence). In addition, among girls the correlations tend to be stronger than boys.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".