Questionnaires Overview
Over the years, my colleagues and I have developed three measures related to psychological well-being:
I wrote a chapter that summarises my experiences around and perspectives on PERMAH, which is useful if you are considering using one of the measures. You can find the chapter here.
Below I provide answers to some of the most common questions that I have received, including permission and use of the measures, using parts of the measures, changing the scaling, interpreting scores, and translations of the measures.
- The PERMA Profiler is a general measure, developed for adults, which measures flourishing in terms of 5 domains: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment, following Dr. Seligman's well-being theory (see the book Flourish for more information). We also included health as an additional domain (making this PERMAH). The measure has been translated into multiple languages. A paper describing the development and psychometrics was published in the International Journal of Wellbeing (available here). You can take the measure online through the Authentic Happiness website.
- The Workplace Wellbeing Survey is a variant of the PERMA-Profiler, which changes the context of the questions to the work context. You can take the online version online here. This provides you with a report on your PERMA profile, along with tips and ways to build your wellbeing.
- The EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Well-being adapts the model for adolescents, capturing five positive characteristics that we believe promotes flourishing: engagement, perseverance, optimism, connectedness, and happiness. A paper describing the development and psychometrics of the measure was published in Psychological Assessment.
I wrote a chapter that summarises my experiences around and perspectives on PERMAH, which is useful if you are considering using one of the measures. You can find the chapter here.
Below I provide answers to some of the most common questions that I have received, including permission and use of the measures, using parts of the measures, changing the scaling, interpreting scores, and translations of the measures.
Permissions and Use of the Measures
You are welcome to use these measures for research or non-commercial purposes, giving credit as noted in the measures. There is no cost involved in using the measures for these purposes. For commercial uses of the measures, contact the Wellbeing Lab.
To access the measures, simply click on the links to the relevant measures (i.e., you can access the measures, with scoring information, simply by clicking on the name of the measure below).
To access the measures, simply click on the links to the relevant measures (i.e., you can access the measures, with scoring information, simply by clicking on the name of the measure below).
Using Parts of the Measures and Scale Changes
The measures are meant to provide brief snapshots of wellbeing, but at times, you might want to only use some of the domains and embed the questions along with other questionnaires to provide a more complete picture of functioning. As the measures aim to capture specific domains, you could use the questions for that domain, leaving out unneeded domains. However, I would suggest using all of the items within a domain (e.g., the 3 meaning items in the PERMA-Profiler or the 4 connectedness questions in the EPOCH measure). Fewer items will mean that reliability is compromised, resulting in less accurately measuring the construct. In most cases, a minimum of 3 items is needed to reliably capture a construct (and we have found that at least 4 items are needed with adolescents).
These measures were specifically developed to measure positive functioning. Within a study, it can be helpful to include the items as part of a larger survey that includes other scales. I often include other scales, to measure constructs such as distress, socioeconomic factors, and personality.
The scales were specifically tested using an 11-point scale for the PERMA-Profiler and Workplace Wellbeing Survey, and a 5-point scale for the EPOCH measure. People often disagree with the scaling and the labels that we chose (especially with the 11 point scale). Studies are inconclusive in terms of the ideal scaling. Personally, I like the 11 point scale, as I find that it's more likely to see people move on the larger scale. Still, other options might be preferable, depending on your population. It becomes an empirical question as to the best scaling for different populations. The psychometrics of the measure should always be tested within the sample that you are using.
The measures were developed to capture general functioning, rather than functioning over a specific period of time. Especially if you are trying to capture change (e.g., testing pre and post intervention), it can be useful to change the time period from "in general" to a specific time period (e.g., in the past week).
These measures were specifically developed to measure positive functioning. Within a study, it can be helpful to include the items as part of a larger survey that includes other scales. I often include other scales, to measure constructs such as distress, socioeconomic factors, and personality.
The scales were specifically tested using an 11-point scale for the PERMA-Profiler and Workplace Wellbeing Survey, and a 5-point scale for the EPOCH measure. People often disagree with the scaling and the labels that we chose (especially with the 11 point scale). Studies are inconclusive in terms of the ideal scaling. Personally, I like the 11 point scale, as I find that it's more likely to see people move on the larger scale. Still, other options might be preferable, depending on your population. It becomes an empirical question as to the best scaling for different populations. The psychometrics of the measure should always be tested within the sample that you are using.
The measures were developed to capture general functioning, rather than functioning over a specific period of time. Especially if you are trying to capture change (e.g., testing pre and post intervention), it can be useful to change the time period from "in general" to a specific time period (e.g., in the past week).
Interpreting Scores
There are no clear cut offs as to what is low functioning, good functioning, and really flourishing. Why not? It's complicated. On the one hand, we could look at the means based on the validation studies (see the tables and supplemental files in the Butler & Kern, 2016 for the PERMA-Profiler; Kern et al., 2016 and Kern et al., 2018 for the EPOCH measure articles). Well being measures usually are skewed toward the positive end, such that our midpoint becomes about 6.5 to 7.5 (not 5, the middle of the 0 to 10 scale). From this, we could use the quartiles or other percentiles (not shown) to create clusters. So for example, with the PERMA-Profiler, this might be:
Very high functioning = 9 and above (0 to 1 for negative emotion)
High functioning = 8-8.9 (1.1 to 3 for negative emotion)
Normal functioning = 6.5 to 7.9 (3 to 5 for negative emotion)
Sub-optimal functioning = 5 to 6.4 (5.1 to 6.5 for negative emotion)
Languishing = below 5 (above 6.5 for negative emotion)
The immediate thought is that people want to be in that highest group. We all want the A+ score, to be the best of the best. Maybe, maybe not. I dislike the use of thresholds and labels, for several reason:
So keeping all this in mind, how should scores be used and interpreted?
Very high functioning = 9 and above (0 to 1 for negative emotion)
High functioning = 8-8.9 (1.1 to 3 for negative emotion)
Normal functioning = 6.5 to 7.9 (3 to 5 for negative emotion)
Sub-optimal functioning = 5 to 6.4 (5.1 to 6.5 for negative emotion)
Languishing = below 5 (above 6.5 for negative emotion)
The immediate thought is that people want to be in that highest group. We all want the A+ score, to be the best of the best. Maybe, maybe not. I dislike the use of thresholds and labels, for several reason:
- First, people love to use numbers that are continuous in nature, and include things like response biases, to define dichotomous cut off points. We do this all the time in medicine - declare thresholds, and if you are above that, you have the disease, if below, you don't. But there is a normal curve around that threshold, and so you end up with false diagnoses. Numbers quickly become labels (we are flourishing or not), creating a very fixed state, even as well-being is very fluid in nature.
- Second, it perpetuates a push toward constant improvement, which can be problematic. If a person scores in normal to high range, then I'd argue that's probably quite adaptive. Indeed, it may actually be dysfunctional to be at the highest level. There are times when my accomplishment is really high, but other areas suffer, such that I'm really not flourishing. Think of it like your pulse. Too low or too high is bad - if it's in a healthy range, the goal is to maintain that. The warning might be if you start going downhill.
- Third, different domains may matter more to a person at different times than others. The measure can be useful for self-insight, to get a sense of where you score across different domains, and whether you are happy with that profile, or an area is much lower or higher than you'd prefer.
- Fourth, while we did collect data from a lot of people (over 30,000, which is much bigger than most other validation studies), it is still dependent on those that ended up in the sample, which is most likely biased. We tried to describe the different samples we used, so others can consider how similar or different their sample is. The PERMA model may not even be appropriate for different cultures and backgrounds. Different populations might create a different range of values.
- Finally, some profiles may be more or less adaptive for long term outcomes. That would be what we care about - longitudinal prediction problems, across large samples. There is no data on this now, and until I can answer that from an empirical standpoint, it's still just my best guess on things.
So keeping all this in mind, how should scores be used and interpreted?
- For individuals using the measure: The measures and scores can be helpful for providing self-insights. It can be helpful to answer the questions and see how you score, including areas that are higher or lower. Then think about your values and where you'd like to be. If you're happy with your profile, then keep doing things to proactively care for your mental health, aiming for good functioning in the long term. Remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint.
- For researchers: Consider whether the norms values are an appropriate comparison. If you collect data, look at the distribution - how well do scores compare? Are there differences between your sample and the validation samples? It's also helpful to include one or two qualitative questions that allow people to tell you their own definition of well-being (and qualify responses), which may or may not align with the PERMA model.
- For all: Be wary of using this for diagnostic purposes. The measures are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive in nature.
Translations
The measures have been translated into a number of languages, thanks to the amazing work of people around the world. Below are some of the translations that people have provided me with (in progress - in progress of compiling a few others I've received). Some have corresponding papers testing the psychometrics of the measures, others I'm not sure on (the foundational articles on the measures have been cited many times - see Google Scholar to identify articles that have used the measures for evidence around different translations). I simply provide these as possible resources, but carefully consider whether the translation is useful to your specific population or if modifications are needed.
The PERMA-Profiler
Arabic
Chinese
Czech
Danish
French
Greek
Indonesian (validation study)
Italian
Korean
Japanese
Polish
Portuguese
Russian (validation study)
Spanish (Mexico)
Spanish (Spain) (validation study)
Thai
Turkish
The Workplace Wellbeing Survey
French
German
Japanese (validation study)
Korean
Portuguese
Spanish (Mexico)
The EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Wellbeing
Chinese (validation study 1, validation study 2)
German
Latvian
Russian (validation study)
Spanish
Sinhala (for Sri Lankan participants) (validation study)
Thai (validation study)
Turkish
You are welcome to translate the measures into other languages and test the psychometrics of the translated measure. If you do translate the measure, I'd appreciate you sending me a copy of the final version so I can add it here to share with others.
The PERMA-Profiler
Arabic
Chinese
Czech
Danish
French
Greek
Indonesian (validation study)
Italian
Korean
Japanese
Polish
Portuguese
Russian (validation study)
Spanish (Mexico)
Spanish (Spain) (validation study)
Thai
Turkish
The Workplace Wellbeing Survey
French
German
Japanese (validation study)
Korean
Portuguese
Spanish (Mexico)
The EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Wellbeing
Chinese (validation study 1, validation study 2)
German
Latvian
Russian (validation study)
Spanish
Sinhala (for Sri Lankan participants) (validation study)
Thai (validation study)
Turkish
You are welcome to translate the measures into other languages and test the psychometrics of the translated measure. If you do translate the measure, I'd appreciate you sending me a copy of the final version so I can add it here to share with others.