at what I do‛), and relatedness (α

at what I do‛), and relatedness (α = .94; e.g., ‚I get along well with people I come into contact with‛). Items were rated from 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Completely true).
Life and Domain Satisfaction Items. Based on a survey of the literature on philosophical, participatory and psychological accounts of wellbeing, Samman (2007) provides a central list of life domains that previous reviews identify as important.10 Participants were asked to rate the following items from 1 (Very satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied): life overall, food, housing, income, health, work, local security, friends, family, education, free choice and control over life, dignity, neighborhood/town/community, ability to help others, and spiritual/reli gious/ philosophical beliefs. Domains were selected under the assumption that they would contribute unique variance to overall wellbeing, hence internal consistency is not necessarily a relevant consideration. At the same time, the estimate of internal consistency (α = .58) indicated that people’s satisfaction with different domains tends to cluster to some extent.
3. Results
3.1 Data analysis plan
In order to evaluate the properties of the MLQ-SF, we conducted a series of analyses. First we sought to establish the structural validity of the new measure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We then evaluated the internal consistency of the measure, and used exploratory factor analysis to gauge its distinctiveness from other wellbeing measures incorporated in the OPHI survey module, as implemented in Chile. Finally, we sought to establish the measurement invariance of the MLQ-SF across age and gender using multigroups applications of CFA. In addition, we conducted a preliminary descriptive examination of relations between the MLQ-SF and other wellbeing measures.
3.2 Psychometric evaluation of the MLQ-SF
3.2.1 Structure of the MLQ-SF
A CFA was conducted on a model in which these three items were loaded on by a common, meaning in life, factor. Regression estimates were fixed for all error estimates, as well as two factor-to-item paths in order to free a degree of freedom necessary for evaluating goodness of fit. The model was first tested in the entire sample (N = 1,997). This was necessary to gain degrees of freedom needed to calculate modification indices. As recommended in previous research, we used the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Root Mean Square Approximation of Error (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) to evaluate the fit of the MLQ across cultures (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Little, 1997). Because of the large sample size, the chi-square was significant. RMSEA also indicated some improvement could be made to the model. However, other goodness of fit indices were within range for an excellent fit of the model to the data (Χ2 (df = 1, N = 1,997) = 26.10, p < .001; CFI = .99; NNFI = .97; SRMR = .01; RMSEA = .11, 90% C.I. = .08–.15). Regression estimates for paths from the factor to the items ranged from .82 to .90. Thus, the simple model of three items loading a single factor fits adequately for research purposes.
According to modification indices, however, additional paths should be included in the model among each of the items and each of the error estimates as well as with the factor overall. This model would obviously lack parsimony. However, given the close semantic similarity of items 1 and 3 (both refer to ‘clarity’), a second model was run in which the error

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

apa yang saya lakukan '), dan keterkaitan (α =. 94; misalnya, 'saya rukun dengan orang-orang yang aku datang ke dalam kontak dengan'). Item yang dinilai dari 1 (tidak di semua benar) ke 4 (sepenuhnya benar).Kehidupan dan Domain kepuasan item. Berdasarkan survei literatur tentang account filosofis, partisipatif dan psikologis kesejahteraan, Samman (2007) menyediakan daftar pusat kehidupan domain bahwa tinjauan sebelumnya mengidentifikasi sebagai important.10 peserta diminta untuk menilai item berikut dari 1 (sangat puas) ke 4 (tidak sama sekali puas): hidup secara keseluruhan, makanan, perumahan, pendapatan, Kesehatan, pekerjaan, keamanan lokal, teman, Keluarga, pendidikan, gratis pilihan dan kontrol atas hidup , martabat, lingkungan/kota/komunitas, kemampuan untuk membantu orang lain, dan rohani dukung gious / filosofis keyakinan. Domain yang dipilih di bawah asumsi bahwa mereka akan memberikan kontribusi unik varians untuk kesejahteraan secara keseluruhan, maka internal konsistensi adalah tidak selalu relevan pertimbangan. Pada saat yang sama, perkiraan konsistensi internal (α =.58) menunjukkan bahwa rakyat kepuasan dengan domain yang berbeda cenderung cluster sampai batas tertentu.3. hasil3.1 paket analisis dataIn order to evaluate the properties of the MLQ-SF, we conducted a series of analyses. First we sought to establish the structural validity of the new measure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We then evaluated the internal consistency of the measure, and used exploratory factor analysis to gauge its distinctiveness from other wellbeing measures incorporated in the OPHI survey module, as implemented in Chile. Finally, we sought to establish the measurement invariance of the MLQ-SF across age and gender using multigroups applications of CFA. In addition, we conducted a preliminary descriptive examination of relations between the MLQ-SF and other wellbeing measures.3.2 Psychometric evaluation of the MLQ-SF3.2.1 Structure of the MLQ-SFA CFA was conducted on a model in which these three items were loaded on by a common, meaning in life, factor. Regression estimates were fixed for all error estimates, as well as two factor-to-item paths in order to free a degree of freedom necessary for evaluating goodness of fit. The model was first tested in the entire sample (N = 1,997). This was necessary to gain degrees of freedom needed to calculate modification indices. As recommended in previous research, we used the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Root Mean Square Approximation of Error (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) to evaluate the fit of the MLQ across cultures (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Little, 1997). Because of the large sample size, the chi-square was significant. RMSEA also indicated some improvement could be made to the model. However, other goodness of fit indices were within range for an excellent fit of the model to the data (Χ2 (df = 1, N = 1,997) = 26.10, p < .001; CFI = .99; NNFI = .97; SRMR = .01; RMSEA = .11, 90% C.I. = .08–.15). Regression estimates for paths from the factor to the items ranged from .82 to .90. Thus, the simple model of three items loading a single factor fits adequately for research purposes.According to modification indices, however, additional paths should be included in the model among each of the items and each of the error estimates as well as with the factor overall. This model would obviously lack parsimony. However, given the close semantic similarity of items 1 and 3 (both refer to ‘clarity’), a second model was run in which the error

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

apa yang saya lakukan '), dan keterkaitan (α = 0,94; misalnya, saya bergaul dengan baik dengan orang yang saya datang ke dalam kontak dengan'). Item yang dinilai dari 1 (Tidak sama sekali benar) ke 4 (Completely benar).
Kehidupan dan Domain Kepuasan item. Berdasarkan survei dari literatur tentang filsafat, partisipatif dan psikologis rekening kesejahteraan, Samman (2007) memberikan daftar pusat domain kehidupan yang ulasan sebelumnya mengidentifikasi sebagai important.10 Peserta diminta untuk menilai item berikut dari 1 (sangat puas) untuk 4 (Tidak sama sekali puas): hidup secara keseluruhan, makanan, perumahan, pendapatan, kesehatan, pekerjaan, keamanan lokal, teman, keluarga, pendidikan, pilihan bebas dan kontrol atas kehidupan, martabat, lingkungan / kota / komunitas, kemampuan untuk membantu orang lain , dan spiritual / keagamaan reli keyakinan / filosofis. Domain yang dipilih berdasarkan asumsi bahwa mereka akan memberikan kontribusi varian unik untuk kesejahteraan secara keseluruhan, konsistensi maka internal tidak selalu pertimbangan yang relevan. Pada saat yang sama, perkiraan konsistensi internal (α = 0,58) menunjukkan bahwa kepuasan masyarakat dengan domain yang berbeda cenderung mengelompok sampai batas tertentu.
3. Hasil
rencana analisis data 3.1
Dalam rangka untuk mengevaluasi sifat-sifat MLQ-SF, kami melakukan serangkaian analisis. Pertama kami berusaha untuk membangun validitas struktural ukuran baru menggunakan analisis faktor konfirmatori (CFA). Kami kemudian mengevaluasi konsistensi internal dari ukuran, dan menggunakan analisis faktor eksploratori untuk mengukur kekhasan dari langkah-langkah kesejahteraan lainnya yang tergabung dalam modul survei Ophi, seperti yang diterapkan di Chili. Akhirnya, kami berusaha untuk membangun invarian pengukuran MLQ-SF di usia dan jenis kelamin menggunakan multigroups aplikasi dari CFA. Selain itu, kami melakukan pemeriksaan deskriptif awal dari hubungan antara MLQ-SF dan langkah-langkah kesejahteraan lainnya.
3.2 evaluasi Psikometri dari MLQ-SF
3.2.1 Struktur MLQ-SF
A CFA dilakukan pada model di mana tiga item yang dimuat oleh umum, makna hidup, faktor. Perkiraan regresi yang tetap untuk semua perkiraan kesalahan, serta dua faktor-to-item jalan untuk membebaskan tingkat kebebasan yang diperlukan untuk mengevaluasi goodness of fit. Model ini pertama kali diuji di seluruh sampel (N = 1.997). Ini diperlukan untuk mendapatkan derajat kebebasan yang diperlukan untuk menghitung indeks modifikasi. Seperti yang disarankan dalam penelitian sebelumnya, kami menggunakan Fit Indeks Perbandingan (CFI), Non-bernorma Fit Index (NNFI), Root Mean Square, Aproksimasi Kesalahan (RMSEA), dan Standar Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) untuk mengevaluasi fit dari MLQ lintas budaya (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sedikit, 1997). Karena ukuran sampel yang besar, chi-square adalah signifikan. RMSEA juga menunjukkan beberapa perbaikan bisa dilakukan untuk model. Namun, kebaikan lain dari indeks fit berada dalam jangkauan untuk sangat cocok model untuk data (Χ2 (df = 1, N = 1997) = 26,10, p <0,001; CFI = 0,99; NNFI = 0,97; SRMR = 0,01; RMSEA = 0,11, 90% CI = 0,08-0,15). Perkiraan regresi untuk jalur dari faktor untuk item berkisar 0,82-0,90. Dengan demikian, model sederhana tiga item memuat faktor tunggal cocok memadai untuk tujuan penelitian.
Menurut indeks modifikasi, bagaimanapun, jalur tambahan harus dimasukkan dalam model antara masing-masing item dan masing-masing perkiraan kesalahan serta dengan faktor secara keseluruhan. Model ini jelas akan kekurangan kekikiran. Namun, mengingat kesamaan semantik dekat item 1 dan 3 (keduanya merujuk 'kejelasan'), model kedua dijalankan di mana kesalahan