up’ scale for adults is Frisch’s (1992) Quality of Life Inventory , and an example of such a scale for children is the
Perceived Life Satisfaction Scale (Adelman, Taylor, & Nelson 1989 ).
Other measures have been based on a ‘top down’ model, in which a ‘global’ life satisfaction score is deter-
mined from one or more items that are domain-free in nature (e.g., my life is good vs. my family life is good).
Such measures allow the respondents to formulate their responses based upon their own unique circumstances
and standards ( Pavot & Diener, 1993 ). This approach contrasts with the aforementioned ‘general’ approach as
well as the ‘multidimensional’ approach (see below) in which the items reflect content (e.g., nature and number
of domain-based items) determined by the test developer. An example of the ‘global’ type of scales for adults is
theSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin 1985 ), and an example of a scale for children is
theStudents’ Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner, 1991b ).
Finally, some measures of life satisfaction emphasize multidimensional assessments of specific life domains,
which are considered to be important to most, if not all, individuals of interest. Such instruments thus yield pro-
files of individuals’ life satisfaction judgments, providing greater emphasis on the domain scores rather than an
overall ‘general’ or ‘global’ rating. Thus, individuals may report varying levels of ratings in different life
domains, yielding more differentiated responses. Some research suggests the importance of such contextualized
profiles given that overall ratings of life satisfaction may mask important domain-based differences. For example,
Antaramian, Huebner, and Valois (2008) found that adolescents’ ratings of their family (but not general) satisfac-
tion were related to their current family structure (i.e., intact vs. non-intact families). An example of this type of
scale for adults is the Extended Satisfaction with Life Scale (Alfonso, Allison, Rader, & Gorman 1996 ), and an exam-
ple of a scale for children is the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner, 1994 ).
Empirical investigations have yet to resolve the ‘bottom up’ vs. ‘top down’ controversy. In fact, some research-
ers have concluded that the effects are bidirectional ( Schimmack, 2008 ). Whatever the case, given the conceptual
distinctions among the various measures, it appears that the decision as to which measure to select is best deter-
mined by the particular purpose of the researcher or practitioner. It remains for the user to carefully consider the
strengths and limitations of each approach and the associated measures.
Although multi-method assessments are recommended ( Diener, Inglehard, & Tay 2013 ), self-report has been
the main method of life satisfaction assessment. Other efforts have been undertaken (e.g., reports of others, obser-
vations of smiling behavior, heart rate reactivity, memory for positive and negative events), but have been rela-
tively understudied. Given the subjective nature of life satisfaction, self-reports are likely to remain the favored
approach to assessment. A number of cautions have been raised regarding the validity of self-reports of life satis-
faction. These cautions include response styles (e.g., social desirability, number use) and situational influences
(e.g., priming, mood, item order, and cultural effects), which can increase errors of measurement.
Nevertheless, Diener et al. (2013) have recently summarized the existing literature and concluded that such
artifacts can usually be controlled. They further concluded that the overall literature supports the construct valid-
ity of self-report life satisfaction scales, showing that they reveal important information about individuals’ per-
ceptions of their lives. Nevertheless, some measures have stronger empirical support than others for some
purposes. Thus, specific strengths and weaknesses of several widely used measures are discussed below.
The purpose of this chapter is to present information on a number of instruments used to measure life satisfac-
tion across the lifespan. It is hoped that this information will be of use to researchers interested in measuring life
satisfaction variables as well as practitioners (e.g., psychologists, social workers, medical personnel) who wish to
assess the perceived quality of life of individuals and/or groups.
We used six criteria to guide our selection of measures. First, we tried to include one-dimensional and multidi-
mensional self-report measures across all major age groups (youth, adults, seniors/third age) where possible.
However, we excluded measures of life satisfaction that focused on single specific domains (e.g., health-related
quality of life, job satisfaction, quality of school life). Second , we selected measures that primarily reflect cognitive
judgments, omitting any that confounded affective (e.g., positive emotions) and cognitive judgments (e.g., Oxford
Happiness Questionnaire; Hills & Argyle, 2002 ).Third , the final version of the instrument had to be developed
within the past two decades or used in numerous research studies during the past two decades, yielding approxi-
mately 30 citations or more (Web of Knowledge). Fourth , there had to be some information available related to
normative samples, reliability, and validity. Fifth, the instrument had to be readily available to researchers, that
is, available at no cost to the user. Sixth , we included only measures published after the prior addition of this
book (i.e., 1991) with one exception. We included the Satisfaction with Life Scale ( Diener et al., 1985 ), which is
the most widely cited measure of global life satisfaction for adults. In meeting the above criteria, we omitted a
few noteworthy published instruments, but provide readers with the references (e.g., Frisch, 1994 ;Schalock,
Keith, Hoffman, & Karan 1989 ).102 5. MEASURES OF LIFE SATISFACTION ACROSS THE LIFESPAN
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS