MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7076051095 · doi:10.14349/rlp.2025.v57.8

Exploring the invariance of the Wellbeing Literacy 6-item (Well-Lit 6) Scale between Brazilian and French-Canadian populations

2025· article· en· W7076051095 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Latinoamericana de Psicología · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasurement invarianceConfirmatory factor analysisScale (ratio)Sample (material)LiteracyNationalityContext (archaeology)Health literacyMulticulturalism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract | Introduction/Objective: Wellbeing literacy refers to the ability to understand, communicate, and apply knowledge related to wellbeing. In a global context marked by increasing mental health challenges and social inequalities, measuring wellbeing literacy has become essential for identifying needs, guiding public policies, and developing effective interventions. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the invariance of the Wellbeing Literacy 6-item (Well-Lit 6) Scale at the configural, metric, and scalar levels according to nationality and gender. Method: The Brazilian sample consisted of 323 participants aged between 18 and 67 years (M = 27.9, SD = 10.8), of different genders (58.8% cisgender women), while the French-Canadian sample included 1,134 participants aged between 18 and 64 years (M = 40.2, SD = 12.2), also of different genders (66.8% cisgender women). Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Well-Lit 6 Scale. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was employed to assess measurement invariance across nationality and gender. Results: The confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the unidimensional model is equivalent across both Brazilian and French-Canadian samples, as well as across gender groups, as the model fit indices were not negatively impacted by the imposed constraints. Conclusions: These findings support the cross-cultural validity of the Well-Lit 6 Scale, demonstrating its appropriateness for assessing wellbeing literacy in diverse populations. The invariance properties of the instrument reinforce its value for comparative research and practical application in multicultural contexts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Latinoamericana de PsicologíaSame topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207