Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI)
(Cummins et al., 2003; International Wellbeing Group, 2013 ).
Variable
There are hundreds of well-being measures available, but many of them are designed for highly specific sub-
groups of individuals (e.g., cancer patients, individuals with disabilities), and therefore, are not useful in examin-
ing the general population. To the contrary, measures for the general population often cannot be used within
specific groups (cf. International Wellbeing Group, 2013 ). Furthermore, most of those measures do not clearly
discriminate between objective and subjective aspects of quality of life ( International Wellbeing Group, 2013 ).
The Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) was thus constructed for the assessment of the subjective dimension of qual-
ity of life in both the general population and specific subgroups. The PWI is based on the Comprehensive
Quality of Life Scale ( Cummins, 1997 ), and is part of the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index ( Cummins et al.,
2003) comprising both the PWI and the National Wellbeing Index (NWI). The PWI assesses adults’ satisfaction
with life as a whole, and satisfaction with life in different life domains.
Description
The PWI consists of eight items assessing individuals’ life satisfaction. One item assesses satisfaction with life
as a whole, whereas seven additional items assess domain-specific satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with standard of
living, health, achievements, personal relationships, personal safety, community connectedness, and future secu-
rity). In a revised version ( International Wellbeing Group, 2013 ), the domain of religiousness has been added.
Respondents rate their agreement with each item on an 11-point Likert-type response scale (0 5completely dissatis-
fiedto 105completely satisfied ). Scoring of the PWI involves analyzing each of the 7 (excluding religiousness) or
8 (including religiousness) domain items as a separate variable, or computing a total score that can be obtained
by averaging all 7 or 8 domain-specific items ( International Wellbeing Group, 2013 ). The scores are then
converted using the formula ‘(score/10) 3100’ to produce percentage of scale maximum units on a 0 to 100
distribution (cf. Cummins et al., 2003 ).
Sample
Cummins et al. (2003) reported findings from a nationally representative sample of 2,000 Australians (ranging
in age from 18 to 76 1years). This sample yielded a mean score of 75.48 ( SD519.67) for the single item on satis-
faction with life as a whole. Means were reported for satisfaction with standard of living ( M575.78, SD519.50),
health ( M573.97, SD521.38), achievements ( M573.48, SD518.51), personal relationships ( M578.44,
SD521.22), personal safety ( M575.40, SD520.25), community connectedness ( M568.98, SD520.84), and
future security ( M569.29, SD521.24). For the composite score of the PWI consisting of all seven domains, a
mean of 73.48 ( SD513.57) was found ( Cummins et al., 2003 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The PWI exhibited Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging between α5.70 and α5.85 across several studies
(International Wellbeing Group, 2013 ).
Test/C0Retest
Across a 1 /C02 week interval, the PWI yielded an intraclass correlation of .84 ( Lau & Cummins, 2005 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Cummins et al. (2003) reported that the PWI total score correlated substantially with satisfaction with life as a
whole ( r5.67). Participants within the two highest impact groups of a happy event scored higher on the PWI as
compared with lower impact groups ( Cummins et al., 2003 ). The International Wellbeing Group (2013) reported a
correlation of .78 between the PWI and the SWLS ( Diener et al., 1985 ).Renn et al. (2009) reported positive correlations
between PWI, and both the environmental mastery subscale ( r5.59), and the self-acceptance subscale ( r5.68) of the
Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB; Ryff & Keyes, 1995 ) in an Austrian sample ( N5573 college students).111 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS