Psychometric properties of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale-Intellectual Disability version (WEMWBS-ID)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Mental wellbeing, encompassing dimensions of hedonia (feeling good) and eudaimonia (functioning well), is considered a valuable resource for individuals and communities. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007), a 14-item positively worded measure of mental wellbeing, has been extensively psychometrically validated within the UK and cross-culturally. However, it is yet to be validated for use with individuals with intellectual disabilities, a priority given the paucity of measures of mental wellbeing for this population. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of a newly adapted version of the WEMWBS and the Short 7-item WEMWBS (SWEMWBS) for individuals with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (WEMWBS-ID/SWEMWBS-ID). Method The WEMWBS item wordings and response options were revised by clinicians and researchers expert in the field of intellectual disability, and a visual aid was added to the scale. The adapted version was reviewed by 10 individuals with intellectual disabilities. Individuals aged 16+ with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities were recruited using volunteer sampling. Data from three studies conducted in the UK were collated to evaluate the psychometric properties of the WEMWBS-ID (n=96) and additional data from a study conducted in Canada (n=27) was used in addition to the UK data to evaluate the SWEMWBS-ID (n=123). The WEMWBS-ID was administered by researchers via an online meeting using the screenshare function. A subsample (n=22) completed the scale twice for test-retest reliability. Furthermore, as a relationship between wellbeing and self-esteem has been demonstrated in previous research, 95 of the UK participants also completed an adapted 6-item version of the adapted Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) to assess convergent validity. Results The WEMWBS-ID demonstrated good internal consistency (α=0.86), excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.88) and good convergent validity (r=0.68) with the RSES. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothesised one-factor structure and the measure demonstrated an adequate model fit. The SWEMWBS-ID showed poorer internal consistency (α=0.67), good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.67) and good convergent validity (r=0.61). The results from the confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good model fit. Conclusions The results from this initial evaluation of the WEMWBS-ID and SWEMWBS-ID suggest that the scales have promising psychometric properties, when administered by a researcher to individuals with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. The generalisability of the findings is limited by the sample size and sampling strategy and a further exploration of the scales with larger samples is warranted. Suggestions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".