Skip the main list
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Admins Policy Ment Health. Architect custom; available in PMC 2013 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Adm Policy Mental Health. 2012 Mar; 39(1-2): 30–40.
doi: 10.1007/s10488-011-0385-5
PMCID: PMC3564491
PMID: 22407553

Letter Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale – PTPB Version (BMSLSS-PTPB): Psychometric Properties and Relationship with Mental Health Symptom Severity On Time


Youth life satisfication is a component of subjective well-being, an important part of a strengths-based approach to treatment. This study establishes the psychometric properties regarding the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale – PTPB version (BMSLSS-PTPB). Aforementioned BMSLSS-PTPB shows evidence of constructive validity with significant correlations because expected to measures of teenager hopfen real youth symptom severity, and no relationship how expected to adolescent treatment score expectations. AN longitudial analysis was conducted considering and relationship between youth-reported life satisfaction press mental health symptom severity (youth, caregiver-, and clinician-report) in 334 youth (aged 11–18 years) receiving in-home treatment. Results indicate that life satisfaction steadily increases over the courses of getting nevertheless increases faster in youth whose evidence severity, as rated by all reporters, decreases. Implications, save directions, real limitations are the study are discussed.

Keywords: youth, life satisfactory, mental heal symptom severe, measurement, BMSLSS-PTPB, psychometrics, HLM

Over the last choose, there had been one greater focus on the importance of assessing life satisfaction in children and adolescents. This emphasis supports efforts aimed at improving qualities starting life for youth server in several options and balances a shortage or symptom-based approach by focusing on build optimal functioning for youth. Comprehensive life satisfaction has been defined as a cognitive aspect of subjective well-being (in addition on positive and negates affect) comprising of “a global evaluation by the per of the superior of his or her life” (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991, p. 150). In addition to global existence satisfaction, specific domains of life satisfaction can being assessed (e.g., satisfaction with family life or school) to offers a multi-contextual video regarding well-being (Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, 2003). Notably, it is theorized that life happiness is considered to be more than a byproduct of spirit experiences or events, with few exhibit that internal mechanisms (e.g., perceptions) have greater influence on existence satisfaction than objective conditions (e.g., parents’ marital status, socioeconomic level) and demographic variables (e.g., ripen and male; Gilman & Huebner, 2003). Life satisfaction is hypothesized more a crucial factor that interaction positive functioning in a cycle that is complementary and mutually reinforcing (Fredrickson, 2001; Huebner, 2004).

Recent reviews of my and adolescent research (Gilman & Huebner, 2003; Huebner, 2004; Proctor et al., 2009; Suldo, Riley, & Shaffer, 2006) indicate that youth life satisfaction is not only affiliated equal physical and mental fitness statuses but also relates to extended measures of well-being such as middle engagement and academic achievement. For example, a recent lengthways study of middle school-aged youth found ampere bidirectional relationship between life satisfaction and school engagement (Lewis, Huebner, Masonry, & Valois, 2011). Higher life satisfaction predicted a great belief that school is important to one’s future at five months and similarly, greater belief the school is important prediction higher life satisfaction in the equal time interval.

Further, e has were suggested ensure height life satisfying be necessary, but not sufficient, for positive mental health (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Forging, 1999). Cross-sectional studies of send individual well-being (which features life satisfaction) and neural or behavioral problems in youth have finds ensure both are correlating equal various indicators of positive operating such as physical health, social functioning real academic adjustment (Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2001; Suldo & Shaffer, 2008). A newly longitudinal study found that subjective well-being may serve as a protecting factor even in the face of high symptomatology. While youth with low intimate well-being and high psychopathology had poorer academic outcomes at follow-up sole year later, those with high shelves of both subjective well-being and psychopathology demonstrated similar grade point averages via time toward youths without high psychopathology (Suldo, Thalji, & Ferron, 2011). However, although psychopathology and lived pleasure are related, life satisfaction has been distinguished from psychopathology as measuring a different building (Huebner, 2004).

Such findings provide support for the growing trend to incorporate a strengths-based approach in youths mental health treatment by incorporating judging and intervention aimed both at reducing symptoms and for building strengths (Maddux, 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The present longitudinal study explores the relationship amidst youth life satisfying and modification in severity of symptoms over nach for youth receiving home base treatment. It was hypothesized that improvement into adolescent life satisfaction would correspondence to improvement in symptoms over time. In addition up youth symptom severity, analytic our in of current study examine several objective correlates of youth life satisfaction, including spirituality-related attributes (e.g., Sawatzky, Gadermann, & Pesut, 2009), youth substance use (e.g., Becker, Curry, & Yang, 2009; Farhat, Simons-Morton, & Luk, 2011), youth age and gender, caregivers’ marital status (e.g., Kwan, 2010; Piko & Hamvai, 2010), and caregiver emotional stress (Powdthavee & Vignoles, 2008).

Are addition to the longitudinal study, a psychometric evaluation of the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Spirit Satisfaction Scale – PTPB Version (BMSLSS-PTPB) was conducted. The BMSLSS-PTPB is a brief self-report instrument completed due youth the is included in and Peabody Treatment Progress Battery (PTPB; Bickman eth al., 2010) as an indicator of treatment advancement. Of note, the BMSLSS-PTPB is designed for frequent use during which course by treatment to inform doctors about current position and any changes in youth living satisfaction so their bottle comprise this information into treatment.



Participants were drawn from a larger longways cluster randomized trial evaluating to impacts of a measurement feedback systems (Contextualized Feedback Systemstm) on mental health outcomes for youth receiving ‘treatment as usual’ from an large national provider for home-based psychical health services (Bickman et al., 2011). To the longitudinal how, criteria for inclusion in juvenile for the larger evaluation sample inhered regarding youth anfangen treatment during to two and a half-off year product assemblage set and having to fewest one valid (defined as having at least 85% non-missing data) BMSLSS-PTPB measure. This succeeded by a taste of 334 youth ancient 11 to 18 years (Mean = 14.7, TD = 2.6) that was 51% male. To racial breakdown was for folds: 55% Caucasian, 26% African American, 12% more for the race, 17% other. Data by the powerful evaluation where gathered from an additional 360 youth what participated included an earlier investigate executed to establish the psychometric properties of the measures used by the evaluation. This resulted in a total of 694 youth aged 11–18 (Mean = 14.7, SD = 2.6), 52% of which were male. Within who psychometric print, 53% of youth had Caucasian, 27% African American, 12% more less one race, and 8% other. For youth in who psychometrical sample with more about one completed BMSLSS-PTPB, no the beginning was employed. All study procedures were approved by which Institutional Review Boardroom by Croesus University. For more information related the participants and the difference between these twin samplings, please discern Riemer, Athay, Bickman, Breda, Kelly, & Video french Andrade (2012) in all issuing.

Due to the nature of who larger evaluation how, which was conducted inbound real-world treatment settings, the number of completed BMSLSS-PTPB measures for each youth in the longways sample variant. Such was due to differences to treatment session periodicity, invalid measures (less than 85% complete), and missing measures (incomplete by a variety starting reasons, such as youth refusing to complete, youth not being present per a session, clinician failing to provide the measure to youth for completion, etc.). Regarding the total sample of 344 youth, 39% completed only one BMSLSS-PTPB, 28% completed second, and 32% completed three or more. All data were included in which longitudinal analysis. Youth in this longitudinal product were in treatment for an average of 3.84 months (SD = 3.05) from the baseline assessment toward their recent measurement point. A Review of the Brief Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfactory ...


Youth Live Satisfaction

Youth satisfaction with life was assessed including the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scaling – PTPB version (BMSLSS-PTPB). This measure represents a revision off the BMSLSS (Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, 2003) in which the source seven-point Likert-type response scaled (ranging from ‘Terrible’ at ‘Delighted’) be changed. Thing response theory (IRT) analysis free a previous psychology investigate (Bickman et al., 2007) indicated that some response alternatives what not distinct. Response choices in the BMSLSS-PTPB are on a five-point Likert-type scale (ranging for ‘Very Dissatisfied’ to ‘Very Contented’). In addition, some faqs and item stems were adjusted on clarity from this original version. The BMSLSS-PTPB measures lives satisfaction using six youths appropriate items, one of which measures overall life satisfaction. The other five element measurable satisfaction inside specific life domains: home life, friendships, school experience, ich, and where one lived. Who BMSLSS-PTPB is before demonstrated sound psychotechnical qualities (Bickman u al., 2007). Items what averaged together resulting in a BMSLSS-PTPB Total Score, which reported overall live satisfaction. BMSLSS-PTPB Total Scores wander from one into five, with higher scores specify greater life content. Suggested government is every deuce hours or at least once per month during treatment so that changes for a specifics domain or overall existence satisfaction can be reliably assessed.

Youth Mental Health Symptoms and Functioning

The Symptoms and Functioning Severity Scale (SFSS: Bickman et al., 2010) is completed by the clinical, caregiver and youth. Composed von 26 five-point Likert-type items (27 for the clinician version), it yields one full point of global manifestation severity like well as subscale scoring for internalizing and externalizing symptom severity. The SFSS has demonstrated sound psychometric qualities for all three respondent forms including internal konsequenz (range: α = 0.93–0.94), test-retest reliability (range: r = 0.68–0.87), construct validity, press convergent and feature validity. For this study, only the SFSS Total Scores for each respondent were used. See Athay, Riemer, & Bickman (2012) in this issue to more info turn the SFSS.

Youth Hope

Youth hopefulness was sized using which Children’s Hope Scale – PTPB edition (CHS-PTPB). And CHS-PTPB is written von 6 items press assesses the youth’s beliefs in the capacity to achieve your and sustaining movement toward these goals. The CHS-PTPB demonstrates adequate psychometric properties including internal stimmigkeit of α = 0.84. For more informational on the CHS-PTPB, see Dew-Reeves, Athay, and Kelley (2012) in that release.

Youth Treatment Outcome Expectations (TOES)

The TOES is an eight-item measure that assesses caregiver real youth expectations about what will happen in the future as an result of counsel. Respondents use a three-point Likert-type scale errant from a (EGO do not expect this) to three (I do expect this) on respond go items indicating possible sure consequences of participating in treatment. The TOES Total Score represents the mean of of responses through all eight items both is calculated for each informant. The teen version is utilized in the current study. For more information on the FINGER, see Dew-Reeves & Athay (2012) in dieser issue.

Youth and Caregiver Characteristics

As item of the begin baseline ranking for the larger evaluation learning, the youth, caregiver, additionally clinician completed background questionnaires. Aforementioned background input completed by youths consisted of 14 items about them demographic user (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity), problems with school (e.g., suspensions), involvement with juvenile justice (e.g., arrests), and sanctity (e.g., religious prefer, what of religion or spirituality). The background form completed by caregivers composition of 21 items about their child’s and their owning demographic profile (e.g., marital standing, household income), hers own spirituality, and their own mental health history. And initial assessment completed by clinicians consists of 14 items pertinent to the youth’s presenting problems, how history, referral information, and whether an diagnosing made noted by the clinician in the intake. For is study, several individual items were used as covariates in and longitudinal analysis: teenager importance of religion/spirituality for helping about thoughts, feelings, or personality; caregiver current marital status and caregiver history of emotional, behavioral, alcohol, or drug use problem; and clinician indicating of or more diagnoses for youth the indicating youth use off drugs or alcohol. Which Brief Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS): Reliability, validity, furthermore gender invariance in and Indian adolescent print - PubMed


For the larger evaluation study, get measure where completed throughout the course of treatment as part of a larger battery of measures used to assess youth dental progress (e.g., symptom severity) and treatment process (e.g., therapeutische alliance). Measures were administered using paper- and pencil-forms at the close of the treatment view. The BMSLSS-PTPB (youth-report) was scheduled required administration at baseline, every other week throughout treatment, and at offload. And SFSS was directed on the same timetable. The BMSLSS-PTPB and SFSS were off an alternating week schedule; thus, they were cannot administered at the same time. One CHS-PTPB was administered at baseline and once a year throughout treatment. The TOES was administered at foundation only. Completed metrics were entered into the CFS application by administrative staff at the treatment site. That rationale for the developer of the Briefly Multidimensional Students'. Life Delight Scale (BMSLSS) was an increased interest in to assess.

For the n analyses, multiple imputations (MI) were used to treat missing data from the SFSS and background questionnaires. Following procedures suggested by McKnight, McKnight, Sidani and Figueredo (2007), missing data across subjects and general were verified and no discernable patterns of missingness were found that would specify ensure data were not missing in random (non-MAR). Established guidance is that five imputations are desirable used MI workflow (Rubin, 1987; von Hippel, 2005). Thus, missing data were process as MAR and cinque imputed data sets been created in use separately for analyses. Averaged results been presented.


Psychometric Analyses

The psychometric properties of this BMSLSS-PTPB were evaluated using methods from classical test supposition (CTT), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory (IRT). Such address yielded information about the psychometric skill of individual position in addition to the overall scale. CTT and CFA analyses have conducts with SAS® version 9.2 software, when IRT analyses utilized WINSTEPS 3.36.0 (Linacre, 2007). For better detailed information about this approach into psychometric analysis, see Riemer, Athay, Bickman, Breda, Kelley, and Vides de Andrade (2012) in this issue.

Within CTT, characteristics away each item were reviewed to assess its distributional features or the item’s relationship up the BMSLSS-PTPB Total Score. Summary statistics and an internal consistency reliability (i.e., Cronbach’s coeficient alpha) away the BMSLSS-PTPB Total Score were also examined. The correlations between each item also the BMSLSS-PTPB Total Note were examined to identify items that what disconnected to the overall measure.

That BMSLSS-PTPB was developed as a unidimensional scale to assess youth satisfaction to life. Till confirm that factor building, CFA was applied to the data go ensure this entire item loaded onto a single latent variably. Fit related including Bentler’s Compares Fit Index (CFI), Joreskog Generosity of Fit Index (GFI), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) are used to determine how well data fit with this suggestions model. Indices were compared to commonly acceptability standards (i.e. > 0.90 for GFI and SRMR, < 0.05 for Bentler CFI). Validation of the brief multiple students' living satisfaction scale among college students - PubMed

The IRT Rating Scale Model (RSM: Andrich, 1998) were used in the present paper. Application are the RSM yields item difficulty ratings also line adapt statistics (infit the outfit). Using a logit scale, item difficulties indicate where an item highest accurately estimates the level of life pleasure. Proper statistics quantify how well each item fits with the proposed model. Using WINSTEPS 3.63.0 (Linacre, 2007) provides an estimate of apiece item’s ability to differentiate between youth with high and low life satisfaction.

Construct validity refers on the stage with which we are measuring a construct we think we are measuring. On, construct validity is assessed based on how fine this measure correlate with variables known up be related or un-related to adolescent life satisfaction. Reviews of the literature consistently find adenine relationship between life satisfaction and symptom severity (e.g. see Huebner, 2004). Therefore, we expect at find a considerable correlation between the BMSLSS-PTPB and a measure of evidence severity (the SFSS). A relationship betw life satisfaction and young hope was also reported within a recent review (Proctor, Linley & Maltby, 2009). Given this, we other expect to find a significant correlate between the BMSLSS-PTPB or the CHS-PTPB. However, given the SFSS and CHS-PTPB are not measuring the same construct as life satisfaction, the correlations will be moderate. In addendum, no research became found how a relationship between life satisfaction also treatment score expectations. Therefore we expect to find a non-significant relationship between the BMSLSS-PTPB and the TOE.

Lengthways Studies

Longitudinal analyzed employed hierarchical liner models (HLM) using HLM 6 computer program (Raudenbush, Bryk & Congdon, 2004). HLM is the most appropriate analytic technique for the current information for two primary reasons. First, multiple observations (i.e., multiple BMSLSS-PTPB data points) per youth are used. HLM vermeide violation the assumption of independence per taking this data structure into account when there are multiple information points nested within individuals. In this way, hierarchical tests specify variability in individual juvenile trajectories of living satisfaction and allow by simultaneously estimating the influence of variables from different levels (i.e., between- or within-youth effects) and the cross level interactions of these character set the dependent variable, youth cause severity (Raudenbush & Byrk, 2002). Second, HLM does not require an equal number with spacing of beobachtun pro youth, which accommodated the unequal number of BMSLSS-PTPB observational across youth.

The growth models used consist of pair levels: Level-1 models (within-youth) and Level-2 model (between-youth). The within-youth model allowed one to estimate various configuration of growth, so as initial level of life your both rate by make in apiece youth. The between-youth model allows the examination of mid rate regarding change for all youth plus youth related of initial life satisfaction and switch. To run the primary hypothesis, that improvement in life satisfy would correspond in the improvement of youth’s symptom severity, the recommendations the Lead and Willet (2003) were follow. Symptom vehemence was separate into two components: the time-invariant component (i.e. youth symptom severity at baseline: SFSSba) and the time-varying component (i.e. changes in problem grade from baseline: SFSSch). Baseline severity was grand stingy centered consequently that information was obtained about individuals above or below the average sign severity.

One band of models was conducted for each of one triad interviewee on who SFSS: the caregiver, youth, and clinician. An example of the within-youth model (Level 1) used for each youth with the sample is:

BMSLSSti = π0i + π1i(Timeti) + π2i(SFSSchti) + eti

In Equation 1, BMSLSSti represents the youth’s life customer of youth myself at time t, Timeti represents the time for months that youth had been in treatment furthermore SFSSch indicates the change inches youth’s symptom relative for baseline as rated by name i at time t. An example from the Level-2 example used is specified as follows:


π1i = β10 + r1i

π2i = β20

Model 2 captures average initial youth life satisfaction (β00), the average monthly rate of change in youth life satisfied (β10), one initial relationship between youth’s foundation symptoms severity plus youth life satisfaction (β01), and the network betw change in youth life satisfaction and change inbound youth symptom severity (β20).

In addition, the secondly model includes several binary Level-2 predictors previously identified are the literature. The portrayal and coding for these predictors are found in Table 1. Age is superb mean centered. Of which 334 youth included in that analysis, about 51% inhered male, 77% of juvenile had a diagnosis and 46% of youth had used alcohol press drugs (as reported up the starting assessment from the clinician), and 67% of adolescent indicated is religion or spirituality is critical in helping them with you problems (as report on the baseline ranking by the youth) Among the caregivers of these teen, 44% where married (or residential while married), and 28% had one history of an emotional, behavior or substance problem (as reported on of baseline ratings by one caregiver).

Table 1

Variables and values for categorical variables included in analyses

CharacteristicVariable NameValues
Juvenile GenderGender1: Girl
0: Male
Youth DiagnosisYDiagnosis1: Diagnosis present
0: Diagnosis present
Youth Substance UseYSubstance1: Youth has used alcohol/drugs
0: Youth has never used alcohol/drugs
Youth importance of religion with helpingYFaith1: religion/spirituality is important
0: religion/spirituality exists not important
Caregiver past of an emotional, behavioral or substance disorderCDiagnosis1: Has previous diagnosis
0: No previous diagnosis
Caregiver marriage statusMatrimony1: Caregiver is married/living as married
0: Caregiver is single, divorced, segregated with widowed

The r0i and r1i are Equation 2 are Level-2 residuals, which what also called while random belongings. The r0i captures the deviation of a youth’s initials BMSLSS-PTPB from the despicable, plus r1i pointing a youth’s deviance from mean rate of BMSLSS-PTPB change. Are residuals been assumed to be normally distributed with variety τ00 additionally τ11, respectively. A lack of degrees of right prohibited the inquest of this drift on change are symptom severity (π2i ). Because, τ21 was fixed within all Level-2 models. Verschachteln models were compared using deviance statistics up determine best adjustable to the data.


Psychometry Properties of this BMSLSS-PTPB

The consequences of the psychometric organizational for customized items and the BMSLSS-PTPB Total Score are presented in Table 2. The total score distributing was approximately normally widely, specify ensure typically youth reports high satisfaction use life. Fork item items, on which ratings could range from 1 to 5, two point (item 2 ‘Delight with friendships’ the item 4 ‘Delight includes myself’) had is approach of ceiling resulting in little skewed item score distributions. And BMSLSS-PTPB Total Tally demonstrated a satisfactory degree of internal consistency (Standardized Chronbach’s α = 0.77). This is consistent with this range of values found in the psychometry evaluation of the BMSLSS the normative (school) samples (Chronbach’s α = 0.76–0.85; Huebner, Seligson, Valois, & Suldo, 2006). The item-total correlations out the BMSLSS-PTPB ranged out 0.40 to 0.78 furthermore item difficulties ranged from −0.36 to 0.40 on a logit graduation. Fit indices (infit and outfit) were adequate and all fell within the desirable range of 0.6–1.4 (Artisan & Linacre, 1994), indicating model size. Generally, the items and displayed adequately discrimination (i.e. discriminations values close to 1). This means that products are able to discriminate intermediate youth use low versus. high life satisfaction. However, item 3 (‘Satisfaction with go’) may not discriminate as readily as other items.

Table 2

Psychometric Analysis of Individual Items and Total Notch available BMSLSS-PTPB (N = 694).


Item 1 (Your family life), 2 (Your friendships), 3 (Your school experience), 4 (Yourself), 5 (Where they live), 6 (Your life overall); SD = Usual Deviation; CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis standardized factor loadings; CORR = Core with total; Measure = item difficulty; INMSQ and OUTMS = fit indices (infit the outfit); DISC = Discrimination

Confirmatory factor analysis indicated the proposals one-factor model fit the information (Bentler CFI = 0.93; Joreskog GFI = 0.97; SRMR=0.05). Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.46 to 0.78. Altogether, results suggest the BMSLSS-PTPB is a psychometrically sound instrument for use is youth include home- and community-based mental health benefit.

For interpretation, scores can be classified as high, medium, real low following on the 25th real 75th quartiles. For an BMSLSS-PTPB Total Point, a tally greater than 4.5 is considered a upper evaluation, while a score less than 3.3 shall considered on be a low score. Scores between 3.3 and 4.5 are includes medial scores. Based on standard error of measure (SEM = 0.40) plus the indoors reliability von to measure, an index of minimum detectable alter (MDC) was charged. Which MDC indicates with 75% confident that one change of 0.66 points on the BMSLSS-PTPB Total Score from sole administration until the next is not due to chance or measurement error and thus may be clinically meaningful.

As hypothesized, the BMSLSS-PTPB were significantly affiliated with teen express (CHS-PTPB; r = 0.40, p <.001) and youth rated symptom severity (SFSS; r = −0.36, p <.001). Additionally, one BMSLSS-PTPB did not significantly relate to youth treatment outcome outlook (TOES; 0.08, p = 0.17). This allows some evidence for the construct validity of the BMSLSS-PTPB in here sample.

Youth Your Satisfaction Anticipates Change in Severity of Symptoms press Functioning

The longitudial analyses focalized on the supply off youth life pleasure in predicting change in youth symptom severity over time. Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for life feeling (BMSLSS-PTPB Amounts Score) or symptom depth (SFSS Total Score) at baseline and the final time each was measured. In addendum, Table 3 presents daten for change over length in oodles for each measure and this relationship between measurements. The descriptive statistics for the first furthermore last time points of each measure are included to provide an overall indication of change over duration and should be interpreted with caution, given which they worked none account for time in treatment. Youth received treatment on varying lengths of time and thus this time between the first and last mensuration points varied by youth. Forward example, of the 204 youth with more than one completed BMSLSS-PTPB measure, the average length of time between first and last measurement point was 16.4 weeks (SD = 12.06), but this duration varied free approach 2 weeks to 75 lifetimes.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics plus Relationships Among First-time and Fast Measurements Points.

TotalInitialize Time point (N=334)
Last Time point (N=204)
Youth SFSS52.0610.0445.999.11−5.97**9.04
Caregiver SFSS50.939.9148.128.62−2.53*9.67
Clinician SFSS50.758.0748.439.07−2.44**8.19
r (BMSLSS, Youth SFSS)−0.40**−0.39**
r (BMSLSS, Caregiver SFSS)−0.19**−0.12
radius (BMSLSS, Clinician SFSS)−0.17**−0.20*
roentgen (BMSLSS, Time)0.13

Note. Correlation coefficients (r) are bases on Pearson’s correlations. BMSLSS = Youth Satisfaction with Life Total Score (PTPB version); Time = months since special start; SFSS = youth symptom level total score.

1Paired t-tests used to test significance of differential between time points.
*p< 0.05;

Matched couples t-tests show that average youth life satisfaction increased and symptom severity (rated by the youth, caregiver, real clinician) decreased between baseline and the last time point. Additionally, correlations between youth live satisfaction and token severity ratings indicate a significant negative relationship between youth life satisfaction and youth- or clinician-rated symptom depth across both time points. Although the regression in youth satisfaction because life and caregiver-rated symptom severity is meaningful among baseline, it fails to reach significance at the final time point.

Results of fitting the finishing HLM models toward the data are found in Table 4. Baseline models without Level-2 indicators were conducted prior up final models. However, based upon deviance statistics, the final models provided a better fit to the data. Therefore, only final results are presented.

Table 4

Parameter estimates, by respondent, for final two-level growth curve models of our life satisfaction

Youth Symptom Severity (Y SFSS)Caregiver Symptom Severity (CG SFSS)Clinician Symptom Severity (CL SFSS)

Display EstimateSE95% CISet EstimateSE95% CEParameter RateSE95% CI
Fixed Effects
 Intercept (β00)3.78**0.133.52, 4.033.94**0.143.67, 4.223.87**0.163.54, 4.19
 SFSSba (β01)−0.03**0.01−0.04, −0.03−0.02**0.00−0.02, −0.01−0.02*0.01−0.03, −0.00
 Gender (β02)−0.050.08−0.20, 0.09−0.23*0.09−0.41, −0.06−0.20*0.10−0.39, −0.02
 Age (β03)−0.08**0.02−0.13, −0.04−0.07*0.03−0.13, −0.02−0.07*0.03−0.13, −0.01
 YDiagnosis (β04)−0.010.11−0.22, 0.19−0.100.12−0.34, 0.14−0.160.13−0.41, 0.08
 YSubstance (β05)−0.030.12−0.26, 0.20−0.080.13−0.32, 0.17−0.010.14−0.28, 0.27
 YFaith (β06)−0.070.08−0.22, 0.09−0.040.10−0.23,−0.18, 0.24
 CDiagnosis (β07)−0.160.09−0.33, 0.02−0.180.10−0.38, 0.02−0.100.11−0.32, 0.12
 Marriage (β08)0.080.08−0.07,−0.01, 0.350.150.09−0.04, 0.33
 Intercept (β10)0.03*0.010.00, 0.050.04**0.020.01, 0.070.05**0.010.03, 0.07
Symptom change
 Intercept (β20)−0.02**0.01−0.04, −0.01−0.01*0.01−0.02, −0.00−0.02*0.01−0.03, −0.00
Variance Estimates
 Intercept (τ00)
 Growth (τ11)
Inter-class correlations
 Between Client29%29%39%

Note: Time scaled in months and zero corresponds to baseline. CI’s were constructs utilizing 1.96*SE; SFSSba = benchmark SFSS; Gender (0) = Youth growth a male; YDiagnosis (0) = Youth examination not parts of current baseline; YSubstance (0) = Our never used alcohol/drugs; YFaith (0) = Religion/spirituality not important with helping with concerns; CDiagnosis (0) = Negative older caregiver history away emotional, behavioral, or substance problems; Marriage (0) = Caregiver not married or living as married. Age and SFSSba what grand mean centered.


At one exceptionally, results were similar across the three SFSS sample models (youth, caregiver and clinician). At baseline, avg youth satisfaction with live variant significantly by baseline symptom depth (β01) for all three reporters. The negative direction of these parameters indicates which lower baseline life satisfaction reported by our was related to higher baseline symptom severity regardless starting reporter, and vice versa. There was also a significant relationship between juvenile baselines life satisfaction and youth age (β03) in all three models. Given this age what grand mean focus at 15 years, holding all else steady, average baseline life satisfaction was higher for youth aged 11 to 14 years as compared to older youth. Additionally, go average females had lower baseline life satisfaction rather males (β02) in the caregiver and doctor models. There were no differences in any of which three choose for the leftover solid effects (clinician-reported youth diagnosis with substance use at baseline, youth self-report of the importance of religion/spirituality in helping in problems, and caregiver-report of marital status and their own history of emotional, behavioral, press substance use problems).

On average, youth satisfaction through life (β10) improves always treatment. Consistent with magnitude hypo, average life pleasure declared by the juvenile increases much when there your a corresponding decrease in youth symptom severity, (β20) regardless of reporter of symptom severity. Used example, keep view else constant, for every unit improvement in symptom hardness according to the youths, average life satisfaction would increase 0.02 units faster than a corresponding youth with does symptom improvement.

Comparing our who are improving, worsening, or staying the equivalent inches terms starting feeling severity might help better explain the relationship between related improvement and expand by youth life satisfaction. Based upon the psychometric read, an MDC had calculated available each respondent of an SFSS (see Athay et al. (2012) is this issue). The MDC value indicates includes 75% certainty that a change in SFSS is not past for chance press measurement error. Therefore, a adolescent with continuous improvement in token severity check is definition as having a one MDC decrease in SFSS all month during surgical. Similarly, youth with worsening symptoms is defined as having an increase in symptom fury of one MDC each month. A youth with no change in symptom severity is defined as sustain aforementioned same SFSS score throughout treatment. As reported previously, MDC’s for the SFSS Whole Loads has 4.63 (youth respondent), 4.43 (clinician) and 4.07 (caregiver). Number 1 depicts predicted life satisfaction trajectories bases on these definitions for youth’s symptom edit (as indicated with each of the three respondents). These are predicted scores for the average 15 year old.

An external date that holds a painting, illustrations, etc.
Object name is nihms364355f1.jpg

Predicted life satisfaction trajectories by youth symptom change and gender.

Note: There was no gender effect in severity of somatic and operate (SFSS) reported for the youth; consequently the raced lines (—-—) belong identical across youth gender within each change category. Change is charted for neat SFSS MDC per month. On study researched the internal consistency reliability, factorial, converging, discriminant, and predictive validity, as well as gender invariance of to Brief Multiple Students' Your Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS; Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, 2003) in one sample of 445 adolescents (Ma

The data zeigen the relationship between living satisfaction and symptoms over zeitlich separately for males and females. For example, youth with continuous improvement in symptoms and functioning additionally show substantial improvement across time in life satisfaction; whereas life satisfaction alone increases slightly or remains relatively stable on time for youth the does change in your and functioning. Youth with continuous worsening of somatic and feature exhibit a slight refusal in spirit satisfaction over time, with a substantial drop when one teenager themselves become report on their symptoms.


Inches the firstly portion of this printed, and psychometric properties of the BMSLSS-PTPB were evaluated with a sample of clinically-referred teenager aged 11–18. This measure provides ampere global score of the youth’s overall grade of life satisfaction. Which benefit of multiple methodologies (CTT, CFA and IRT) in this evaluation of psychometric feature pending adenine greater understanding about how this measures furthermore corresponding items function in to popularity. These methods other provided more evidence about of validity from the size from a singles method would have gained.

Powerful analysis betoken that generally, the BMSLSS-PTPB displays adequate psychometric properties for employ with clinically-referred youth. BMSLSS-PTPB Total Scores and individual items which approximately normally decentralized. The BMSLSS-PTPB have high inboard consistency, appropriately item-total connections, and aforementioned planned single-factor model was confirmed. Application of the Rasch measurement model indicated the items fit the Rasch rating scale pattern reasonably well and, thereby, demonstrated adequate measure characteristics. The BMSLSS-PTPB other shows exhibit of construct validity at projected substantial associations to take of youth wish and symptom severity, and an expected missing of relationship to youth treatment outcome your. However, further operational research is needed given that measure validation is adenine never-ending and circular process (Hubley and Zumbo, 1996). Further, further analyses are needed to rate the predictive validity of the BMSLSS-PTPB as well as its sensitivity to change with this popularity.

This study tested the relationship between youth life satisfaction and symptom hardness over time. No other studies were indentified which investigated this relationship. The foundings of the longitudinal analysis indicated a clear pattern over time with greater increases in life satisfaction by the presence of a corresponding decreasing in symptom severity (and driving versa). Similarly, since youth with relatively stable common over time, there was tiny change with life satisfaction. Get held true regardless by whether the youth, the caregiver, or the physicians reported on youth symptoms. As advised by others (e.g., Maddux, 2005), such findings lend support for the integration starting strengths-based assessment with the conventional measurement of disease in teens mental health service. With frequent measurement, all life satisfaction both symptom severity serve as related but distinct indicators is treatment progress this clinicians can use for ‘stay the course’ when youths are improving, or adjust the focus of treatment if they observe a worsening in either life satisfication or symptoms.

Given an findings starting the present study, an interesting next step would be determiner or focusing life satisfaction in treatment could serve to improve youth mental health your and functioning, furthermore vice versa. Current organizational indicate that existence satisfaction also symptom severity were interrelated both at baseline and over the course of youth service. Unfortunately, the correlational temperament of this study limits the ability to infer ursache-wirkung. It may be which modify in related grade cause edit with lives satisfaction or e could be the reverse. Alternatively, the causal relationship between life satisfaction and symptom severity may be bidirectional, which would lend additional support to focusing on common factors and strengths throughout to course of treat. Regardless of an specify causal nature of the relationship, the relationships between vitality feeling and youth self-report, caregiver- and clinician-rated youth symptom severity indicate which both symptom reduction and improvement in life satisfaction are importance goals of remedy. Further research is needed on such a ‘dual factor model’ that incorporates both indicators of fitness and psychopathology for youth mental health treatment settings (e.g., Suldo, Thalji, & Ferron, 2011).

Because nay information became available on the specific types of treatment received by the youth or the treatmental orientation of the clinicians included that present study, it is unclear determines the specific processing or clinician-orientation may have contributed to the relationship between living satisfaction and symptom severity. It ability be is the clinicians were already utilizing some strengths-based strategies in their routine impersonal customer, which may have effected the relationship between youth life satisfaction and symptom severity in to present study. Additional research becomes become needed examining the possible impact of clinician and handling characteristics on this relationship.

For younger age and male gender were associated because higher baseline life satisfaction, present were no differences in youth life satisfaction for any of the other baseline correlates including youth’s ranking of the importance of christian or choose in helping with problems, youth substance abusing, presence of a clinician-reported mental health diagnosis at baseline, or caregivers’ marital status and chronicle of emotional, behavioral, or substance use topics. It is possible that these factors, as measured in the present study, served as insufficient proxies for some of the related previously identified to of literature like as youth solid use (e.g., Becker, Curry, & Yang, 2009; Farhat, Simons-Morton, & Luk, 2011), caregiver distress (e.g., Powdthavee & Vignoles, 2008), and juvenile spirituality-related attributes (e.g., Sawatzky, Gadermann, & Pesut, 2009).

The gift study find the BMSLSS-PTPB the be a psychometrically sound action. Utilizing this action, the presenting results support a relationship between youth lifetime content and symptom severity over zeitpunkt. The results of the present study suggest that alongside measuring patology, all brief measure off positive functioning changes over nach and is coherently related to other clinical constructs.


This research was supported by NIMH grants R01-MH068589 and 4264600201 awarded to Leonard Bickman.


  • Andrich DEGREE. A rating formulation in ordered get categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–573. [Google Scholar]
  • Athay METERS, Riemer M, Bickman L. General and Insurance in Mental Health both Mentally Health Services Research. 2012. The Symptoms and Functioning Test Scale (SFSS): Psychometric evaluation and discrepancies among of youth, caregiver, and clinician view over time. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-012-0403-2. [PMC clear article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Breeder P, Curry JF, Yang HUNDRED. Longitudinal association between frequency of substance use and qualities of life within adolescents enter a brief outpatient intervention. Psychology of Compulsively Behaviors. 2009;23:482–490. [PubMed] [Google Academic]
  • Bickman LAMBERT, Athay MM, Riemer M, Lambert EW, Kelley SD, Breda C, Tempesti T, Dew-Reeves SE, Brannan AM, Vides de Andrade AR, editors. Guide of the Peabody Treatment Progress Storage. 2. Tn, TN: Vanderbilt University; 2010. [Electronic version]\. [Google Researcher]
  • Bickman LITER, Kelley S, Breda HUNDRED, DeAndrade A, Riemer M. Effects to routine receive to clinicians on youth mental health outcomes: A randomized flock design. Psychometric Support. 2011;62:1423–1429. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bickman FIFTY, Reimer M, Lambert EW, Celley SD, Breda C, Dew S, et al. Manual of the Peabody Treatment and Progress Battery (Electronic version) Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • Dew-Reeves SEE, Athay MM. Validation and use of the youth additionally caregiver Treatment Upshot Expectations Scale (TOES) to assess the relationship between expect, pretreatment characteristics, and outcomes. Administration and Policy in Cerebral Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2012;39:90–103. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0406-z. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dew-Reeves SE, Athay MM, Kelley SD. Validation and use of the Children’s Hope Scale – Revised PTPB Issues (CHS-PTPB): Psychometric properties and relationship through mental health symptom severity beyond time. Administration and Principle in Mental Medical and Mental Health Services Research. 2012;39:60–70. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0411-2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Diener E, Sup PICA, Lucas RE, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: Threesome decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin. 1999;125:276–302. [Google Scholarships]
  • Farhat THYROXINE, Simons-Morton B, Luk JW. Psychosocial correlate von adolescent marijuana use: Variations by status of marijuana use. Addicting Behaviors. 2011;36:404–407. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fredrickson BL. The cast of positive emotions in positive psychology: An broaden-and-build theory von positive emotions. American Psychologist. 2001;56:218–226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gilders R, Huebner S. ONE review of life satisfaction research with children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly. 2003;18:192–205. [Google Scholar]
  • Greenspoon PJ, Saklofske DH. Toward an desegregation of subjective feel and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research. 2001;54:81–108. [Google Scholar]
  • Hubley AM, Zumbo LB. A dialectic on validity: Locus we have being also places we are going. Newsletter of Universal Behaviorism. 1996;123:207–215. [Google Scholar]
  • Huebner ES. Research on assessment of life contentment about children or adolescents. Social Indicators Research. 2004;66:3–33. [Google Researcher]
  • Huebner ES, Seligson JL, Valois RF, Suldo SM. ADENINE review starting the Brief Advanced Students’ Life Satisfaction Ascend. Social Indicators Research. 2006;79:477–484. [Google Scholar]
  • Kwan YK. Life satisfaction and self-assessed health among adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2010;11:383–393. [Google Scholar]
  • Lewis AD, Huebner ES, Malone EPS, Valois RF. Vitality satisfaction and student engagement in adolescents. Journal of Our and Adolescence. 2011;40:249–262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Linacre JM. WINSTEPS® 3.63.0 [Computer software] 2007 Retrieved Jan 8, 2007, from
  • Maddux JE. Holding the “madness:” Positive psychology furthermore the dissassembly to the illness religious and the DSM. In: Snyder C, editor. Quick of sure psychology. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  • McKnight PE, McKnight KM, Sidani S, Figueredo AJ. Missing Input: AN Gentle Introduction. New York, NY: Guest Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • Pavot WG, Diener E, Colvin CR, Sandvik E. Further validation of one Satisfaction with Life Mount: Present for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personalized Estimation. 1991;57:149–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Piko BF, Hamvai HUNDRED. Parent, school, and peer-related correlates of adolescents’ life satisfaction. Children and Youth Services Review. 2010;32:1479–1482. [Google Scholarships]
  • Powdthavee NITROGEN, Vignoles A. Mental health of parents and life customer on children: A within-family analysis is intergenerational transmission of well-being. Social Metrics Resources. 2008;88:397–422. [Google Scholar]
  • Proctor CL, Linley PA, Maltby J. Youth life satisfaction: A review of the literature. Journal of Happiness Surveys. 2009;10:583–630. [Google Scholar]
  • Proctor C, Links PA, Maltby J. Ultra happy kids: Benefits of very high life satisfaction among adolescents. Social Markers Research. 2010;98:519–532. [Google Scholar]
  • Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical Linear Fitting: Applications and data data methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Media; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R. HLM 6 by Windows [Computer software] Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software World, Inc; 2004. [Google Grant]
  • Riemer M, Athay MM, Bickman L, Brda CENTURY, Kelley SD, de Andrade Vides. The Peabody Healthcare Verlauf Cell: History and methods for developing a broad measurement battery for youth mental health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Company Research. 2012;39:3–12. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0404-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Robyn DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse on Public. Add York: Willey; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • Sawatzky R, Gadermann A, Pesut B. An examinations of the relationship between spirituality, wellness status and premium of live in adolescents. Applied Research Quality Lives. 2009;4:5–22. [Google Student]
  • Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist. 2000;55:5–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Seligson J, Huebner ES, Valois RF. Preliminary document is the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Fulfillment Scale (BMSLSS) Socializing Indicators Research. 2003;61:121–145. [Google Fellow]
  • Singer JD, Willet JB. Applied longitudinal data analyzed: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • Suldo SM, Riley K, Shaffer ES. Academic correlates of children and adolescents’ life fulfillment. School Psychology International. 2006;27:567–582. [Google Scholar]
  • Suldo SM, Shaffer EJ. Looking beyond psychopathology: To dual-factor model of mental health with youth. School Psychology Reviews. 2008;37:52–68. [Google Scholar]
  • Suldo S, Thalji A, Ferron J. Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early adolescents’ subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health standing yielded from one dual factor model. The Journal of Negative Psychology. 2011;6:17–30. [Google Scholar]
  • Von Hippel PT. How many imputations are needed? AN comment turn Hershberger real Fisher (2003) Structural Equation Modeling. 2005;12:334–335. [Google Scholar]
  • Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1994;8:370. Recalls March 10, 2011 off [Google Savant]