Validation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale in an Irish Sample

Validation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale in an Irish Sample | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Validation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale in an Irish Sample Tsz Tong Phoebe Cho, Alan Carr, Sinead Grennan, Niamh McKenna, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6924999/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aimed to validate the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale (SCWBS) for use in the Republic of Ireland by examining its factor structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change using a data set from 598 children aged 8–13 years. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the second-order, two-factor structure of the SCWBS as an excellent fit for the sample. The scale demonstrated robust internal consistency reliability (α and ω = .80-.90), and adequate construct validity, with positive associations with the Feeling Better Scale (FBS; r = .16-.30) which assesses state well-being, and negative associations with the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS; r = − .41-.50). The scale demonstrated high responsiveness to changes in the domains of positive emotional state ( SRM = 1.18) and overall well-being ( SRM = 0.77). However, test-retest reliability of the SCWBS over a 10-week period was poor ( ICC = .35-.38). Demographic variables were found to have minimal influence on children’s well-being. Findings indicated that the SCWBS is a valid and reliable measure of child well-being at a single time point in Ireland. Future research should include a socio-economically balanced sample and investigate convergent validity using established measures of trait well-being. Further investigation into the test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change of the SCWBS is warranted. Children well-being well-being outcome measures confirmatory factor analysis SCWBS Figures Figure 1 Introduction The traditional practices of psychotherapy and clinical psychology has frequently led to mental health being viewed through the perspective of illnesses (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ). A significant amount of mental health research is disease based, focused on understanding and preventing the development of mental disorders. As the field of positive psychology develops, there is growing awareness of the need to shift research focus from mental illness to positive aspects of mental health (Liddle & Carter, 2015 ). In addition, research suggests that well-being and mental illness are separate indicators of mental health (Lamers et al., 2015 ). Therefore, more work to understand well-being has been undertaken. The modern understanding of well-being is conceptualised through two classical perspectives, the hedonic and the eudaimonic approach (Biswas-Diener et al., 2009 ). The hedonic approach, often referred to as subjective well-being (SWB), defines well-being as pleasure seeking and pain avoidance in the immediate states (Carr, 2022 ). The eudaimonic approach, often termed psychological well-being (PWB), defines well-being as the self-actualisation of individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2001 ). Despite debates on the presumed distinct approaches, more recent evidence suggests the two approaches are not mutually exclusive of each other (Joseph, 2015 ) and can be pursued concurrently (Peterson et al., 2005 ). Previous research indicated SWB and PWB are different constructs but moderately related (Compton et al., 1996 ). Pursuit of both SWB and PWB was found to produce optimal well-being (Anić & Tončić, 2013 ), with SWB associated with short-term well-being benefits and PWB long-term well-being (Huta & Ryan, 2010 ). As Cho & Yu ( 2020 ) suggested, utilising a multidimensional model is needed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of well-being. Looking at global mental health trends, the systematic review conducted by Bor et al. ( 2014 ) indicated that children in the 21st century do not show increased symptoms of mental disorders. However, it was revealed that adolescent girls showed an increase in internalising problems and may be at greater risk of developing mental illness (Bor et al., 2014 ). In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), almost a quarter of the population is under 18 years. This represents 1.2 million children and adolescents, meaning the ROI contains one of the youngest populations in Europe (Collins et al., 2024 ). A rising number of children and adolescents are experiencing mental health challenges in the ROI. The Central Statistics Office of ROI reported an increase in death by suicide among individuals under the age of 25, with a rise from 12.4% in 2015 to 19.4% in 2019. A recent review conducted by Lynch et al. ( 2024 ) estimated one in five school-aged children engaged in self-harm behaviour in the ROI, with higher levels of self-harm behaviour were found among girls. While these studies demonstrated the importance of early interventions for mental illness, the finding suggest that monitoring and promoting child well-being at an early age is equally important. To tackle this worrying trend, increasing numbers of school-based interventions are being developed and implemented worldwide to enhance child well-being. Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland (Hardley et al., 2020 ), and Journey of the Brave in Japan (Urao et al., 2022 ) are examples. A Lust for Life (ALFL), developed by an Irish mental health charity, is a well-being programme which incorporates elements of cognitive behavioural therapy, positive psychology, educational, developmental, and health psychology. It is a teacher-led programme which spans ten 40-minute classes, designed for school-aged children between the ages of 8 and 13 years. To match the developmental stage of children, the programme has discrete version for younger (for 3rd and 4th class) and older (for 5th and 6th class) children. Until 2024, this programme was delivered to 45% of the primary schools and over 150,000 primary school aged pupils in the ROI. Despite efforts being made to develop school-based interventions, research evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions is mixed. A review conducted by García-Carrión et al. ( 2019 ) indicated there was evidence of school-based interventions having positive effects on children, with a decrease in mental disorders symptoms and improvements in well-being were found. However, a review conducted by Mackenzie & Williams ( 2018 ) in the United Kingdom (UK) suggested school-based interventions had little to no effect on child well-being and prevention of mental disorders. The contradictory evidence may be a result of the lack of standardised outcome measurement tools for school-based intervention (Breedvelt et al., 2020 ; Ma et al., 2022 ), and child well-being (Cho & Yu, 2020 ). Researchers reported that there was little consistency in the instruments used across studies (Breedvelt et al., 2020 ). This hinders result comparison between studies and accurate understanding on the effectiveness of school-based interventions. As Ma et al. ( 2022 ) highlighted, there is a need for a standardised instrument with established reliability and validity for measuring child well-being and the outcome of school-based interventions. A variety of instruments have been developed to measure components of well-being. Some of the commonly used scales for measuring SWB are the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985 ), the World Health Organisation-Five (WHO-5) Well-being Index (1998), and the Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999 ). There are relatively fewer measurement tools assessing PWB compared to SWB (Stavraki et al., 2022 ); the Psychological Well-being Scale developed by Ryff ( 1989 ) is one of the most frequently used instrument measuring PWB. In relation to instruments that measures both SWB and PWB, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (Tennant et al., 2007 ) suitable for use among the general population is accessible. Despite a range of available scales, few combined both components of well-being (subjective and psychological) to assess well-being holistically and developed specifically for use with the children. The Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale (SCWBS; Liddle & Carter, 2015 ), developed in the United Kingdom by the Stirling Council Education Psychology Service, is a self-report measure of well-being for children aged between 8 and 15 years. The SCWBS is developed based on current theories of hedonic (Diener et al., 2018 ) and eudaimonic well-being (Ryff, 2014 ), and positive psychology (Carr, 2022 ). It is a positively worded 15-item scale, aimed to assess overall well-being, emotional well-being, and psychological well-being. The initial validation study of SCWBS (Liddle & Carter, 2015 ) was conducted in 18 UK schools, involved 1,849 children and adolescents aged between 8 and 15 years. The SCWBS holds promise as a brief instrument for monitoring well-being of children and was shown to be an effective instrument for observing well-being changes before and after engaging in interventions (Godfrey et al., 2015 ). Since the original study, the SCWBS have been adapted and validated in different countries. The SCWBS is now available in Japanese (J-SCWBS; Nishida et al., 2021 ), Bangla (Haque & Imran, 2016 ), Urdu (Sarfraz et al., 2022 ), Chinese (Skrzypiec et al., 2018 ), and Indonesian (Wahyuningsih et al., 2022 ). However, no study on the SCWBS has been conducted in the Irish children population to date. To assess the effectiveness of the Irish well-being programme (e.g., ALFL) and promote positive aspects of mental health and well-being in Ireland, validation of the SCWBS in the Irish context is necessary. The SCWBS demonstrated good construct validity in the initial validation study (Liddle & Carter, 2015 ) through strong correlations with the WHO-5 (1998) well-being index ( r = .74), and the DuBois Self-esteem Scale ( r = .69; Hirsch & DuBois, 1991 ). A validation study from Japan (Nishida et al., 2021 ) further supported evidence of construct validity of the SCWBS, where a significant positive correlation between the WHO-5 and J-SCWBS ( r = .71-.80); and a significant negative correlation between the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire and J-SCWBS ( r = − .48) was found. Another study from Bangladesh (Haque & Imran, 2016 ) also demonstrated the SCWBS has good construct validity, where a significant positive correlation between the Bangla SCWBS and Self-Concept subscale of the Beck Youth Inventory Scale (BSCI-Y, r = .67), and a significant negative correlation between the Bangla SCWBS and Anxiety subscale of the Beck Youth Inventory Scale (BAI-Y, r = − .35) was found. Overall, the SCWBS contains good construct validity, as both convergent validity and discriminant validity were evident. Nonetheless, validation of an instrument is an ongoing process (Boateng et al., 2018 ) and further investigations (e.g., correlation with other measures) in construct validity of the SCWBS are required. In the original validation study, Liddle and Carter ( 2015 ) found that the SCWBS had good internal consistency ( α = .82). Further investigation on the SCWBS showed results that are consistent with the original study, in which the SCWBS demonstrated good internal consistency reliability ( α = .75-.93) across adaptation studies (Haque & Imran, 2016 ; Nishida et al., 2021 ; Sarfraz et al., 2022 ; Wahyuningsih et al., 2022 ). In addition, test-retest reliability ( r = .75) of the SCWBS was satisfactory in the initial validation study. Further study indicated the test-retest reliability of the SCWBS may be affected by the age of children, in which lower test-retest reliability was found when it was used with younger children (Nishida et al., 2021 ). Over a one-week period, test-retest reliability was moderate ( r = .66) among first and second graders (6–8 years old) while excellent test-retest reliability ( r = .86) was demonstrated in third and higher graders (8–12 years old; Nishida et al., 2021 ). The SCWBS showed satisfactory test-retest reliability ( r = .79) over a period of ten days in the Bangladesh study (Haque & Imran, 2016 ). Overall, the SCWBS was shown to be a reliable measure with satisfactory internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. When the SCWBS is administered to a new population, however, retesting the scale is needed (Boateng et al., 2018 ). Factor analyses in the original validation study indicated that the SCWBS is a uni-dimensional scale with two sub-components of Positive Emotional State and Positive Outlook, corresponding to subjective (hedonic) well-being and psychological (eudaimonic) well-being (Liddle & Carter, 2015 ). While many studies have attempted to translate and adapt the SCWBS into different cultures, only two studies (Skrzypiec et al., 2018 ; Wahyuningsih et al., 2022 ) performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to further examine the theoretical structure of the SCWBS. Skrzypiec et al. ( 2018 ) employed structural equation modeling to examine predictors of well-being among 2,756 primary and secondary school mainland Chinese students, aged between 10 and 15 years. Alongside six other questionnaires, the conceptual structure of the SCWBS was examined using CFA with a robust maximum likelihood and full information maximum likelihood estimation. Analysis results indicated that the structure of the SCWBS remained consistent when administered to this group, as evidenced by excellent model fit indices: χ 2 (42) = 211.83, p < .001, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04 (90% CI: .04-.05), RMSE = .04, SRMR = .02, H = .91. Wahyuningsih et al. ( 2022 ) randomly split the sample of Indonesian college students aged between 18 and 21 years into two subsamples for validation of the SCWBS in Indonesia. They performed an exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation on data from one subsample, and a CFA on data from the second subsample. The results of this analysis supported the factor model of the original validation study, in which the best-fitting measurement model for the SCWBS was the two-factor model with one second-order factor (Wahyuningsih et al., 2022 ). This model demonstrated good levels of model fit for the Indonesian sample: χ 2 (33) = 67.56, p < .001, GFI = .94, TLI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08. While evidence on the theoretical structure of the SCWBS was strengthened, this study has its limitations. Firstly, the sample of this study was young adults which does not correspond to the target population of the SCWBS, which was designed for children and adolescents. Additionally, boys were under-represented in the sample as 80% of the participants in this study were girls. Thus, there is a need to replicate the study, with younger participants and include a balanced sample of boys and girls. Another limitation of this study was the lack of socioeconomic diversity within the sample. Most participants were from middle and upper socioeconomic classes. Investigation of the well-being of children from a range of socioeconomic classes, including socially and economically disadvantaged background could be beneficial to further our understanding of child well-being and the SCWBS. Based on previous research evidence, the SCWBS showed satisfactory reliability and validity. Nevertheless, there were weaknesses in previous research including (1) Only two studies have tested the factor structure of the SCWBS. (2) There has been limited investigation of the relationship between the SCWBS and demographic factors (e.g., gender and socio-economic background). (3) Most studies determined the internal consistency reliability of the SCWBW solely using the Cronbach’s alpha, and did not consider other options, for example, McDonalds’s omega. (4) Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess test-retest reliability of SCWBS instead of intraclass correlation (ICC) which is a more robust index. (5) Sensitivity to change of the SCWBS was not investigated. In relation to Ireland, a research gap remains, as no validation studies of the SCWBS have been conducted in an Irish context. Present Study The current study aimed to validate the SCWBS as an outcome measure to be used for evaluating school-based well-being interventions in Ireland. The studies objectives were to (1) confirm the two-factor structure, validity, and reliability of the SCWBS, and (2) investigate the association between the SCWBS and demographic variables (age, gender, socio-economic background), and (3) evaluate the SCWBS’s responsiveness to change following delivery of well-being interventions. Specifically, this study examined the factor structure, construct validity, internal consistency reliability, and test-retest reliability of the SCWBS. The SCWBS was expected to have a two-factor structure, and demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability as found in previous research evidence (Liddle & Carter, 2015 ; Wahyuningsih et al., 2022 ). Regarding the evaluation of construct validity, the Feeling Better Scale (FBS; Carr, A., 2022 ) and the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS; Ebesutani et al., 2012 , 2017 ) were used. These measures were chosen as the FBS was developed in Ireland (McKenna et al., 2022), while the RCADS has been validated in Ireland (Donnelly et al., 2018 ). The SCWBS was expected to have positive correlations with the FBS and negative correlations with the anxiety, depression, and internalising problems scales of the RCADS. The following research questions, with specific reference to an Irish sample, were addressed in this study: Is the SCWBS 2-factorial structure replicable in Irish samples? What is the internal consistency reliability of the SCWBS and its factor subscales? What is the test-retest reliability of the SCWBS and its factor subscales? Does the SCWBS and its factor subscales have construct validity shown by medium significant correlations with psychometric measures of state well-being, anxiety, and depression, and low correlations with a social desirability scale? Does the SCWBS and its factor subscales have significant associations with age, gender, and social disadvantage? Is the SCWBS and its factor subscales responsive to change following intervention with a well-being programme? Methodology This study involved secondary data analysis. Data were from two randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of a well-being programme (ALFL) delivered in primary schools in the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Research Design A cross-sectional correlational design was employed to evaluate the factor structure, internal consistency reliability, construct validity of the SCWBS (correlation with well-being, anxiety, and depression), and associations of the SCWBS with demographic variables (age, gender, and social disadvantage). Baseline (Time 1) data of participants from both intervention and control groups were used. A longitudinal design, involving baseline (Time 1) data and data collected 10 weeks later (Time 2), was used to examine the test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change of the SCWBS. Data from participants in the control group was used to evaluate test re-test reliability and data from participants who completed the intervention (ALFL) was used to evaluate responsiveness to change. Sample Size According to Kyriazos ( 2018 ), a ratio of 5 to 10 cases per items is required to conduct reliability and factor analysis of multi-item scales. The SCWBS contains 12 items (excluding the social desirability scale), suggesting 60 to 120 participants are required for data analysis to be adequately powered. The dataset for this study consisted of 598 cases, offering adequate statistical power for the planned analyses. Participants The sample included 598 primary school pupils from 3rd to 6th class in the ROI, aged between 8 and 13 years ( M = 10.10, SD = 1.21; O’Dowd, In preparation; Grennan, In preparation). Among these, 300 were boys (50.3%) while 296 were girls (49.7%). In ROI, schools drawing much of their cohort from areas of socio-economic disadvantage are granted DEIS status (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools); designated schools receive additional resources to tackle educational disadvantage. The majority of the sample attended non-DEIS primary schools (65.9%), while the remainder were from DEIS primary schools (34.1%). Participants were from an intervention group (47.2%), who completed the ALFL well-being programme, and a control group (52.8%), who were on the waiting list for this intervention. Measures The Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale (SCWBS) The SCWBS (Liddle & Carter, 2013, 2015 ) is a 15-item scale designed to assess overall well-being, positive emotional state, and positive outlook of children aged between 8 and 15 years. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The overall well-being score is based on 12 items, with a total score range from 12 to 60; while the subscales for positive emotional state and positive outlook each comprise 6 items, with scores ranging from 6 to 30. Higher scores indicate higher levels of well-being. The social desirability index comprises 3 items for detecting response bias, with scores ranging from 3 to 15. The SCWBS was shown to have good psychometric properties including construct validity (Nishida et al., 2021 ; Haque & Imran, 2016 ; Liddle & Carter, 2015 ), internal consistency reliability ( α = .82; Liddle & Carter, 2015 ), and test-retest reliability ( r = .75; Liddle & Carter, 2015 ). It is available for research free of charge and without permission. The Feeling Better Scale (FBS) The FBS (McKenna et al., 2022; see Appendix A) is a 23-item scale that measures state well-being. Its subscales assess (1) well-being associated with the use of cognitive skills, and (2) well-being associated with the use of behavioural skills. There are 5 response options for each item, which yields a score from 0 (No I did not do it) to 4 (Yes and it made me feel a lot better). The overall state well-being score ranges from 0 to 92, based on all 23 items of the FBS. Subscale scores include cognitive skills (10 items; range from 0–40) and behavioural skills (13 items; range from 0–52), with higher scores indicating greater well-being. The FBS also yields a score for the number of skills used, calculated by assigning a score of 1 (skill used) and 0 (skill not used). The FBS demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability (McKenna, N., In preparation). Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS) The RCADS (Ebesutani et al., 2012 , 2017 ) is a 25-item scale designed to measure the severity of anxiety and depression symptoms among children aged between 8 and 18 years. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 3 (Always). The anxiety subscale is based on 15 items, with scores ranging from 0 to 45. The depression subscale comprises of 10 items, with scores range from 0 to 30. Higher subscale scores are indicative of higher severity of anxiety and depression symptoms. The RCADS demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability ( α = .87-.95) and excellent test-retest reliability in the school setting ( r = .83-.85; Klaufus et al., 2020 ). It is available for research purposes free of charge and without permission from the UCLA Child First website (UCLA Department of Psychology, 2022). Procedure The data were originally collected between 2022 and 2023 from two randomised controlled trials which assessed the impact of the ALFL well-being programme. Participants were recruited through online advertisements and by distributing information sheets to primary schools. Written informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians. Children provided informed assent. Quantitative data on self-report questionnaires (SCWBS, FBS, and RCADS) and demographic information were collected via secure online platforms (Qualtrics or Pavlovia) at Time 1 and 2. Participants completed the questionnaires in their school classrooms during school hours. They used a password that linked their de-identified data at the two time points. For this study, the de-identified dataset was obtained from the original research team. Ethical Considerations This study and the controlled trials that provided the dataset for the current study were approved by the University College Dublin Human Research Ethics Committee (UCD HREC) and conducted in accordance with its guidelines and policies. The ethics application for the controlled trials detailed their design, consent and assent procedures, management of adverse events, participants safeguarding, and data management and archiving. Informed consent was obtained from parents and assent from children in the original studies, permitting their data to be archived and used in future well-being studies, including the present study. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout via the use of a de-identified dataset, and publication of group-based results, ensuring compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study was pre-registered on Open Science Framework prior to data analyses ( https://osf.io/ykrgp ). Data Analysis Cases with significant missing data ( n = 29) on the SCWBS were removed by the original research team prior to transferring the dataset. The amount of missing data for remaining participants ranged from 0.2 to 8.5% (SCWBS), 0.2 to 11.4% (FBS), 0.2 to 15.4% (RCADS), and 0 to 0.2% (Gender). Of the 598 cases, pairwise deletion was employed for each analysis. As such, sample size varied slightly across analyses. The factor structure of the SCWBS was tested using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), to determine if Time 1 data from all groups fit a two-factor structure. The adequacy of the model fit was assessed with the following indices: comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), with values ≥ .90 and ≥ .95 indicating good and excellent fit respectively; and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), with values ≤ .08 and ≤ .05 indicating acceptable and good fit respectively (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2016 ). To assess internal consistency reliability of the SCWBS, Cronbach’s ( 1951 ) Alpha and McDonald’s ( 1999 ) omega were computed using Time 1 data from all groups. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega values range from 0–1. A coefficient greater than 0.70 is considered a satisfactory level of internal consistency reliability (DeVellis, 2012 ). Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlations (Qin et al., 2019 ) to determine the association between Time 1 and Time 2 control group data. ICC value ranges between 0 and 1. A value close to 1 indicates high test-retest reliability (Koo & Li, 2016 ). Construct validity was examined using Pearson product moment correlation with Time 1 data from all groups, assessing convergent and discriminant validity. For convergent validity, correlations between the SCWBS and its subscales (positive emotional state and positive outlook), and the FBS and its subscales (cognitive skills and behavioural skills) were computed. For discriminant validity, correlations between the SCWBS and its subscales, and the RCADS and its subscales (anxiety and depression) were computed. To explore the association between the SCWBS and demographic variables, Pearson product moment correlation was used for age (continuous variable) and point-biserial correlation for gender and social disadvantage (dichotomous variables), with Time 1 data from all groups. Responsiveness to change was tested using paired t-tests and standardised response means (SRM; Husted et al., 2000 ) with Time 1 and 2 data from the intervention group. SRM value > 0.8, between 0.5 and 0.8, and between 0.2 and 0.5 indicate high, medium, and low responsiveness to change respectively. Results The data underwent appropriate coding and cleaning prior to statistical analyses. Demographic characteristics of samples used for each analyses varied depending on the availability of complete data for the relevant variables, as presented in Table 1. Preliminary analyses of the entire sample at Time 1 and 2 were conducted to screened for normality and suitability of the data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality were significant ( p< .05) for all variables, indicating some deviations from normality. However, inspection of skewness and kurtosis values indicated no substantial violations. All values were within acceptable limits (skewness value < 2 and kurtosis value < 7; Kim, 2013). These results suggested that the data were approximately normally distributed and suitable for parametric data analysis. Table 1 Demographic characteristics CFA Sample (N=505) Test-retest Reliability Sample (N=241) Responsiveness to Change Sample (N=189) Variable Categories f or M % or SD f or M % or SD f or M % or SD Age a 10.15 1.20 10.14 1.22 10.25 1.16 Gender b Female 246 48.9 118 49 84 44.9 Male 257 51.1 123 51 103 55.1 Social Disadvantage b Yes No 151 354 29.9 70.1 51 190 21.2 78.8 77 112 40.7 59.3 Note. a = values are means and standard deviations. b = values are frequencies and percentages. f = frequency, M = mean, SD = standard deviation. Factor Structure (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) To address the first research question, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the SCWBS using AMOS version 27. The model proposed by Liddle and Carter (2015) in the initial study consists of two latent factors: Positive Emotional State and Positive Outlook, each factor containing 6 items. Statistics for this two-factor model of the SCWBS yielded excellent levels of model fit: c 2 (53) = 147.92, p <.001, TLI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06 (90% CI: .05-.07), and SRMR = .04 (see Table 2). Although the chi-square value was significant, it was influenced by sample size (Babyak & Green, 2010) and the number of correlations in the model (Kenny, 2024). Thus, the significant chi-square value did not indicate that the SCWBS had a poor level of model fit. Standardised factor loadings ranged from .46 to .81, indicating acceptable associations between the observed variables and their respective latent factor (Leech et al., 2015; Kline, 2016). Thus, an excellent fit between the two-factor model and the observed data was found. Overall, these results support the two-factor model of the SCWBS within the Irish sample. See Figure 1 for full details of the CFA result. Table 2 Model fit indices for Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale Fit Indices c 2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR Critical values >.05 ≥.90 ≥.90 ≤.08 ≤.08 2-Factor model 147.92 53 .00 .963 .954 .060 [.048, .071] .036 Note. N = 505.c 2 = Chi square. df = degrees of freedom.CFI = comparative fit index. TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. RMSEA = Root mean squared error of approximation. SRMR = standardised root mean square residual. Model fit indices critical values are from Kline (2016) and Hu & Bentler (1999). Internal Consistency Reliability Regarding the second research question on the internal consistency reliability of the SCWBS and its factor subscales, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients between .80 and .90 were found for the overall scale and its subscales, as presented in Table 3. These results demonstrate that the SCWBS had excellent internal consistency reliability. Test-retest Reliability In answer to the third research question about the test-retest reliability of the SCWBS, intraclass correlations coefficients ranging from .35 to .38 were observed between scores obtained on two occasions 10 weeks apart (see Table 3). These data were based on 241 cases who did not receive well-being intervention between the two assessments. This indicates that the SCWBS had poor test-retest reliability over a 10-weeks period. Construct Validity Regarding the fourth research question, the construct validity of the SCWBS was assessed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient test. As expected, the SCWBS and its subscales had negative, medium-to-large correlations with the RCADS and its subscales ( r = -.41-.50, n = 434) with highly statistically significant ( p <.001) results. On the other hand, the SCWBS and its subscales had positive, small-to-medium, and statistically significant correlations with the FBS and its subscales ( r = .16-.30, n = 455, p <.001). These results suggest that the SCWBS demonstrate both convergent and discriminant validity, providing evidence of its overall construct validity. See Table 3 for full details of the results. Correlation with Demographic Variables To address the fifth research question on the associations between the SCWBS and demographic variables, correlations between .03 and -.09 were found between the SCWBS and its subscales on the one hand, and age, gender, and social disadvantage on the other (see Table 3). These correlations were negligible to small and not statistically significant ( p >.05), except for gender ( r = -.09, p <.05). This demonstrates that the SCWBS has minimal association with demographic factors, suggesting that children’s well-being is unlikely to vary significantly based on these factors. Table 3 Means, standard deviations, alpha and omega reliability coefficients, and correlations between SCWBS with measures of state well-being, anxiety, depression, and demographic variables Variables Internal consistency reliability (N = 497-513) Test-retest Reliability ( N = 241) Correlations ( N = 434-505) M SD a w ICC SCWBS Well-being SCWBS Positive Outlook SCWBS Positive Emotional State SCWBS Well-being 35.94 9.07 .90 .90 .38 - Positive Outlook 20.10 4.94 .80 .81 .36 .93 - Positive Emotional State 15.84 4.87 .87 .87 .35 .92 .71 - FBS State well-being (StWB) 36.03 21.37 .92 .91 - .25 .23 .23 StWB due to Behavioural Skills 15.82 13.89 .90 .90 - .18 .16 .17 StWB due to Cognitive Skills 20.20 9.48 .81 .80 - .30 .28 .28 RCADS Total Internalizing Problems 19.43 12.51 .91 .91 - -.50 -.45 -.47 Anxiety 11.30 7.84 .85 .85 - -.45 -.41 -.43 Depression 8.13 5.43 .84 .84 - -.48 -.44 -.45 Demographic Variables Age 10.15 1.2 - - - -.07 -.05 -.08 Gender (Female %) 51.1 (48.9) - - - - -.07 -.09 -.04 Social Disadvantaged (%) 29.9 - - - - .04 .05 .03 Note. SCWBS = Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale. FBS = Feeling Better Scale. RCADS = Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale. M = mean. SD = standard deviation. a = Cronbach’s alpha. w = McDonald’s omega.For a 2-tailed test, Pearson product moment correlations of r = .16 are significant at p <.001; correlations of r =.12 are significant at p <.01, and correlations of r =.09 are significant at p <.05. Correlations of .1, .3 and .5 are considered small, medium, and large respectively. Sensitivity of the SCWBS to Change In answer to the sixth research question, the responsiveness of the SCWBS to change following intervention with a well-being programme was assessed using paired t-tests and SRM. The SCWBS total and subscales scores did change significantly as a result of children engaging in a well-being intervention, with SRM values ranged from 0.19 to 1.18. These findings indicate that the SCWBS demonstrated high responsiveness in detecting changes in positive emotional state, medium responsiveness in overall well-being, and low responsiveness in positive outlook. See Table 4 for full details of the results. Table 4 Responsiveness of the SCWBS to change Pre-intervention M (SD) N = 189 Post-intervention M ( SD ) N = 189 t p SRM SCWBS Total 35.57 (9.28) 42.21 (8.32) 10.52*** <.001 0.77 Positive Outlook 19.79 (5.08) 20.70 (4.74) -2.65** .009 0.19 Positive Emotional State 15.78 (4.84) 21.51 (4.30) 16.24*** 0.8 indicates high, 0.5–0.8 medium, and 0.2–<0.5 low responsiveness.* p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001 In summary, the SCWBS demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability and results supported the two-factor model of the SCWBS within an Irish sample. Construct validity was supported through significant associations with related measure and negative associations with measure of a separate construct. The SCWBS was shown to have adequate sensitivity in detecting changes. These results provided preliminary evidence on the psychometric properties of the SCWBS. However, the SCWBS showed poor test-retest reliability over a 10-week period. Minimal influence of demographic factors on well-being score was found. These findings are further interpreted in the following section. Discussion This study aimed to validate the SCWBS for evaluating school-based well-being interventions within the Republic of Ireland, addressing six research questions. (1) The two-factor, second-order structure of the SCWBS was found to be the best fitting model and an excellent fit for the data. The structure demonstrated acceptable item-factor associations, suggesting items were good indicators of their respective factors. (2) The SCWBS and its factor subscales showed excellent internal consistency reliability, though (3) test-retest reliability was poor over a 10-weeks period. (4) Construct validity was established through negative, medium-to-large correlations with a measure of anxiety and depression (RCADS), and positive, small-to-medium correlations with a measure of state well-being (FBS). (5) The SCWBS was only correlated with one demographic variable (gender) and the association was very small. (6) Regarding responsiveness to change following intervention, the SCWBS and its subscales demonstrated high sensitivity to change in positive emotional state, moderate sensitivity to change in overall well-being, and low sensitivity to change in positive outlook. A key contribution of the current study lies in establishing the 12-item SCWBS as a psychometrically sound measure of children’s well-being within an Irish sample at a single time point. Consistent with the initial study in the UK (Liddle & Carter, 2013, 2015 ) and subsequent research in China (Skrzypiec et al., 2018 ) and Indonesia (Wahyuningsih et al., 2022 ), the two-factor structure was confirmed to closely fit the Irish sample. The second-order model indicates that the SCWBS items fall into two groups that load two first-order factors (Positive Outlook and Positive Emotional State). These two first-order factors, in turn, load on the second order Well-being factor. Acceptable item-factor associations and substantial second-order loadings onto the first-order factors further support the SCWBS as a unidimensional scale comprising two sub-components. This supports the theory that overall well-being is subserved by eudaimonic well-being assessed with the Positive Outlook factor scale, and hedonic well-being assessed with the Positive Emotional State factor scale. Replication on findings of the factor structure in another English-speaking European sample also provided further evidence on cross-cultural validity of the SCWBS. The SCWBS and its subscales showed satisfactory internal consistency reliability in both previous studies ( α = .75-.93) and the current study ( α = .87-.90), supporting its reliability. The novel inclusion of McDonald’s omega as separate indicator of internal consistency in the current study further reinforced the robust reliability of the SCWBS, with satisfactory results ( ω = .81-.90). Existing literature demonstrated satisfactory test-retest reliability for the SCWBS over a one-week period ( r = .66-.86) and a ten-days period ( r = .79). However, findings from the current study indicated poor test-retest reliability ( ICC = .35-.38) for the scale over a 10-week period. One possible explanation is the considerably longer interval between tests in the current study, in which data were collected ten weeks apart. A longer test interval may capture genuine changes in well-being due to external factors (e.g., exam or holiday period, health changes), reducing test-retest reliability of the instrument (Allen & Yen, 2002 ). The younger sample in the current study ( M = 10.15) may have also contributed to the poor test-retest reliability, consistent with findings by Nishida et al. ( 2021 ), who reported lower test-retest reliability for younger children ( r = .66) compared to older children ( r = .86) when using the SCWBS. In short, findings on test-retest reliability of the current study implied that caution should be warranted when employing the SCWBS for long-term tracking of children well-being. In future research, examining test-retest reliability of the SCWBS over a shorter test interval (e.g., two-weeks) would be beneficial. Discriminant validity of the SCWBS was established by negative correlations with the SDQ (Nishida et al., 2021 ) and BAI-Y (Haque & Imran, 2016 ). This study provided further evidence on discriminant validity of the instrument by correlating with the RCADS, a well-established measure of anxiety and depression that was validated in an Irish sample (Donnelly et al., 2018 ). The negative, moderate correlation between the SCWBS and RCADS confirms that the measured constructs of the two instruments are related, but reflect distinct aspects of mental health. This finding aligns with existing evidence that well-being and psychological illnesses are separate dimensions of mental health (Lamers et al., 2015 ), thereby supporting the construct validity of the SCWBS. Convergent validity of the SCWBS was supported by positive associations with the WHO-5, the DuBois Self-esteem Scale (Liddle & Carter, 2015 ), and the BSCI-Y (Haque & Imran, 2016 ). This study explored the convergent validity of the SCWBS by associating with the FBS, a measure of state well-being developed in Ireland. The positive association between the two instruments confirms the similarity of the constructs they measure. While results were statistically significant, the strength of association between the two instruments were weak ( r = .16-.30). This finding implies the FBS and the SCWBS measures are related but not strongly aligned constructs. Given the multidimensional nature of well-being (Cho & Yu, 2020 ), it is possible that the FBS captures a different aspect of well-being, i.e. state wellbeing arising from using skill learned on the ALFL programme in specific situations, rather than trait derived from hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. The current study addressed a research gap in the existing literature by investigating the relationship between demographic factors (age, gender, and socio-economic background) and the SCWBS. Gender was the only demographic factor significantly associated with the SCWBS, specifically on the Positive Outlook subscale. However, this association was minimal ( r = − .09), indicating demographic factors had minimal effect on children’s wellbeing. A strength of the current study is the inclusion of a gender-balanced sample, addressing the limitation identified by Wahyuningsih et al. ( 2022 ). Responsiveness to change of the SCWBS remains unclear in previous literatures and was recommended for investigation by Liddle and Carter ( 2015 ). The findings of this study indicates that the SCWBS is particularly sensitive to changes in positive emotional state ( SRM = 1.18) followed by overall well-being ( SRM = 0.77). The SCWBS showed low sensitivity to changes in the domain of positive outlook ( SRM = 0.19), indicating the scale may not effectively capture changes in this aspect of well-being. Therefore, the SCWBS is suitable for evaluating well-being interventions targeting positive emotional state and overall well-being, but less suitable for assessing changes in positive outlook. Similar to the WEMWBS, the SCWBS captures both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being, thereby offering a comprehensive foundation for effectively detecting changes in overall well-being (Maheswaran et al., 2012 ). The current study provides novel findings on the responsiveness to change of the SCWBS, further evidence from future research is required to substantiate this result. Limitations A significant limitation in the current study is the use of the FBS, a newly developed scale with limited psychometric validation. Designed specifically to assess skills taught in the ALFL programme, the FBS had shown preliminary evidence of reliability including good internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Mckenna, N., In preparation). Nevertheless, evidence supporting its validity and underlying factor structure remains limited. Thus, the observed correlation between the FBS and the SCWBS should be interpreted with caution. The findings contribute to the growing evidence for the construct validity of the SCWBS, though future research is recommended to utilise a more established measure of well-being. While inclusion of responses with high social desirability scores did not affect factor structure of the SCWBS, these responses could have introduced bias to other statistical analyses. For example, the inflated well-being scores may have inflated the sensitivity to change of the SCWBS. As Skrzypiec et al. ( 2018 ) suggested, future studies should consider social desirability in local contexts prior to exclusion or inclusion of responses with high social desirability score. The imbalance in sample socio-economic background is another limitation of this study, with only approximately 30% of participants identified as coming from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. The underrepresentation of socially disadvantaged children suggests that the findings of this study may primarily reflect well-being of children from a more affluent background, thereby limiting the generalisability of the results to the broader population of Irish children. In future research, inclusion of a socioeconomically balanced sample is recommended. Considering the categorical nature of data generated from the SCWBS (5-point response format), the Weight Least Square with Mean and Variance (WLSMV) estimator would provide a more accurate estimation of CFA results (Li, 2016 ). Due to the unavailability of software containing the WLSMV estimator, the ML estimator was used for the CFA in the current study. Future research should consider using the more robust WLSMV estimator, which is better suited for CFA with ordered categorical data. Conclusion As a measure of children’s well-being, the SCWBS demonstrated adequate construct validity and a consistent factor structure, supporting its use as a valid instrument within an Irish sample. The scale showed particular utility in detecting changes following interventions, especially within the domains of positive emotional state. Nevertheless, its application over an extended period warrants cautions, as the current study found poor test-retest reliability. Demographic variables were shown to have minimal influence on children’s well-being. Future research should further investigate test-retest reliability of the SCWBS over a shorter test interval (e.g., two-weeks). Employing a more comprehensive methodological approach, including a socio-economically balanced sample and inclusion of a more established well-being measure (e.g., the WEMWBS), is recommended to strengthen reliability of the SCWBS and generalisability of findings. Future research in relation to the responsiveness to change of the SCWBS is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool. Declarations Competing interests The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Ethics approval This study and the controlled trials that provided the dataset for the current study were approved by the University College Dublin Human Research Ethics Committee (UCD HREC) and conducted in accordance with its guidelines and policies. Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from parents and assent from children in the original studies, permitting their data to be archived and used in future well-being studies, including the present study. Funding No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. Author Contribution T. C. wrote the main manuscript text and prepared all tables and figures.A. C. supervised the manuscript writing and data collection.S. G., N. M. and A.O. conducted data collection and provided the data set for this study.F. N. supervised the data collection.E. M. provided support and guidance to participants where adverse events occur during data collection.All authors reviwed the manuscript. Data availability Participants and their parents did not consent for their data to be accessed openly online. Therefore, the research data will not be open to access publicly. References Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory . Waveland. Anić, P., & Tončić, M. (2013). Orientations to happiness, subjective well-being and life goals. Psihologijske teme , 22 (1), 135–153. Babyak, M. A., & Green, S. B. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis: An introduction for psychosomatic medicine researchers. Psychosomatic Medicine , 72 (6), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1097/psy.0b013e3181de3f8a Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & King, L. A. (2009). Two traditions of happiness research, not two distinct types of happiness. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 4 (3), 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902844400 Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health , 6 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 Bor, W., Dean, A. J., Najman, J., & Hayatbakhsh, R. (2014). Are child and adolescent mental health problems increasing in the 21st century? A systematic review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 48 (7), 606–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867414533834 Breedvelt, J. J., Zamperoni, V., South, E., Uphoff, E. P., Gilbody, S., Bockting, C. L., Churchill, R., & Kousoulis, A. A. (2020). A systematic review of mental health measurement scales for evaluating the effects of mental health prevention interventions. European Journal of Public Health , 30 (3), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz233 Carr, A. (2022). Positive psychology: The science of wellbeing and human strengths (3rd ed.). Routledge. Cho, E. Y., & Yu, F. (2020). A review of measurement tools for child wellbeing. Children and Youth Services Review , 119 , 105576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105576 Collins, A., Crushell, E., De Lacy, J., Gray, D., Martin, C., Murphy, J., & Pardy, A. (2024). A Vision for the Health and Wellbeing of Children and Young People in Ireland . Health Service Executive . https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/5/publichealth/publichealthdepts/child-health-public-health/a-vision-for-the-health-and-wellbeing-of-children-and-young-people-in-ireland.pdf Compton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A., & Qualls, D. L. (1996). Factor structure of mental health measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 (2), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.406 Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika , 16 , 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555 DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications . SAGE. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of personality assessment , 49 (1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and Open Questions in the Science of Subjective Well-Being. Collabra: Psychology , 4 (1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115 Donnelly, A., Fitzgerald, A., Shevlin, M., & Dooley, B. (2018). Investigating the psychometric properties of the revised child anxiety and depression scale (RCADS) in a non-clinical sample of Irish adolescents. Journal of Mental Health , 28 (4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2018.1437604 Ebesutani, C., Korathu-Larson, P., Nakamura, B. J., Higa-McMillan, C., & Chorpita, B. (2017). The revised child anxiety and depression scale 25–Parent version: Scale development and validation in a school-based and clinical sample. Assessment , 24 (6), 712–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115627012 Ebesutani, C., Reise, S. P., Chorpita, B. F., Ale, C., Regan, J., Young, J., Higa-McMillan, C., & Weisz, J. R. (2012). The revised child anxiety and depression scale-short version: Scale reduction via exploratory bifactor modeling of the broad anxiety factor. Psychological Assessment , 24 (4), 833–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027283 García-Carrión, R., Villarejo-Carballido, B., & Villardón-Gallego, L. (2019). Children and adolescents mental health: A systematic review of interaction-based interventions in schools and communities. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00918 Godfrey, C., Devine-Wright, H., & Taylor, J. (2015). The positive impact of structured surfing courses on the wellbeing of vulnerable young people. Community Practitioner , 88 (1), 26–29. Haque, M., & Imran, M. A. (2016). Adaptation of Stirling children’s well-being scale (SCWBS) in Bangladesh context. Dhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences , 25 (2), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3329/dujbs.v25i2.46338 Hardley, S., Gray, S., & McQuillan, R. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of curriculum for excellence implementation in four Scottish secondary school case studies. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 42 (4), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1710463 Hirsch, B. J., & DuBois, D. L. (1991). Self-esteem in early adolescence: The identification and prediction of contrasting longitudinal trajectories. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 20 (1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01537351 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 6 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. Journal of clinical epidemiology , 53 (5), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00206-1 Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and Eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies , 11 (6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4 Joseph, S. (2015). The Complementary Roles of Eudaimonia and Hedonia and How They Can Be Pursued in Practice. Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life (2nd ed., p. 220). Wiley. Kenny, D. A. (2024). Measuring model fit . Homepage of David A. Kenny. https://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics , 38 (1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52 Klaufus, L., Verlinden, E., Van der Wal, M., Kösters, M., Cuijpers, P., & Chinapaw, M. (2020). Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the revised child anxiety and depression scale. Bmc Psychiatry , 20 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2444-5 Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine , 15 (2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology , 09 (08), 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126 Lamers, S. M., Westerhof, G. J., Glas, C. A., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2015). The bidirectional relation between positive mental health and psychopathology in a longitudinal representative panel study. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 10 (6), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1015156 Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (5th ed.). Routledge. Li, C. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods , 48 (3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 Liddle, I., & Carter, G. F. (2015). Emotional and psychological well-being in children: The development and validation of the Stirling children’s well-being scale. Educational Psychology in Practice , 31 (2), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1008409 Lynch, S., Begley, A., McDonnell, T., Leahy, D., Gavin, B., & McNicholas, F. (2024). Prevalence of self-harm among children and adolescents in the Republic of Ireland: A systematic review. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipm.2024.27 Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research , 46 (2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041 Ma, K. K., Burn, A., & Anderson, J. K. (2022). Review: School-based mental health literacy interventions to promote help‐seeking – a systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health , 28 (3), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12609 Mackenzie, K., & Williams, C. (2018). Universal, school-based interventions to promote mental and emotional well-being: What is being done in the UK and does it work? A systematic review. British Medical Journal Open , 8 (9), e022560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022560 Maheswaran, H., Weich, S., Powell, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2012). Evaluating the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Group and individual level analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , 10 (1), 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-156 McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment . Lawrence Erlbaum. Nishida, C., Ishimoto, Y., Takizawa, Y., Katayama, T., & Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the Stirling children's well-being scale (SCWBS) with Japanese children. International Journal of Educational Research Open , 2 , 100034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100034 Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies , 6 (1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z Qin, S., Nelson, L., McLeod, L., Eremenco, S., & Coons, S. J. (2019). Assessing test–retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: Recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula. Quality of Life Research , 28 (4), 1029–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology , 52 (1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 (6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069 Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of Eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics , 83 (1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263 Sarfraz, B., Iqbal, S., & Iqbal, Z. (2022). Urdu translation of Stirling children emotional and psychological well-being scale in Pakistan. Pakistan Social Sciences Review , 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2022(6-ii)67 Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist , 55 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 Skrzypiec, G., Askell-Williams, H., Zhao, X., Du, W., Cao, F., & Xing, L. (2018). Predictors of Mainland Chinese students’ well‐being. Psychology in the Schools , 55 (5), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22122 Stavraki, M., García-Márquez, R., Bajo, M., Callejas-Albiñana, A., Paredes, B., & Díaz, D. (2022). Brief version of the Ryff psychological well-being scales for children and adolescents: Evidence of validity. Psicothema , 2 (34), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.235 Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , 5 , 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63 UCLA Department of Psychology (2022, January 22). Child FIRST – Focus on innovation and redesign in systems and treatment . Child FIRST – Focus on Innovation and Redesign in Systems and Treatment. https://www.childfirst.ucla.edu/resources/ Urao, Y., Yoshida, M., Sato, Y., & Shimizu, E. (2022). School-based cognitive behavioural intervention programme for addressing anxiety in 10- to 11-year-olds using short classroom activities in Japan: A quasi-experimental study. Bmc Psychiatry , 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04326-y Wahyuningsih, H., Novitasari, R., & Kusumaningrum, F. A. (2022). Emotional and psychological well-being in Indonesian adolescents: Translation and construct validation of the Stirling children’s well-being scale in a college student sample. Cogent Education , 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2060165 WHO (1998). Wellbeing measures in primary health care. The DEPCARE project . https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/349766 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 04 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 19 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 19 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 18 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6924999","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":480600429,"identity":"5dd8df35-4668-4ae4-b3ba-b98b370819a0","order_by":0,"name":"Tsz Tong Phoebe Cho","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tsz","middleName":"Tong Phoebe","lastName":"Cho","suffix":""},{"id":480600430,"identity":"d0b55767-d8ee-4090-af75-9cef071342d7","order_by":1,"name":"Alan Carr","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alan","middleName":"","lastName":"Carr","suffix":""},{"id":480600431,"identity":"4ffb90af-273c-4a8f-b482-e79ee1ee5277","order_by":2,"name":"Sinead Grennan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sinead","middleName":"","lastName":"Grennan","suffix":""},{"id":480600432,"identity":"995f7cba-de43-4e40-b4b7-d9800d1cc376","order_by":3,"name":"Niamh McKenna","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Niamh","middleName":"","lastName":"McKenna","suffix":""},{"id":480600433,"identity":"a807417f-eb11-46ad-a27c-2138f3f36224","order_by":4,"name":"Annie O'Dowd","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Annie","middleName":"","lastName":"O'Dowd","suffix":""},{"id":480600434,"identity":"055ac711-d0ae-44cb-909b-7d7e22d2a0db","order_by":5,"name":"Niki Nearchou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Niki","middleName":"","lastName":"Nearchou","suffix":""},{"id":480600435,"identity":"34b78ae3-0a8e-4463-a85c-94ba6bd5c202","order_by":6,"name":"Eddie Murphy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College Dublin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eddie","middleName":"","lastName":"Murphy","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-18 16:53:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6924999/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6924999/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89983920,"identity":"59a6c755-cc99-47e1-9289-6cdacd0ba6ed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 06:35:12","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":92001,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis of the SCWBS within an Irish sample (N=505)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eThis figure illustrates the standardised factor loadings (single-headed arrows) for the SCWBS two-factor model, where latent variables (circles) represent underlying constructs and observed variables (rectangles) represent measured indicators of the corresponding construct. Covariances between latent variables is represented by a double-headed arrow.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6924999/v1/f4b58b2f69f68798f4d94ae5.png"},{"id":89985324,"identity":"773f4364-ae3a-42da-9188-5c1e80839b11","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 06:43:13","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1264983,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6924999/v1/84f097e4-a057-460c-a646-4463e0e902c0.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Validation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale in an Irish Sample","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe traditional practices of psychotherapy and clinical psychology has frequently led to mental health being viewed through the perspective of illnesses (Seligman \u0026amp; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). A significant amount of mental health research is disease based, focused on understanding and preventing the development of mental disorders. As the field of positive psychology develops, there is growing awareness of the need to shift research focus from mental illness to positive aspects of mental health (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, research suggests that well-being and mental illness are separate indicators of mental health (Lamers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, more work to understand well-being has been undertaken.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe modern understanding of well-being is conceptualised through two classical perspectives, the hedonic and the eudaimonic approach (Biswas-Diener et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The hedonic approach, often referred to as subjective well-being (SWB), defines well-being as pleasure seeking and pain avoidance in the immediate states (Carr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The eudaimonic approach, often termed psychological well-being (PWB), defines well-being as the self-actualisation of individuals (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Despite debates on the presumed distinct approaches, more recent evidence suggests the two approaches are not mutually exclusive of each other (Joseph, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and can be pursued concurrently (Peterson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Previous research indicated SWB and PWB are different constructs but moderately related (Compton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Pursuit of both SWB and PWB was found to produce optimal well-being (Anić \u0026amp; Tončić, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), with SWB associated with short-term well-being benefits and PWB long-term well-being (Huta \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). As Cho \u0026amp; Yu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) suggested, utilising a multidimensional model is needed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLooking at global mental health trends, the systematic review conducted by Bor et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) indicated that children in the 21st century do not show increased symptoms of mental disorders. However, it was revealed that adolescent girls showed an increase in internalising problems and may be at greater risk of developing mental illness (Bor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), almost a quarter of the population is under 18 years. This represents 1.2\u0026nbsp;million children and adolescents, meaning the ROI contains one of the youngest populations in Europe (Collins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A rising number of children and adolescents are experiencing mental health challenges in the ROI. The Central Statistics Office of ROI reported an increase in death by suicide among individuals under the age of 25, with a rise from 12.4% in 2015 to 19.4% in 2019. A recent review conducted by Lynch et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) estimated one in five school-aged children engaged in self-harm behaviour in the ROI, with higher levels of self-harm behaviour were found among girls. While these studies demonstrated the importance of early interventions for mental illness, the finding suggest that monitoring and promoting child well-being at an early age is equally important.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo tackle this worrying trend, increasing numbers of school-based interventions are being developed and implemented worldwide to enhance child well-being. Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland (Hardley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and Journey of the Brave in Japan (Urao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) are examples. A Lust for Life (ALFL), developed by an Irish mental health charity, is a well-being programme which incorporates elements of cognitive behavioural therapy, positive psychology, educational, developmental, and health psychology. It is a teacher-led programme which spans ten 40-minute classes, designed for school-aged children between the ages of 8 and 13 years. To match the developmental stage of children, the programme has discrete version for younger (for 3rd and 4th class) and older (for 5th and 6th class) children. Until 2024, this programme was delivered to 45% of the primary schools and over 150,000 primary school aged pupils in the ROI.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite efforts being made to develop school-based interventions, research evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions is mixed. A review conducted by Garc\u0026iacute;a-Carri\u0026oacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) indicated there was evidence of school-based interventions having positive effects on children, with a decrease in mental disorders symptoms and improvements in well-being were found. However, a review conducted by Mackenzie \u0026amp; Williams (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) in the United Kingdom (UK) suggested school-based interventions had little to no effect on child well-being and prevention of mental disorders. The contradictory evidence may be a result of the lack of standardised outcome measurement tools for school-based intervention (Breedvelt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and child well-being (Cho \u0026amp; Yu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Researchers reported that there was little consistency in the instruments used across studies (Breedvelt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This hinders result comparison between studies and accurate understanding on the effectiveness of school-based interventions. As Ma et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted, there is a need for a standardised instrument with established reliability and validity for measuring child well-being and the outcome of school-based interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA variety of instruments have been developed to measure components of well-being. Some of the commonly used scales for measuring SWB are the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e), the World Health Organisation-Five (WHO-5) Well-being Index (1998), and the Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky \u0026amp; Lepper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). There are relatively fewer measurement tools assessing PWB compared to SWB (Stavraki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); the Psychological Well-being Scale developed by Ryff (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) is one of the most frequently used instrument measuring PWB. In relation to instruments that measures both SWB and PWB, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (Tennant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) suitable for use among the general population is accessible. Despite a range of available scales, few combined both components of well-being (subjective and psychological) to assess well-being holistically and developed specifically for use with the children.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Stirling Children\u0026rsquo;s Well-being Scale (SCWBS; Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), developed in the United Kingdom by the Stirling Council Education Psychology Service, is a self-report measure of well-being for children aged between 8 and 15 years. The SCWBS is developed based on current theories of hedonic (Diener et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and eudaimonic well-being (Ryff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and positive psychology (Carr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). It is a positively worded 15-item scale, aimed to assess overall well-being, emotional well-being, and psychological well-being. The initial validation study of SCWBS (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) was conducted in 18 UK schools, involved 1,849 children and adolescents aged between 8 and 15 years. The SCWBS holds promise as a brief instrument for monitoring well-being of children and was shown to be an effective instrument for observing well-being changes before and after engaging in interventions (Godfrey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Since the original study, the SCWBS have been adapted and validated in different countries. The SCWBS is now available in Japanese (J-SCWBS; Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Bangla (Haque \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), Urdu (Sarfraz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Chinese (Skrzypiec et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and Indonesian (Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, no study on the SCWBS has been conducted in the Irish children population to date. To assess the effectiveness of the Irish well-being programme (e.g., ALFL) and promote positive aspects of mental health and well-being in Ireland, validation of the SCWBS in the Irish context is necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe SCWBS demonstrated good construct validity in the initial validation study (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) through strong correlations with the WHO-5 (1998) well-being index (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.74), and the DuBois Self-esteem Scale (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.69; Hirsch \u0026amp; DuBois, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). A validation study from Japan (Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) further supported evidence of construct validity of the SCWBS, where a significant positive correlation between the WHO-5 and J-SCWBS (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.71-.80); and a significant negative correlation between the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire and J-SCWBS (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.48) was found. Another study from Bangladesh (Haque \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) also demonstrated the SCWBS has good construct validity, where a significant positive correlation between the Bangla SCWBS and Self-Concept subscale of the Beck Youth Inventory Scale (BSCI-Y, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.67), and a significant negative correlation between the Bangla SCWBS and Anxiety subscale of the Beck Youth Inventory Scale (BAI-Y, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.35) was found. Overall, the SCWBS contains good construct validity, as both convergent validity and discriminant validity were evident. Nonetheless, validation of an instrument is an ongoing process (Boateng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and further investigations (e.g., correlation with other measures) in construct validity of the SCWBS are required.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the original validation study, Liddle and Carter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) found that the SCWBS had good internal consistency (\u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.82). Further investigation on the SCWBS showed results that are consistent with the original study, in which the SCWBS demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (\u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.75-.93) across adaptation studies (Haque \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Sarfraz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, test-retest reliability (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75) of the SCWBS was satisfactory in the initial validation study. Further study indicated the test-retest reliability of the SCWBS may be affected by the age of children, in which lower test-retest reliability was found when it was used with younger children (Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Over a one-week period, test-retest reliability was moderate (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.66) among first and second graders (6\u0026ndash;8 years old) while excellent test-retest reliability (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.86) was demonstrated in third and higher graders (8\u0026ndash;12 years old; Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The SCWBS showed satisfactory test-retest reliability (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.79) over a period of ten days in the Bangladesh study (Haque \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, the SCWBS was shown to be a reliable measure with satisfactory internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. When the SCWBS is administered to a new population, however, retesting the scale is needed (Boateng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor analyses in the original validation study indicated that the SCWBS is a uni-dimensional scale with two sub-components of Positive Emotional State and Positive Outlook, corresponding to subjective (hedonic) well-being and psychological (eudaimonic) well-being (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). While many studies have attempted to translate and adapt the SCWBS into different cultures, only two studies (Skrzypiec et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to further examine the theoretical structure of the SCWBS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkrzypiec et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) employed structural equation modeling to examine predictors of well-being among 2,756 primary and secondary school mainland Chinese students, aged between 10 and 15 years. Alongside six other questionnaires, the conceptual structure of the SCWBS was examined using CFA with a robust maximum likelihood and full information maximum likelihood estimation. Analysis results indicated that the structure of the SCWBS remained consistent when administered to this group, as evidenced by excellent model fit indices: \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (42)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;211.83, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.97, \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98, \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04 (90% CI: .04-.05), \u003cem\u003eRMSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, \u003cem\u003eSRMR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, \u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWahyuningsih et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) randomly split the sample of Indonesian college students aged between 18 and 21 years into two subsamples for validation of the SCWBS in Indonesia. They performed an exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation on data from one subsample, and a CFA on data from the second subsample. The results of this analysis supported the factor model of the original validation study, in which the best-fitting measurement model for the SCWBS was the two-factor model with one second-order factor (Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This model demonstrated good levels of model fit for the Indonesian sample: \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (33)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;67.56, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eGFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94, \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95, \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.96, \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08. While evidence on the theoretical structure of the SCWBS was strengthened, this study has its limitations. Firstly, the sample of this study was young adults which does not correspond to the target population of the SCWBS, which was designed for children and adolescents. Additionally, boys were under-represented in the sample as 80% of the participants in this study were girls. Thus, there is a need to replicate the study, with younger participants and include a balanced sample of boys and girls. Another limitation of this study was the lack of socioeconomic diversity within the sample. Most participants were from middle and upper socioeconomic classes. Investigation of the well-being of children from a range of socioeconomic classes, including socially and economically disadvantaged background could be beneficial to further our understanding of child well-being and the SCWBS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on previous research evidence, the SCWBS showed satisfactory reliability and validity. Nevertheless, there were weaknesses in previous research including (1) Only two studies have tested the factor structure of the SCWBS. (2) There has been limited investigation of the relationship between the SCWBS and demographic factors (e.g., gender and socio-economic background). (3) Most studies determined the internal consistency reliability of the SCWBW solely using the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, and did not consider other options, for example, McDonalds\u0026rsquo;s omega. (4) Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation coefficient was used to assess test-retest reliability of SCWBS instead of intraclass correlation (ICC) which is a more robust index. (5) Sensitivity to change of the SCWBS was not investigated. In relation to Ireland, a research gap remains, as no validation studies of the SCWBS have been conducted in an Irish context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePresent Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current study aimed to validate the SCWBS as an outcome measure to be used for evaluating school-based well-being interventions in Ireland. The studies objectives were to (1) confirm the two-factor structure, validity, and reliability of the SCWBS, and (2) investigate the association between the SCWBS and demographic variables (age, gender, socio-economic background), and (3) evaluate the SCWBS’s responsiveness to change following delivery of well-being interventions. Specifically, this study examined the factor structure, construct validity, internal consistency reliability, and test-retest reliability of the SCWBS. The SCWBS was expected to have a two-factor structure, and demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability as found in previous research evidence (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding the evaluation of construct validity, the Feeling Better Scale (FBS; Carr, A., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS; Ebesutani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) were used. These measures were chosen as the FBS was developed in Ireland (McKenna et al., 2022), while the RCADS has been validated in Ireland (Donnelly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The SCWBS was expected to have positive correlations with the FBS and negative correlations with the anxiety, depression, and internalising problems scales of the RCADS. The following research questions, with specific reference to an Irish sample, were addressed in this study:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIs the SCWBS 2-factorial structure replicable in Irish samples?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is the internal consistency reliability of the SCWBS and its factor subscales?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is the test-retest reliability of the SCWBS and its factor subscales?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoes the SCWBS and its factor subscales have construct validity shown by medium significant correlations with psychometric measures of state well-being, anxiety, and depression, and low correlations with a social desirability scale?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoes the SCWBS and its factor subscales have significant associations with age, gender, and social disadvantage?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIs the SCWBS and its factor subscales responsive to change following intervention with a well-being programme?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study involved secondary data analysis. Data were from two randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of a well-being programme (ALFL) delivered in primary schools in the Republic of Ireland (ROI).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional correlational design was employed to evaluate the factor structure, internal consistency reliability, construct validity of the SCWBS (correlation with well-being, anxiety, and depression), and associations of the SCWBS with demographic variables (age, gender, and social disadvantage). Baseline (Time 1) data of participants from both intervention and control groups were used. A longitudinal design, involving baseline (Time 1) data and data collected 10 weeks later (Time 2), was used to examine the test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change of the SCWBS. Data from participants in the control group was used to evaluate test re-test reliability and data from participants who completed the intervention (ALFL) was used to evaluate responsiveness to change.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSample Size\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Kyriazos (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), a ratio of 5 to 10 cases per items is required to conduct reliability and factor analysis of multi-item scales. The SCWBS contains 12 items (excluding the social desirability scale), suggesting 60 to 120 participants are required for data analysis to be adequately powered. The dataset for this study consisted of 598 cases, offering adequate statistical power for the planned analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample included 598 primary school pupils from 3rd to 6th class in the ROI, aged between 8 and 13 years (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.10, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.21; O\u0026rsquo;Dowd, In preparation; Grennan, In preparation). Among these, 300 were boys (50.3%) while 296 were girls (49.7%). In ROI, schools drawing much of their cohort from areas of socio-economic disadvantage are granted DEIS status (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools); designated schools receive additional resources to tackle educational disadvantage. The majority of the sample attended non-DEIS primary schools (65.9%), while the remainder were from DEIS primary schools (34.1%). Participants were from an intervention group (47.2%), who completed the ALFL well-being programme, and a control group (52.8%), who were on the waiting list for this intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Stirling Children\u0026rsquo;s Well-being Scale (SCWBS)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe SCWBS (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, 2013, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) is a 15-item scale designed to assess overall well-being, positive emotional state, and positive outlook of children aged between 8 and 15 years. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The overall well-being score is based on 12 items, with a total score range from 12 to 60; while the subscales for positive emotional state and positive outlook each comprise 6 items, with scores ranging from 6 to 30. Higher scores indicate higher levels of well-being. The social desirability index comprises 3 items for detecting response bias, with scores ranging from 3 to 15. The SCWBS was shown to have good psychometric properties including construct validity (Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Haque \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), internal consistency reliability (\u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.82; Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and test-retest reliability (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75; Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). It is available for research free of charge and without permission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Feeling Better Scale (FBS)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe FBS (McKenna et al., 2022; see Appendix A) is a 23-item scale that measures state well-being. Its subscales assess (1) well-being associated with the use of cognitive skills, and (2) well-being associated with the use of behavioural skills. There are 5 response options for each item, which yields a score from 0 (No I did not do it) to 4 (Yes and it made me feel a lot better). The overall state well-being score ranges from 0 to 92, based on all 23 items of the FBS. Subscale scores include cognitive skills (10 items; range from 0\u0026ndash;40) and behavioural skills (13 items; range from 0\u0026ndash;52), with higher scores indicating greater well-being. The FBS also yields a score for the number of skills used, calculated by assigning a score of 1 (skill used) and 0 (skill not used). The FBS demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability (McKenna, N., In preparation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRevised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe RCADS (Ebesutani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) is a 25-item scale designed to measure the severity of anxiety and depression symptoms among children aged between 8 and 18 years. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 3 (Always). The anxiety subscale is based on 15 items, with scores ranging from 0 to 45. The depression subscale comprises of 10 items, with scores range from 0 to 30. Higher subscale scores are indicative of higher severity of anxiety and depression symptoms. The RCADS demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability (\u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.87-.95) and excellent test-retest reliability in the school setting (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.83-.85; Klaufus et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It is available for research purposes free of charge and without permission from the UCLA Child First website (UCLA Department of Psychology, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data were originally collected between 2022 and 2023 from two randomised controlled trials which assessed the impact of the ALFL well-being programme. Participants were recruited through online advertisements and by distributing information sheets to primary schools. Written informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians. Children provided informed assent. Quantitative data on self-report questionnaires (SCWBS, FBS, and RCADS) and demographic information were collected via secure online platforms (Qualtrics or Pavlovia) at Time 1 and 2. Participants completed the questionnaires in their school classrooms during school hours. They used a password that linked their de-identified data at the two time points. For this study, the de-identified dataset was obtained from the original research team.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study and the controlled trials that provided the dataset for the current study were approved by the University College Dublin Human Research Ethics Committee (UCD HREC) and conducted in accordance with its guidelines and policies. The ethics application for the controlled trials detailed their design, consent and assent procedures, management of adverse events, participants safeguarding, and data management and archiving. Informed consent was obtained from parents and assent from children in the original studies, permitting their data to be archived and used in future well-being studies, including the present study. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout via the use of a de-identified dataset, and publication of group-based results, ensuring compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study was pre-registered on Open Science Framework prior to data analyses (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/ykrgp\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/ykrgp\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCases with significant missing data (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29) on the SCWBS were removed by the original research team prior to transferring the dataset. The amount of missing data for remaining participants ranged from 0.2 to 8.5% (SCWBS), 0.2 to 11.4% (FBS), 0.2 to 15.4% (RCADS), and 0 to 0.2% (Gender). Of the 598 cases, pairwise deletion was employed for each analysis. As such, sample size varied slightly across analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe factor structure of the SCWBS was tested using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), to determine if Time 1 data from all groups fit a two-factor structure. The adequacy of the model fit was assessed with the following indices: comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), with values\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.90 and \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.95 indicating good and excellent fit respectively; and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), with values\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.08 and \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.05 indicating acceptable and good fit respectively (Hu \u0026amp; Bentler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess internal consistency reliability of the SCWBS, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e) Alpha and McDonald\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) omega were computed using Time 1 data from all groups. Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha and McDonald\u0026rsquo;s omega values range from 0\u0026ndash;1. A coefficient greater than 0.70 is considered a satisfactory level of internal consistency reliability (DeVellis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlations (Qin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) to determine the association between Time 1 and Time 2 control group data. ICC value ranges between 0 and 1. A value close to 1 indicates high test-retest reliability (Koo \u0026amp; Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Construct validity was examined using Pearson product moment correlation with Time 1 data from all groups, assessing convergent and discriminant validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor convergent validity, correlations between the SCWBS and its subscales (positive emotional state and positive outlook), and the FBS and its subscales (cognitive skills and behavioural skills) were computed. For discriminant validity, correlations between the SCWBS and its subscales, and the RCADS and its subscales (anxiety and depression) were computed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore the association between the SCWBS and demographic variables, Pearson product moment correlation was used for age (continuous variable) and point-biserial correlation for gender and social disadvantage (dichotomous variables), with Time 1 data from all groups. Responsiveness to change was tested using paired t-tests and standardised response means (SRM; Husted et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) with Time 1 and 2 data from the intervention group. SRM value\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.8, between 0.5 and 0.8, and between 0.2 and 0.5 indicate high, medium, and low responsiveness to change respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe data underwent appropriate coding and cleaning prior to statistical analyses. Demographic characteristics of samples used for each analyses varied depending on the availability of complete data for the relevant variables, as presented in Table 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreliminary analyses of the entire sample at Time 1 and 2 were conducted to screened for normality and suitability of the data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality were significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e.05) for all variables, indicating some deviations from normality. However, inspection of skewness and kurtosis values indicated no substantial violations. All values were within acceptable limits (skewness value \u0026lt; 2 and kurtosis value \u0026lt; 7; Kim, 2013). These results suggested that the data were approximately normally distributed and suitable for parametric data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCFA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(N=505)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest-retest Reliability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(N=241)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResponsiveness to Change Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(N=189)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategories\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2306%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.2959%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2306%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.2959%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2306%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.2959%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2306%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e257\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.2959%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Disadvantage\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2306%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e354\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.2959%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e a = values are means and standard deviations. b = values are frequencies and percentages.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;f\u003c/em\u003e = frequency, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = mean, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = standard deviation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor Structure (Confirmatory Factor Analysis)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the first research question, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the SCWBS using AMOS version 27. The model proposed by Liddle and Carter (2015) in the initial study consists of two latent factors: Positive Emotional State and Positive Outlook, each factor containing 6 items. Statistics for this two-factor model of the SCWBS yielded excellent levels of model fit: \u003cem\u003ec\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (53) = 147.92, p \u0026lt;.001, \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e = .95, \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e = .96, \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e = .06 (90% CI: .05-.07), and \u003cem\u003eSRMR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .04 (see Table 2). Although the chi-square value was significant, it was influenced by sample size (Babyak \u0026amp; Green, 2010) and the number of correlations in the model (Kenny, 2024). Thus, the significant chi-square value did not indicate that the SCWBS had a poor level of model fit. Standardised factor loadings ranged from .46 to .81, indicating acceptable associations between the observed variables and their respective latent factor (Leech et al., 2015; Kline, 2016). Thus, an excellent fit between the two-factor model and the observed data was found. Overall, these results support the two-factor model of the SCWBS within the Irish sample. See Figure 1 for full details of the CFA result.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModel fit indices for\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eStirling Children\u0026rsquo;s Well-being Scale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFit Indices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCFI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTLI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRMSEA [90% CI]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSRMR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCritical values\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-Factor model\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e147.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.963\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.954\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.060 [.048, .071]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 505.c\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= Chi square.\u003cem\u003edf\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= degrees of freedom.CFI = comparative fit index. TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. RMSEA = Root mean squared error of approximation. SRMR = standardised root mean square residual. Model fit indices critical values are from Kline (2016) and Hu \u0026amp; Bentler (1999).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInternal Consistency Reliability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the second research question on the internal consistency reliability of the SCWBS and its factor subscales, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha and McDonald\u0026rsquo;s omega coefficients between .80 and .90 were found for the overall scale and its subscales, as presented in Table 3. These results demonstrate that the SCWBS had excellent internal consistency reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest-retest Reliability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn answer to the third research question about the test-retest reliability of the SCWBS, intraclass correlations coefficients ranging from .35 to .38 were observed between scores obtained on two occasions 10 weeks apart (see Table 3). These data were based on 241 cases who did not receive well-being intervention between the two assessments. This indicates that the SCWBS had poor test-retest reliability over a 10-weeks period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the fourth research question, the construct validity of the SCWBS was assessed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient test. As expected, the SCWBS and its subscales had negative, medium-to-large correlations with the RCADS and its subscales (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -.41-.50, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 434) with highly statistically significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001) results. On the other hand, the SCWBS and its subscales had positive, small-to-medium, and statistically significant correlations with the FBS and its subscales (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .16-.30, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 455, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001). These results suggest that the SCWBS demonstrate both convergent and discriminant validity, providing evidence of its overall construct validity. See Table 3 for full details of the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelation with Demographic Variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the fifth research question on the associations between the SCWBS and demographic variables, correlations between .03 and -.09 were found between the SCWBS and its subscales on the one hand, and age, gender, and social disadvantage on the other (see Table 3). These correlations were negligible to small and not statistically significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026gt;.05), except for gender (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.05). This demonstrates that the SCWBS has minimal association with demographic factors, suggesting that children\u0026rsquo;s well-being is unlikely to vary significantly based on these factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeans, standard deviations, alpha and omega reliability coefficients, and correlations between SCWBS with measures of state well-being, anxiety, depression, and demographic variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"690\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInternal consistency\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ereliability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e(N\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;= 497-513)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest-retest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 241)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 434-505)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ew\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eICC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSCWBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWell-being\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSCWBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive Outlook\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSCWBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive Emotional State\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSCWBS\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWell-being\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive Outlook\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive Emotional State\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFBS\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState well-being (StWB)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStWB due to Behavioural Skills\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStWB due to Cognitive Skills\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRCADS\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal Internalizing Problems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnxiety\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographic Variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Female %)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(48.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Disadvantaged (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eSCWBS = Stirling Children\u0026rsquo;s Well-being Scale. FBS = Feeling Better Scale. RCADS = Revised Children\u0026rsquo;s Anxiety and Depression Scale. \u003cem\u003eM\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= mean. \u003cem\u003eSD\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= standard deviation. a = Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha. w = McDonald\u0026rsquo;s omega.For a 2-tailed test, Pearson product moment correlations of \u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .16 are significant at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001; correlations of \u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e=.12 are significant at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.01, and correlations of \u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e=.09 are significant at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.05. Correlations of .1, .3 and .5 are considered small, medium, and large respectively.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSensitivity of the SCWBS to Change\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn answer to the sixth research question, the responsiveness of the SCWBS to change following intervention with a well-being programme was assessed using paired t-tests and SRM. The SCWBS total and subscales scores did change significantly as a result of children engaging in a well-being intervention, with SRM values ranged from 0.19 to 1.18. These findings indicate that the SCWBS demonstrated high responsiveness in detecting changes in positive emotional state, medium responsiveness in overall well-being, and low responsiveness in positive outlook. See Table 4 for full details of the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResponsiveness of the SCWBS to change\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"645\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-intervention\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN = 189\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePost-intervention\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN = 189\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSRM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSCWBS Total\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.57 (9.28)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.21 (8.32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.52***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive Outlook\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.79 (5.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.70 (4.74)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.65**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive Emotional State\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.78 (4.84)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.51 (4.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.24***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eSCWBS = Stirling Children\u0026rsquo;s Well-being Scale. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = Mean. \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = Standard deviation. \u003cem\u003et\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= paired-samples t-test result. \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = probability level. SRM = Standardised Response Mean. SRM \u0026gt;0.8 indicates high, 0.5\u0026ndash;0.8 medium, and 0.2\u0026ndash;\u0026lt;0.5 low responsiveness.*\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.05. **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.01. ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the SCWBS demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability and results supported the two-factor model of the SCWBS within an Irish sample. Construct validity was supported through significant associations with related measure and negative associations with measure of a separate construct. The SCWBS was shown to have adequate sensitivity in detecting changes. These results provided preliminary evidence on the psychometric properties of the SCWBS. However, the SCWBS showed poor test-retest reliability over a 10-week period. Minimal influence of demographic factors on well-being score was found. These findings are further interpreted in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to validate the SCWBS for evaluating school-based well-being interventions within the Republic of Ireland, addressing six research questions. (1) The two-factor, second-order structure of the SCWBS was found to be the best fitting model and an excellent fit for the data. The structure demonstrated acceptable item-factor associations, suggesting items were good indicators of their respective factors. (2) The SCWBS and its factor subscales showed excellent internal consistency reliability, though (3) test-retest reliability was poor over a 10-weeks period. (4) Construct validity was established through negative, medium-to-large correlations with a measure of anxiety and depression (RCADS), and positive, small-to-medium correlations with a measure of state well-being (FBS). (5) The SCWBS was only correlated with one demographic variable (gender) and the association was very small. (6) Regarding responsiveness to change following intervention, the SCWBS and its subscales demonstrated high sensitivity to change in positive emotional state, moderate sensitivity to change in overall well-being, and low sensitivity to change in positive outlook.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA key contribution of the current study lies in establishing the 12-item SCWBS as a psychometrically sound measure of children\u0026rsquo;s well-being within an Irish sample at a single time point. Consistent with the initial study in the UK (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, 2013, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and subsequent research in China (Skrzypiec et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Indonesia (Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the two-factor structure was confirmed to closely fit the Irish sample. The second-order model indicates that the SCWBS items fall into two groups that load two first-order factors (Positive Outlook and Positive Emotional State). These two first-order factors, in turn, load on the second order Well-being factor. Acceptable item-factor associations and substantial second-order loadings onto the first-order factors further support the SCWBS as a unidimensional scale comprising two sub-components. This supports the theory that overall well-being is subserved by eudaimonic well-being assessed with the Positive Outlook factor scale, and hedonic well-being assessed with the Positive Emotional State factor scale. Replication on findings of the factor structure in another English-speaking European sample also provided further evidence on cross-cultural validity of the SCWBS. The SCWBS and its subscales showed satisfactory internal consistency reliability in both previous studies (\u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.75-.93) and the current study (\u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.87-.90), supporting its reliability. The novel inclusion of McDonald\u0026rsquo;s omega as separate indicator of internal consistency in the current study further reinforced the robust reliability of the SCWBS, with satisfactory results (\u003cem\u003eω\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e=\u003c/b\u003e\u0026thinsp;.81-.90).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExisting literature demonstrated satisfactory test-retest reliability for the SCWBS over a one-week period (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.66-.86) and a ten-days period (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.79). However, findings from the current study indicated poor test-retest reliability (\u003cem\u003eICC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.35-.38) for the scale over a 10-week period. One possible explanation is the considerably longer interval between tests in the current study, in which data were collected ten weeks apart. A longer test interval may capture genuine changes in well-being due to external factors (e.g., exam or holiday period, health changes), reducing test-retest reliability of the instrument (Allen \u0026amp; Yen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The younger sample in the current study (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.15) may have also contributed to the poor test-retest reliability, consistent with findings by Nishida et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who reported lower test-retest reliability for younger children (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.66) compared to older children (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.86) when using the SCWBS. In short, findings on test-retest reliability of the current study implied that caution should be warranted when employing the SCWBS for long-term tracking of children well-being. In future research, examining test-retest reliability of the SCWBS over a shorter test interval (e.g., two-weeks) would be beneficial.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity of the SCWBS was established by negative correlations with the SDQ (Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and BAI-Y (Haque \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This study provided further evidence on discriminant validity of the instrument by correlating with the RCADS, a well-established measure of anxiety and depression that was validated in an Irish sample (Donnelly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The negative, moderate correlation between the SCWBS and RCADS confirms that the measured constructs of the two instruments are related, but reflect distinct aspects of mental health. This finding aligns with existing evidence that well-being and psychological illnesses are separate dimensions of mental health (Lamers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), thereby supporting the construct validity of the SCWBS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConvergent validity of the SCWBS was supported by positive associations with the WHO-5, the DuBois Self-esteem Scale (Liddle \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and the BSCI-Y (Haque \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This study explored the convergent validity of the SCWBS by associating with the FBS, a measure of state well-being developed in Ireland. The positive association between the two instruments confirms the similarity of the constructs they measure. While results were statistically significant, the strength of association between the two instruments were weak (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16-.30). This finding implies the FBS and the SCWBS measures are related but not strongly aligned constructs. Given the multidimensional nature of well-being (Cho \u0026amp; Yu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), it is possible that the FBS captures a different aspect of well-being, i.e. state wellbeing arising from using skill learned on the ALFL programme in specific situations, rather than trait derived from hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current study addressed a research gap in the existing literature by investigating the relationship between demographic factors (age, gender, and socio-economic background) and the SCWBS. Gender was the only demographic factor significantly associated with the SCWBS, specifically on the Positive Outlook subscale. However, this association was minimal (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09), indicating demographic factors had minimal effect on children\u0026rsquo;s wellbeing. A strength of the current study is the inclusion of a gender-balanced sample, addressing the limitation identified by Wahyuningsih et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsiveness to change of the SCWBS remains unclear in previous literatures and was recommended for investigation by Liddle and Carter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The findings of this study indicates that the SCWBS is particularly sensitive to changes in positive emotional state (\u003cem\u003eSRM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.18) followed by overall well-being (\u003cem\u003eSRM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77). The SCWBS showed low sensitivity to changes in the domain of positive outlook (\u003cem\u003eSRM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.19), indicating the scale may not effectively capture changes in this aspect of well-being. Therefore, the SCWBS is suitable for evaluating well-being interventions targeting positive emotional state and overall well-being, but less suitable for assessing changes in positive outlook. Similar to the WEMWBS, the SCWBS captures both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being, thereby offering a comprehensive foundation for effectively detecting changes in overall well-being (Maheswaran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The current study provides novel findings on the responsiveness to change of the SCWBS, further evidence from future research is required to substantiate this result.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant limitation in the current study is the use of the FBS, a newly developed scale with limited psychometric validation. Designed specifically to assess skills taught in the ALFL programme, the FBS had shown preliminary evidence of reliability including good internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Mckenna, N., In preparation). Nevertheless, evidence supporting its validity and underlying factor structure remains limited. Thus, the observed correlation between the FBS and the SCWBS should be interpreted with caution. The findings contribute to the growing evidence for the construct validity of the SCWBS, though future research is recommended to utilise a more established measure of well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile inclusion of responses with high social desirability scores did not affect factor structure of the SCWBS, these responses could have introduced bias to other statistical analyses. For example, the inflated well-being scores may have inflated the sensitivity to change of the SCWBS. As Skrzypiec et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) suggested, future studies should consider social desirability in local contexts prior to exclusion or inclusion of responses with high social desirability score.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe imbalance in sample socio-economic background is another limitation of this study, with only approximately 30% of participants identified as coming from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. The underrepresentation of socially disadvantaged children suggests that the findings of this study may primarily reflect well-being of children from a more affluent background, thereby limiting the generalisability of the results to the broader population of Irish children. In future research, inclusion of a socioeconomically balanced sample is recommended.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsidering the categorical nature of data generated from the SCWBS (5-point response format), the Weight Least Square with Mean and Variance (WLSMV) estimator would provide a more accurate estimation of CFA results (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Due to the unavailability of software containing the WLSMV estimator, the ML estimator was used for the CFA in the current study. Future research should consider using the more robust WLSMV estimator, which is better suited for CFA with ordered categorical data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs a measure of children\u0026rsquo;s well-being, the SCWBS demonstrated adequate construct validity and a consistent factor structure, supporting its use as a valid instrument within an Irish sample. The scale showed particular utility in detecting changes following interventions, especially within the domains of positive emotional state. Nevertheless, its application over an extended period warrants cautions, as the current study found poor test-retest reliability. Demographic variables were shown to have minimal influence on children\u0026rsquo;s well-being. Future research should further investigate test-retest reliability of the SCWBS over a shorter test interval (e.g., two-weeks). Employing a more comprehensive methodological approach, including a socio-economically balanced sample and inclusion of a more established well-being measure (e.g., the WEMWBS), is recommended to strengthen reliability of the SCWBS and generalisability of findings. Future research in relation to the responsiveness to change of the SCWBS is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study and the controlled trials that provided the dataset for the current study were approved by the University College Dublin Human Research Ethics Committee (UCD HREC) and conducted in accordance with its guidelines and policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from parents and assent from children in the original studies, permitting their data to be archived and used in future well-being studies, including the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eT. C. wrote the main manuscript text and prepared all tables and figures.A. C. supervised the manuscript writing and data collection.S. G., N. M. and A.O. conducted data collection and provided the data set for this study.F. N. supervised the data collection.E. M. provided support and guidance to participants where adverse events occur during data collection.All authors reviwed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Participants and their parents did not consent for their data to be accessed openly online. Therefore, the research data will not be open to access publicly.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllen, M. J., \u0026amp; Yen, W. M. (2002). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to measurement theory\u003c/em\u003e. Waveland.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnić, P., \u0026amp; Tončić, M. (2013). Orientations to happiness, subjective well-being and life goals. \u003cem\u003ePsihologijske teme\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 135\u0026ndash;153.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBabyak, M. A., \u0026amp; Green, S. B. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis: An introduction for psychosomatic medicine researchers. \u003cem\u003ePsychosomatic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(6), 587\u0026ndash;597. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/psy.0b013e3181de3f8a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/psy.0b013e3181de3f8a\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., \u0026amp; King, L. A. (2009). Two traditions of happiness research, not two distinct types of happiness. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 208\u0026ndash;211. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902844400\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439760902844400\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Qui\u0026ntilde;onez, H. R., \u0026amp; Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBor, W., Dean, A. J., Najman, J., \u0026amp; Hayatbakhsh, R. (2014). Are child and adolescent mental health problems increasing in the 21st century? A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eAustralian \u0026amp; New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(7), 606\u0026ndash;616. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0004867414533834\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0004867414533834\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBreedvelt, J. J., Zamperoni, V., South, E., Uphoff, E. P., Gilbody, S., Bockting, C. L., Churchill, R., \u0026amp; Kousoulis, A. A. (2020). A systematic review of mental health measurement scales for evaluating the effects of mental health prevention interventions. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 539\u0026ndash;545. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz233\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/eurpub/ckz233\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarr, A. (2022). \u003cem\u003ePositive psychology: The science of wellbeing and human strengths\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCho, E. Y., \u0026amp; Yu, F. (2020). A review of measurement tools for child wellbeing. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e, 105576. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105576\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105576\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollins, A., Crushell, E., De Lacy, J., Gray, D., Martin, C., Murphy, J., \u0026amp; Pardy, A. (2024). \u003cem\u003eA Vision for the Health and Wellbeing of Children and Young People in Ireland\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eHealth Service Executive\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/5/publichealth/publichealthdepts/child-health-public-health/a-vision-for-the-health-and-wellbeing-of-children-and-young-people-in-ireland.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/5/publichealth/publichealthdepts/child-health-public-health/a-vision-for-the-health-and-wellbeing-of-children-and-young-people-in-ireland.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCompton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A., \u0026amp; Qualls, D. L. (1996). Factor structure of mental health measures. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e(2), 406\u0026ndash;413. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.406\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.406\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. \u003cem\u003ePsychometrika\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e, 297\u0026ndash;334. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/bf02310555\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeVellis, R. F. (2012). \u003cem\u003eScale development: Theory and applications\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., \u0026amp; Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of personality assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiener, E., Lucas, R. E., \u0026amp; Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and Open Questions in the Science of Subjective Well-Being. \u003cem\u003eCollabra: Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1525/collabra.115\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDonnelly, A., Fitzgerald, A., Shevlin, M., \u0026amp; Dooley, B. (2018). Investigating the psychometric properties of the revised child anxiety and depression scale (RCADS) in a non-clinical sample of Irish adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 345\u0026ndash;356. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2018.1437604\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09638237.2018.1437604\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEbesutani, C., Korathu-Larson, P., Nakamura, B. J., Higa-McMillan, C., \u0026amp; Chorpita, B. (2017). The revised child anxiety and depression scale 25\u0026ndash;Parent version: Scale development and validation in a school-based and clinical sample. \u003cem\u003eAssessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(6), 712\u0026ndash;728. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115627012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1073191115627012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEbesutani, C., Reise, S. P., Chorpita, B. F., Ale, C., Regan, J., Young, J., Higa-McMillan, C., \u0026amp; Weisz, J. R. (2012). The revised child anxiety and depression scale-short version: Scale reduction via exploratory bifactor modeling of the broad anxiety factor. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(4), 833\u0026ndash;845. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0027283\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0027283\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Carri\u0026oacute;n, R., Villarejo-Carballido, B., \u0026amp; Villard\u0026oacute;n-Gallego, L. (2019). Children and adolescents mental health: A systematic review of interaction-based interventions in schools and communities. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 918. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00918\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00918\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGodfrey, C., Devine-Wright, H., \u0026amp; Taylor, J. (2015). The positive impact of structured surfing courses on the wellbeing of vulnerable young people. \u003cem\u003eCommunity Practitioner\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(1), 26\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaque, M., \u0026amp; Imran, M. A. (2016). Adaptation of Stirling children\u0026rsquo;s well-being scale (SCWBS) in Bangladesh context. \u003cem\u003eDhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161\u0026ndash;167. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3329/dujbs.v25i2.46338\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3329/dujbs.v25i2.46338\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHardley, S., Gray, S., \u0026amp; McQuillan, R. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of curriculum for excellence implementation in four Scottish secondary school case studies. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(4), 513\u0026ndash;527. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1710463\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01596306.2019.1710463\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHirsch, B. J., \u0026amp; DuBois, D. L. (1991). Self-esteem in early adolescence: The identification and prediction of contrasting longitudinal trajectories. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 53\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/bf01537351\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/bf01537351\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu, L., \u0026amp; Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10705519909540118\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHusted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., \u0026amp; Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of clinical epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(5), 459\u0026ndash;468. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00206-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00206-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuta, V., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and Eudaimonic motives. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(6), 735\u0026ndash;762. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJoseph, S. (2015). The Complementary Roles of Eudaimonia and Hedonia and How They Can Be Pursued in Practice. \u003cem\u003ePositive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed., p. 220). Wiley.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKenny, D. A. (2024). \u003cem\u003eMeasuring model fit\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eHomepage of David\u003c/em\u003e A. Kenny. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. \u003cem\u003eRestorative Dentistry \u0026amp; Endodontics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 52\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlaufus, L., Verlinden, E., Van der Wal, M., K\u0026ouml;sters, M., Cuijpers, P., \u0026amp; Chinapaw, M. (2020). Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the revised child anxiety and depression scale. \u003cem\u003eBmc Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2444-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12888-020-2444-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKline, R. B. (2016). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples and practice of structural equation modeling\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Guilford.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoo, T. K., \u0026amp; Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Chiropractic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155\u0026ndash;163. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. \u003cem\u003ePsychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e09\u003c/em\u003e(08), 2207\u0026ndash;2230. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4236/psych.2018.98126\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLamers, S. M., Westerhof, G. J., Glas, C. A., \u0026amp; Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2015). The bidirectional relation between positive mental health and psychopathology in a longitudinal representative panel study. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(6), 553\u0026ndash;560. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1015156\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439760.2015.1015156\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., \u0026amp; Morgan, G. A. (2015). \u003cem\u003eIBM SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, C. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(3), 936\u0026ndash;949. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiddle, I., \u0026amp; Carter, G. F. (2015). Emotional and psychological well-being in children: The development and validation of the Stirling children\u0026rsquo;s well-being scale. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology in Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 174\u0026ndash;185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1008409\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02667363.2015.1008409\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLynch, S., Begley, A., McDonnell, T., Leahy, D., Gavin, B., \u0026amp; McNicholas, F. (2024). Prevalence of self-harm among children and adolescents in the Republic of Ireland: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eIrish Journal of Psychological Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/ipm.2024.27\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/ipm.2024.27\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLyubomirsky, S., \u0026amp; Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. \u003cem\u003eSocial Indicators Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(2), 137\u0026ndash;155. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1006824100041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa, K. K., Burn, A., \u0026amp; Anderson, J. K. (2022). Review: School-based mental health literacy interventions to promote help‐seeking \u0026ndash; a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eChild and Adolescent Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 408\u0026ndash;424. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12609\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/camh.12609\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMackenzie, K., \u0026amp; Williams, C. (2018). Universal, school-based interventions to promote mental and emotional well-being: What is being done in the UK and does it work? A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eBritish Medical Journal Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(9), e022560. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022560\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022560\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaheswaran, H., Weich, S., Powell, J., \u0026amp; Stewart-Brown, S. (2012). Evaluating the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Group and individual level analysis. \u003cem\u003eHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 156. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-156\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/1477-7525-10-156\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDonald, R. P. (1999). \u003cem\u003eTest theory: A unified treatment\u003c/em\u003e. Lawrence Erlbaum.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNishida, C., Ishimoto, Y., Takizawa, Y., Katayama, T., \u0026amp; Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the Stirling children's well-being scale (SCWBS) with Japanese children. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Research Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 100034. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeterson, C., Park, N., \u0026amp; Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin, S., Nelson, L., McLeod, L., Eremenco, S., \u0026amp; Coons, S. J. (2019). Assessing test\u0026ndash;retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: Recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula. \u003cem\u003eQuality of Life Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1029\u0026ndash;1033. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyan, R. M., \u0026amp; Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(1), 141\u0026ndash;166. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1069\u0026ndash;1081. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of Eudaimonia. \u003cem\u003ePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e83\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1159/000353263\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1159/000353263\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarfraz, B., Iqbal, S., \u0026amp; Iqbal, Z. (2022). Urdu translation of Stirling children emotional and psychological well-being scale in Pakistan. \u003cem\u003ePakistan Social Sciences Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2022(6-ii)67\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.35484/pssr.2022(6-ii)67\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeligman, M. E., \u0026amp; Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSkrzypiec, G., Askell-Williams, H., Zhao, X., Du, W., Cao, F., \u0026amp; Xing, L. (2018). Predictors of Mainland Chinese students\u0026rsquo; well‐being. \u003cem\u003ePsychology in the Schools\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(5), 539\u0026ndash;554.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22122\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pits.22122\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStavraki, M., Garc\u0026iacute;a-M\u0026aacute;rquez, R., Bajo, M., Callejas-Albi\u0026ntilde;ana, A., Paredes, B., \u0026amp; D\u0026iacute;az, D. (2022). Brief version of the Ryff psychological well-being scales for children and adolescents: Evidence of validity. \u003cem\u003ePsicothema\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(34), 316\u0026ndash;322. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.235\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7334/psicothema2021.235\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J., \u0026amp; Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. \u003cem\u003eHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/1477-7525-5-63\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUCLA Department of Psychology (2022, January 22). \u003cem\u003eChild FIRST \u0026ndash; Focus on innovation and redesign in systems and treatment\u003c/em\u003e. Child FIRST \u0026ndash; Focus on Innovation and Redesign in Systems and Treatment. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.childfirst.ucla.edu/resources/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.childfirst.ucla.edu/resources/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUrao, Y., Yoshida, M., Sato, Y., \u0026amp; Shimizu, E. (2022). School-based cognitive behavioural intervention programme for addressing anxiety in 10- to 11-year-olds using short classroom activities in Japan: A quasi-experimental study. \u003cem\u003eBmc Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04326-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12888-022-04326-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWahyuningsih, H., Novitasari, R., \u0026amp; Kusumaningrum, F. A. (2022). Emotional and psychological well-being in Indonesian adolescents: Translation and construct validation of the Stirling children\u0026rsquo;s well-being scale in a college student sample. \u003cem\u003eCogent Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2060165\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186x.2022.2060165\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWHO (1998). \u003cem\u003eWellbeing measures in primary health care. The DEPCARE project\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://iris.who.int/handle/10665/349766\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/349766\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-applied-positive-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"iapp","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology](http://link.springer.com/journal/41042)","snPcode":"41042","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41042/3","title":"International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Children well-being, well-being outcome measures, confirmatory factor analysis, SCWBS","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6924999/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6924999/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to validate the Stirling Children\u0026rsquo;s Well-being Scale (SCWBS) for use in the Republic of Ireland by examining its factor structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change using a data set from 598 children aged 8\u0026ndash;13 years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis supported the second-order, two-factor structure of the SCWBS as an excellent fit for the sample. The scale demonstrated robust internal consistency reliability \u003cem\u003e(α and ω\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.80-.90), and adequate construct validity, with positive associations with the Feeling Better Scale (FBS; \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16-.30) which assesses state well-being, and negative associations with the Revised Children\u0026rsquo;s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS; \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41-.50). The scale demonstrated high responsiveness to changes in the domains of positive emotional state (\u003cem\u003eSRM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.18) and overall well-being (\u003cem\u003eSRM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77). However, test-retest reliability of the SCWBS over a 10-week period was poor (\u003cem\u003eICC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.35-.38). Demographic variables were found to have minimal influence on children\u0026rsquo;s well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFindings indicated that the SCWBS is a valid and reliable measure of child well-being at a single time point in Ireland. Future research should include a socio-economically balanced sample and investigate convergent validity using established measures of trait well-being. Further investigation into the test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change of the SCWBS is warranted.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Validation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale in an Irish Sample","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-27 06:35:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6924999/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-07-04T08:27:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-20T03:44:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-20T03:44:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology","date":"2025-06-18T16:45:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-applied-positive-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"iapp","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology](http://link.springer.com/journal/41042)","snPcode":"41042","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41042/3","title":"International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ef041016-ffe6-476a-a7eb-d6c555c30f57","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 27th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-11T15:13:45+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-27 06:35:07","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6924999","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6924999","identity":"rs-6924999","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}