Cross-National Validation of the WHO-5 Well-Being Index Within Adolescent Populations: Findings From 43 Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The five-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) is among the most frequently used brief standard measures to assess hedonic well-being. Numerous studies have investigated different facets of its psychometric properties in adult populations. However, whether these results apply to adolescents is uncertain, and only few psychometric studies employed adolescent populations. Thus, the current study aimed to conduct an in-depth psychometric item response theory analysis of the WHO-5 among adolescents from 43 countries using the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2022 data set and investigated its (a) dimensionality and measurement structure, (b) test information values and marginal reliability, (c) cross-country measurement invariance and differential item/test functioning, and (d) convergent validity with other measures related to mental health and well-being across countries. The WHO-5 showed a unidimensional measurement structure and overall high test information values and marginal reliability. Furthermore, although a large proportion of parameters were flagged as non-invariant, differential test functioning of the WHO-5 was only modest. Moreover, the WHO-5 mainly showed a concurring nomological network with the other measures related to mental health and well-being across countries, although with some differences in effect sizes. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index is a psychometrically sound measure that has shown promise for cross-cultural research among adolescents in the included European, Central Asia, and North American countries. The translated versions of the WHO-5 are available at https://osf.io/pbexq.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it