Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Everyday Feeling Questionnaire: the structure and validation of a measure of general psychological well-being and distress

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Psychological distress and well-being underlie the continuum of susceptibility to common mental disorders. Our objective was to provide a simple and acceptable measure of psychological distress and well-being to collect information from subjects and informants in non-clinical samples, to explore its internal structure, concurrent and external validity.

Method

Self and partner versions of the ten-item Everyday Feeling Questionnaire (EFQ) were administered to 5,279 adults. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) was used to establish concurrent validity. Socioeconomic status, child psychopathology, and family functioning served as external validators.

Results

The EFQ was internally consistent with all items loading strongly on a single common factor. Item response analysis showed excellent sensitivity of the ten items, balanced contribution of well-being and distress items and good information content across a broad range. The internal structure of partner version did not differ from self-report. The constructs measured by the EFQ and GHQ were distinct, but highly correlated. The EFQ’s correlations with external validators were stronger than GHQ’s ones.

Conclusion

Psychological well-being and distress are measurable as a single construct, using the EFQ. The partner-report version will facilitate the collection of data on multiple household members or on the same individual from two or more sources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krueger RF (1999) The structure of common mental disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 56:921–926

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vollebergh WAM, Iedema J, Bijl RV, de Graaf R, Smit F, Ormel J (2001) The structure and stability of common mental disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 58:597–603

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Prisciandaro JJ, Roberts JE (2008) A comparison of the predictive abilities of dimensional and categorical models of unipolar depression in the National Comorbidity Survey. Psychol Med. doi:10.1017/S0033291708004522

  4. Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 125:276–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryff CD, Keyes CL (1995) The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:719–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abbott RA, Ploubidis GB, Huppert FA, Kuh D, Wandsworth MEJ, Croudace TJ (2006) Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beekman AT, Penninx BW, Deeg DJ, de Beurs E, Geerling SW, van Tilburg W (2002) The impact of depression on the well-being, disability and use of services in older adults: a longitudinal perspective. Acta Psychiatr Scand 105:20–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Spijker J, Graaf R, Bijl RV, Beekman AT, Ormel J, Nolen WA (2004) Functional disability and depression in the general population. Results from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Acta Psychiatr Scand 110:208–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodman R (2001) Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40:1337–1345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shojaei T, Wazana A, Pitrou I, Kovess V (2008) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: validation study in French school-aged children and cross-cultural comparisons. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. doi:10.1007/s00127-008-0489-8

  11. Vostanis P (2006) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: research and clinical applications. Curr Opin Psychiatry 19:367–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun TB, Piccinelli M, Gureje O, Rutter C (1997) The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med 27:191–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harding TW, De Arango MV, Baltazar J, Climent CE, Ibrahim HHA, Ladrigo-Ignacio L, Srinivasa MR, Wig NN (1980) Mental disorders in primary health care: a study of their frequency and diagnosis in four developing countries. Psychol Med 10:231–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SL, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM (2002) Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med 32:959–976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L (1974) The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci 19:1–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heun R, Burkart M, Maier W, Bech P (1999) Internal and external validity of the WHO Well-Being Scale in the elderly general population. Acta Psychiatr Scand 99:171–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, Ader HJ, Heine RJ (2000) The well-being questionnaire: evidence for a three-factor structure with 12 items (W-BQ12). Psychol Med 30:455–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hu Y, Stewart-Brown S, Twigg L, Weich S (2007) Can the 12-item General Health Questionnaire be used to measure positive mental health? Psychol Med 37:1005–1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmitz N, Kruse J, Tress W (1999) Psychometric properties of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in a German primary care sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand 100:462–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldberg DP, Rickels K, Downing R, Hesbacher P (1976) A comparison of two psychiatric screening tests. Br J Psychiatry 129:61–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel V, Araya R, Chowdhary N, King M, Kirkwood B, Nayak S, Simon G, Weiss HA (2008) Detecting common mental disorders in primary care in India: a comparison of five screening questionnaires. Psychol Med 38:221–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Achenbach TM (2006) As others see us: clinical and research implications of cross-informant correlations for psychopathology. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15:94–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sherr L, Dave S, Lucas P, Senior R, Nazareth I (2006) A feasibility study on recruiting fathers of young children to examine the impact of paternal depression on child development. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 36:295–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kahn RS, Brandt D, Whitaker RC (2004) Combined effect of mothers’ and fathers’ mental health symptoms on children’s behavioral and emotional well-being. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 158:721–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramchandani P, Stein A, Evans J, O’Connor TG (2005) Paternal depression in the postnatal period and child development: a prospective population study. Lancet 365:2201–2205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Achenbach TM, Krukowski RA, Dumenci L, Ivanova MY (2005) Assessment of adult psychopathology: meta-analyses and implications of cross-informant correlations. Psychol Bull 131:361–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Caspi A, Taylor A, Smart M, Jackson J, Tagami S, Moffitt TE (2001) Can women provide reliable information about their children’s fathers? Cross-informant agreement about men’s lifetime antisocial behaviour. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 42:915–920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kamphuis JH, Emmelkamp PMG, de Vries V (2003) Moderated validity of clinical informant assessment: use in depression and personality. Clin Psychol Psychother 10:102–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Barnette JJ (2000) Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: if you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educ Psychol Meas 60:361–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Uher R, Farmer A, Maier W, Rietschel M, Hauser J, Marusic A, Mors O, Elkin A, Williamson RJ, Schmael C, Henigsberg N, Perez J, Mendlewicz J, Janzing JG, Zobel A, Skibinska M, Kozel D, Stamp AS, Bajs M, Placentino A, Barreto M, McGuffin P, Aitchison KJ (2008) Measuring depression: comparison and integration of three scales in the GENDEP study. Psychol Med 38:289–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ryff CD, Singer B (1996) Psychological well-being: meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychother Psychosom 65:14–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Green H, McGinnity A, Meltzer H, Ford T, Godman R (2005) Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brown GW, Moran PM (1997) Single mothers, poverty and depression. Psychol Med 27:21–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cairney J, Thorpe C, Rietschlin J, Avison WR (1999) 12-Month prevalence of depression among single and married mothers in the 1994 National Population Health Survey. Can J Public Health 90:320–324

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lorant V, Deliege D, Eaton W, Robert A, Philippot P, Ansseau M (2003) Socioeconomic inequalities in depression: a meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 157:98–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Byles J, Byrne C, Boyle MH, Offord DR (1988) Ontario Child Health Study: reliability and validity of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Fam Process 27:97–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Miller IW, Epstein NB, Bishop DS, Keitner GI (1985) The MacMaster Family Assessment Device: reliability and validity. J Marital Fam Ther 11:345–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Muthen LK, Muthen BO (2007) Mplus User’s Guide: statistical analysis with latent variables. Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  39. Flora DB, Curran PJ (2004) An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 9:466–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hazlett-Stevens H, Ullman JB, Craske MG (2004) Factor structure of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: examination of a method factor. Assessment 11:361–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mook J, Kleijn WC, van der Ploeg HM (1991) Symptom-positively and -negatively worded items in two popular self-report inventories of anxiety and depression. Psychol Rep 69:551–560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Thissen D, Chen WH, Bock D (2003) MULTILOG 7. SSI Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, USA. Ref Type: Computer Program

  43. Baker F (2001) The basics of item response theory. ERIC clearing house on assessment and evaluation. University of Maryland, College Park

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hamilton HA (2009) The persistence of maternal distress and symptoms of distress in adult offspring. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. doi:10.1007/s00127-009-0497-3

  45. ten Have M, Vollebergh W, Bijl RV, de GR (2001) Predictors of incident care service utilisation for mental health problems in the Dutch general population. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 36:141–149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Galbaud du FG, Kovess V, Boivin JF (1994) Spouse similarity for psychological distress and well-being: a population study. Psychol Med 24:431–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ready RE, Clark LA (2005) Psychiatric patient and informant reports of patient behavior. J Pers 73:1–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The survey was funded by the English Department of Health and the Scottish Executive.

Conflict of interest statement

RU has no competing interests. RG and his family own Youthinmind Ltd, which holds the copyright of the EFQ.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, London, SE5 8AF, UK

    Rudolf Uher & Robert Goodman

Authors
  1. Rudolf Uher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Goodman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Goodman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uher, R., Goodman, R. The Everyday Feeling Questionnaire: the structure and validation of a measure of general psychological well-being and distress. Soc Psychiat Epidemiol 45, 413–423 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0074-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0074-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation