Explicating the nature and concomitants of eudaimonic well-being is currently at the forefront of research on a fulfilling life and functioning well. However, the strength of research conducted on constructs is dependent on the quality of instrumentation. In view of this notion, Waterman et al. (2010) developed the Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (QEWB) to operationalise their conceptualisation of eudaimonic well-being and explored the scale’s validity in American student samples. In particular, they confirmed a good fit of a unidimensional factor structure by using parcelled indicators in confirmatory factor analysis. Research on the applicability of this measure within the other cultural contexts needs to take cognisance of aspects such as conceptual equivalence, translation issues, and validity criteria. To contribute to the adaptation of the QEWB for the multilingual South African context, the aim of this study was to explore the structural and external validity of English, Afrikaans, and Setswana versions of the QEWB. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey design was used for data gathering. The sample (n = 975) consisted of students from a large university in South Africa, who completed either the English (n = 325), Afrikaans (n = 478), or Setswana (n = 172) version of the scale. To investigate the structural validity of the scale, descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and the scale’s factor structure were scrutinised. Regarding the latter, confirmatory factor analyses with both parcel- and item-level indicators, as well as principal component analyses were examined to assess the fit of a one-factor model. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to further explore the dimensionality of the scale. External validity was examined by considering the attenuation corrected correlational patterns between scores on the QEWB and measures of well-being and ill-being. Results showed that item- and scale-level scores were mostly negatively skewed, with high average scores. Internal consistency reliability statistics indicated satisfactory reliability, except for a small mean interitem correlation for the Setswana instrument. Although adequate goodness of fit statistics of parcel-level confirmatory factor analyses supported Waterman et al.’s (2010) notion of a one-factor structure, the assumption of unidimensionality within parcels was not satisfied, which suggested that these analyses could have masked multidimensionality. A lack of fit of the one-factor model was shown by a number of small or negative interitem and item-total correlations, insufficient fit indices for item-level confirmatory factor analyses, and a small proportion of variance explained by the first unrotated component in principal component analysis. Exploratory factor analyses indicated a three-factor model, where the factors Sense of Purpose, Active Involvement in Beliefs, and Effortful Engagement were distinguished. For the English scale, a four-factor model was also sensible. Items that may need modification for the current context were identified. Support for convergent and discriminant validity was established. This study contributed to a further validation of the QEWB and highlighted its multidimensional structure for the groups involved. Further evaluation of the scale on conceptual and empirical levels is indicated, also specifically for applicability within the South African multilingual context. / Thesis (MSc (Clinical Psychology)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Explicating the nature and concomitants of eudaimonic well-being is currently at the forefront of research on a fulfilling life and functioning well. However, the strength of research conducted on constructs is dependent on the quality of instrumentation. In view of this notion, Waterman et al. (2010) developed the Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (QEWB) to operationalise their conceptualisation of eudaimonic well-being and explored the scale’s validity in American student samples. In particular, they confirmed a good fit of a unidimensional factor structure by using parcelled indicators in confirmatory factor analysis. Research on the applicability of this measure within the other cultural contexts needs to take cognisance of aspects such as conceptual equivalence, translation issues, and validity criteria. To contribute to the adaptation of the QEWB for the multilingual South African context, the aim of this study was to explore the structural and external validity of English, Afrikaans, and Setswana versions of the QEWB. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey design was used for data gathering. The sample (n = 975) consisted of students from a large university in South Africa, who completed either the English (n = 325), Afrikaans (n = 478), or Setswana (n = 172) version of the scale. To investigate the structural validity of the scale, descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and the scale’s factor structure were scrutinised. Regarding the latter, confirmatory factor analyses with both parcel- and item-level indicators, as well as principal component analyses were examined to assess the fit of a one-factor model. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to further explore the dimensionality of the scale. External validity was examined by considering the attenuation corrected correlational patterns between scores on the QEWB and measures of well-being and ill-being. Results showed that item- and scale-level scores were mostly negatively skewed, with high average scores. Internal consistency reliability statistics indicated satisfactory reliability, except for a small mean interitem correlation for the Setswana instrument. Although adequate goodness of fit statistics of parcel-level confirmatory factor analyses supported Waterman et al.’s (2010) notion of a one-factor structure, the assumption of unidimensionality within parcels was not satisfied, which suggested that these analyses could have masked multidimensionality. A lack of fit of the one-factor model was shown by a number of small or negative interitem and item-total correlations, insufficient fit indices for item-level confirmatory factor analyses, and a small proportion of variance explained by the first unrotated component in principal component analysis. Exploratory factor analyses indicated a three-factor model, where the factors Sense of Purpose, Active Involvement in Beliefs, and Effortful Engagement were distinguished. For the English scale, a four-factor model was also sensible. Items that may need modification for the current context were identified. Support for convergent and discriminant validity was established. This study contributed to a further validation of the QEWB and highlighted its multidimensional structure for the groups involved. Further evaluation of the scale on conceptual and empirical levels is indicated, also specifically for applicability within the South African multilingual context. / Thesis (MSc (Clinical Psychology)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.