Skip to main content

Satisfaction with family life scale: a validity and reliability study in the Turkish context

Abstract

Background

The family is one of the most important pillars of society. They provide strong feelings of security, emotional support, and belonging. Family health has a significant impact on the welfare of people and society as a whole.

Objectives

This study aimed to create the Satisfaction with Family Life Scale (SWFLS) for Türkiye by modifying the well-known Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) first developed by Diener et al. (1985) and to evaluate its psychometric properties.

Method

The present study examined the factor structure, measurement invariance, convergent validity, and internal consistency of the SWFLS. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed on data from a research group of 646 participants aged 18–71 years (M = 31.71, SD = 11.79) in Study 1. As part of the validity assessment, CFA confirmed the unidimensional structure of the SWFLS. The reliability of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability, and the McDonald 0mega (ω). In Study 2, the scale was administered to a new group of 555 participants aged 18 to 67 years (M = 36.4, SD = 9.73) to assess its criterion validity. Test-retest reliability was assessed using a sample of 48 undergraduate students via the intraclass correlation coefficient model 2.1 (ICC2,1).

Results

The CFA’s results verified the SWFLS’s single-factor model. The internal consistency coefficients of Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω were both 0.93. The composite reliability value was 0.94. The result of test-retest reliability (ICC2,1) was 0.96 and ranged from the ICC2,1 value of 0.85 to 0.90 for items of the SWFLS. Multigroup analysis supported full measurement invariance across genders for the SWFLS. Corrected item correlations ranged from 0.75 0.85. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) and SWFLS were shown to have a positive correlation (r = .483, p 0.001), which supports the idea that the two scales have similar convergent validity.

Conclusions

Based on these results, the Turkish SWFLS version can be utilized to measure family life satisfaction in the Turkish sample and has appropriate psychometric validity and reliability.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The family unit is a fundamental building block of society. They also offer a deep sense of belonging, security, and emotional support. Family relationships significantly affect the well-being of both individuals and the society. Research consistently highlights their strong association with increased life satisfaction [1, 2], emotional well-being [3, 4] and resilience [5]. Family dynamics are essentially a microcosm of society; they provide a framework for people to learn how to negotiate relationships, carry out responsibilities, and exchange experiences [6].

Furthermore, there is evidence that numerous aspects of family well-being are directly correlated with family satisfaction [6, 7]. When examining the world of family life, many factors must be considered when calculating family satisfaction, and these factors display a wide range [8]. As a core concept for comprehending the qualities and behaviors that are crucial to fostering successful family life, researchers have increasingly embraced the idea of family life satisfaction, offering a holistic perspective. This idea refers to a person’s comprehensive subjective assessment of their own family life [8, 9].

The assessment of satisfaction with family life

Since the 1970s, researchers have concentrated their efforts on studying family life satisfaction. Consequently, they developed multiple scales and models to measure this across different cultures and age groups. During this period, researchers conducted studies to conceptualize and measure this structure [10, 11]. Over time, it has undergone repeated examination using diverse methodological approaches introduced the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II (FACES II), a tool designed to measure family satisfaction through dimensions such as harmony, flexibility, and communication [12]. However, discussions on the effectiveness of the model during the early 1990s led to a decrease in assessments based on dimensions [13]. A notable tool for measuring family satisfaction is the Kansas Family Life Satisfaction Questionnaire [14, 15]. The applicability of the questionnaire is unsustainable because of the essential requirement that families have at least four members [15]. The scale designed by Carver and Jones [16] to evaluate participants’ family satisfaction was criticized for being too long and difficult to complete. Later, Baracca et al. [17] developed the Adjective Family Satisfaction Scale to measure family satisfaction based on emotions and emotional experiences; however, difficulties were encountered in responding to the scale [18].

Recently, The Satisfaction with Family Life Scale (SWFLS), a scale based on the framework of The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [19], was developed by Zabriskie and colleagues [8, 20]. Researchers have altered the SWLS for use in a variety of populations, including young people [21, 22], and in a variety of cultural contexts, including Turkish culture [23]. The SWLS [19] was modified to create SWFLS [8]. In this modified version, each of the original elements was updated, with the term “life” being altered to “family life.” As a result, five interrelated items were created. One of these items, for example, is “My family life is close to my ideals in most aspects.” The same methodology was applied to measure general satisfaction in various contexts, including academic [24], financial [25], job [26], love [27], and romantic satisfaction [28].

Similar to analyzing life satisfaction, evaluating family life satisfaction involves a comprehensive cognitive assessment of a person’s familial interactions, which is influenced by their subjective viewpoint [29]. A comprehensive assessment of family life satisfaction offers clarity and insight [30], similar to personal subjective well-being self-reports [31]. A thorough assessment of family life satisfaction should include the perspectives of every family member regarding their interactions and relationships [9, 32]. A more realistic measure of family satisfaction can be obtained by viewing family life from a global perspective [8]. The SWFLS, which takes a global approach to family life satisfaction, has been widely used across different countries, including Australia, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand [8], Brazil [33], and in different languages, such as Spanish [34, 35] and Portuguese [33, 36].

Purpose of the Present Study

Despite the thriving field of family counseling and education research in Türkiye, available instruments for the assessment of family life satisfaction are limited. The Turkish adaptation of Family Satisfaction by Adjectives Scale (FSAS) by Taşdelen-Karçkay [18] primarily concentrates on the emotional aspect of family satisfaction. The SWFLS, a recent tool for measuring family life satisfaction [8], stands out for its alignment with the SWLS model. This makes it a powerful tool that enhances the cognitive aspect of comprehensive evaluation of family life satisfaction.

Global population diversity necessitates cross-culturally validated research scales and methods because there is a significant lack of comprehensive and culturally relevant evaluation tools. Taking these factors into account, this study aimed to adapt and validate the SWFLS in the Turkish cultural context. This adaptation involves modifying the established Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) originally devised by Diener vd [19]. The psychometric qualities of the modified scale will next be thoroughly evaluated.

Study 1

Method

Participants and Procedure

Ed Diener was first contacted by e-mail to initiate the scale adjustment process. A revised version of the concept of ‘life’ on the scale has been submitted for his own approval, replacing it with ‘family life’. After obtaining permission to continue the adaptation study, ethical approval was obtained from the Democracy University, Türkiye (2021/03 − 02). The scale was then translated from English into Turkish under the expertise of two Turkish researchers, both of whom held doctorates in psychological counseling and guidance. Subsequently, these translated versions were reviewed by six experts in the field of guidance and psychological counseling. The same evaluation and combination process were repeated for the reverse-translation form. The final editing of the items led to the completion and finalization of the Turkish version of the scale. Following this, the scales were transformed and merged into an online format using Google Forms. The study’s test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and CFA were then evaluated in the three participant groups using online data collection techniques. The researchers distributed online forms to undergraduate and postgraduate students and their social networks using WhatsApp and Facebook. Snowball sampling was used to select volunteers from various cities, with final-year students given test-retest reliability from the URL to complete over two weeks. All participant groups read and signed an informed consent form before completing the sociodemographic data form and study instruments. The research data were obtained over a six-month period.

Before CFA, the multivariate normality of the dataset was assessed, and nine outliers were removed from the dataset. The participants in the CFA study were 646 individuals aged between 18 and 71 years. 61.6% (398) of the participants were female, 38.4% (248) were male, and the mean age was 31.71 (SDage = 11.79). Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the CFA participant group

Measures

Demographic information form

The study used a personal information form that included five demographic items: gender, date of birth, relationship status, educational status, and employment status.

The satisfaction with Family Life Scale (SWFLS)

The SWFLS was developed by adapting the widely used SWLS [19]. Its purpose is to assess overall family satisfaction by comparing family life circumstances with personal standards and expectations. The ‘life’ terms in the SWLS were rearranged by adding the term ‘family’ to the scale items to match the sentence structure. The scale uses a 7-point Likert format, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). By summing all the items within the SWFLS, a family life satisfaction score ranging from 5 to 35 can be calculated. Data for the validity and reliability studies of the scale were collected through a series of 15 related studies conducted by [8] and their colleagues over almost a decade. The validity and reliability assessments conducted by [8] included English-speaking participants from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand and demonstrated the effectiveness of the scale in measuring the unidimensional aspect of family life satisfaction, similar to the original general life satisfaction study. The test-retest reliability, applied at five-week intervals, was 0.87 in a study group of university students [8]. Information on the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the scale can be found in the Results section of this study.

Sample size of the study

There have been various suggestions regarding the appropriate sample size to verify the reliability and validity of a scale. Based on the number of participants per item, it is advised that the validity and reliability study of the SWFLS, which consists of five items, should include a minimum of 15–100 people. For factor analysis, 300 individuals are a reasonable number, while 150–200 is also acceptable as a sample size [37, 38]; however, there has been a current effort to obtain a total number of participants close to 1000 [39,40,41,42]. We met the recommended sample size for psychometric analysis of the SWFLS with 646 participants.

Statistical analysis

Following data collection, all statistical analyses in this study were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows 26 and IBM Amos 23, and to analyze the McDonald omega (ω), Hayes Macro was used in the SPSS program [43]. Descriptive statistics were used to determine means, standard deviations, and frequencies in the first phase. The SWFLS factor structure was tested using a maximum likelihood estimate CFA, which was conducted after the scale demonstrated normality assumptions. In particular, the original study’s unidimensional factor structure was evaluated by calculating the ratio of the chi-square value to degrees of freedom (df). The criteria for assessing the fit of the unidimensional structure of the SWFLS were as follows: a χ2 / df (p < .05) ratio between 0 and 2 indicated a good fit, while a χ2/df (p < .05) ratio between 2 and 5 indicated an acceptable fit, based on [44]. Along with SRMR and RMSEA values, other goodness of fit indices included GFI, CFI, and NFI values [45]. suggested that GFI, CFI, and NFI values between 0.90 and 0.95, RMSEA values around 0.06, and SRMR values around 0.05 indicate a good model fit. Fornell and Larcker [46] recommend an AVE value larger than 0.50 to achieve convergent validity. Second, the measurement invariance of the SWFLS across genders was assessed using multigroup CFA. Measurement invariance was tested via configural, metric, and scalar invariances, which are the three essential parts of representing measurement equivalence. The goal of configural invariance is to determine whether the factor structure of each group is the same. Furthermore, metric invariance assesses whether there is an invariant relationship between each observed variable and its matching latent attributes. Finally, all factor loadings and intercepts must be invariable to maintain scalar invariance [47, 48]. The study met several criteria suggested by Cheung and Rensvold [49] and Chen [50] to verify measurement invariance: (a) the difference in CFI (ΔCFI) was less than.01; (b) the difference in RMSEA (ΔRMSEA) was less than.015; (c) the difference in SRMR (ΔSRMR) was less than.03; and (d) the difference in χ2 difference value (Δχ2) was not statistically significant (p > .05). Finally, correlation and simple linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the convergent validity of the scale. Calculating Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability, McDonald omega (ω), and the intraclass correlation coefficient model 2.1 (ICC2,1) for test-retest reliability was a part of the reliability assessment process.

Results

Preliminary analysis

After screening the missing SWFLS data, we found that none was missing. The normal distribution of the variables was assessed using univariate and multivariate normality distributions. The skewness and kurtosis values for each variable were examined. To identify outliers, z-scores were computed and histograms and box-plot visuals were analyzed. After excluding nine outliers, these values fell within the recommended limits (skewness and kurtosis outside the acceptable range of ± 2), as outlined by Koh [51], ensuring that the criteria for univariate normality were met. The mean scores of the items ranged from M = 4.46 (item 5) to M = 5.48 (item 3). Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the SWFLS items.

Construct validity

The preliminary results of the CFA were as follows: χ2 = 41.22, df = 5, χ2/df = 8.24, GFI = 0.975, CFI = 0.986, NFI = 0.984, SRMR = 0.02 and RMSEA = 0.106. In reviewing the proposed indices of change, it was noted that the error correlations between items 1 and 4 were particularly high. The elevated χ2/df was attributed to the interdependence of errors within the indicators. After implementing these recommendations and repeating the analysis, there was a noticeable improvement in the goodness of fit of the model. For the second proposed model, the results were as follows: χ2 = 18.045, df = 4, χ2/df = 4.5, GFI = 0.989, CFI = 0.995, NFI = 0.993, SRMR = 0.013 and RMSEA = 0.074. The factor loadings of the FWLS scale were statistically significant and ranged from 0.79 to 0.92 (see Table 2). In addition, the AVE value of the scale was calculated as 0.75, further confirming the appropriateness of the proposed model fit in the context of the validity study. Figure 1 shows the factor loadings for the SWFLS items.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and factor loadings for the SWFLS
Fig. 1
figure 1

The structure model of the SWFLS

Measurement invariance across groups

The one-factor structure of the SWFLS was used as a baseline model to test a series of restrictive models with configural invariance, metric invariance, and scalar invariance. Table 3 shows the measurement invariance analysis findings of the SWFLS in gender groups (female and male samples). As for gender groups, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.017, and RMSEA = 0.06, and all factor loadings reached a significant level (p < .001), which indicated that configural invariance was held across gender groups. In summary, the results of the analysis to test the configuration model showed that the SWFLS could be well described by a one-factor structure of the SWLS in gender groups.

In the second model, which assumed equal loadings of items on a latent variable, the factor loads of the models in the gender groups were equalized. In terms of gender, CFI = 0.991, SRMR = 0.017, and RMSEA = 0.056; therefore, the data fit the metric model (M2) well. Furthermore, ΔCFI =-0.001, ΔSRMR = 0.000, and ΔRMSEA = − 0.015 in comparison with M1 indicate that metric invariance was maintained for both the female and male groups. Consequently, there are equal metrics or scale intervals across gender groups.

Based on the metric model (M2), the scalar invariance model (M3) constrained intercepts to be equal across different groups. The scalar invariance model (M3) limited intercepts to being equal among gender groups based on the metric model (M2). With respect to gender groups, CFI = 0.988, SRMR = 0.017 and RMSEA = 0.054, when compared with the metric model (M2), the values ΔCFI =-0.003, ΔSRMR = 0.000 and ΔRMSEA = -0.002. These values implied that the invariance of intercepts did exist across gender groups. In conclusion, SWFLS’s measurement invariance, which encompasses configural, metric, and scalar invariance, is held across all gender groups. Table 3 shows the results of the measurement invariance across gender groups.

Table 3 Test of measurement invariance across gender groups for the SWFLS

Reliability analyses

To determine the discriminative power of each SWFLS item and examine its reliability, item-total statistics were calculated. The corrected item-total correlation coefficients for the five items ranged from 0.75 to 0.85, indicating strong discriminative ability. Reliability for the five-item SWFLS was calculated as the internal consistency coefficient of 0.93 for both Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω. In addition, composite reliability was assessed to measure internal consistency, yielding a value of 0.94. To assess test-retest reliability, a subset of university students (n = 48) participated in a two-week interval. The ICC2,1 was used to assess the relative test-retest reliability of each item in the SWFLS. Test-retest reliability (ICC2,1) was high for SWFLS was found to be 0.96 [%95CI = 0.93-0.98] and range from ICC2,1 value 0.90 − 0.85 for items of the SWFLS (reported Table 4).

Table 4 Corrected item-total correlations, reliability analyses and inter-rater analysis for the SWFLS

Study 2

Method

Participants and Procedure

The convergent validity study involved 555 participants, aged between 18 and 67 years. Among these individuals, 60% (333) were categorized as female, while 40% (222) were categorized as male. The participants had an average age of 36.4 years, with a standard deviation of 9.73. The approach detailed in the initial study was duplicated in the methodology of this inquiry.

Instrument

Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being scale (WEMWBS)

The WEM-WBS Tennant vd [52]. was developed to assess different aspects of positive mental health, including subjective well-being and psychological functioning. The Turkish version of the scale was adapted from Keldal [53]. It consists of 14 items, and responses are scored by summing the scores of each item on a 1–5 Likert scale. Data from 348 participants were used to evaluate the scale’s internal consistency reliability, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.89. A test-retest reliability analysis with 124 individuals was performed one week apart, and it yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.83.

Results

Convergent validity

The relationship between these two scales was examined, and a positive and significant correlation was found between the SWFLS and WEMWBS (r = .483, p < .001). The simple linear regression performed to predict the WEMWBS from the SWFLS yielded the following results: R = .483, R2 = 0.233, F = 168.413, p < .001. These results provide significant support for the convergent validity of SWFLS.

Discussion

This study systematically investigated the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the SWFLS. The SWFLS was developed using a conceptual framework compatible with the well-established Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) introduced by Diener [19]. According to the CFA results, the one-dimensional factor model consisting of five items showed an acceptable fit after modifications were made with AMOS. Modification indices suggested correlating the errors of item 2 (‘In most ways, my family life is close to ideal’) and item 4 (‘So far, I have gotten the important things I want in my family life’). After following this suggestion, the model showed quite an acceptable fit. As noted by [Harrington [54], correlated measurement errors could arise because of the similarity or proximity of meaning between phrases present in both affirmative and negative statements. In addition to the validity study, the AVE value of the SWFLS was also calculated for convergent validity. The unidimensional factor structure of the scale was also confirmed by the original formulation of the SWLS [19], as well as by SWFLS implementations in different languages, including English [8], Peruvian [55], Portuguese [36], and Spanish [34]. These results confirm the unidimensional configuration of the SWFLS.

The reliability of the Turkish version of the SWFLS was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and corrected item-total correlations. The corrected item-total correlations for the items in the Turkish version of the SWFLS ranged from 0.75 to 0.85, showing similar correlations to those observed in the English version of the SWFLS [8]. A consistent pattern has been previously documented in studies on adolescents using SWFLS [34, 36]. In general, items with item-total correlations equal to or greater than 0.30 are considered effective in discriminating individuals [56]. With a Cronbach’s α value of 0.93, the reliability tests for the SWFLS also demonstrated strong reliability. Cronbach’s α coefficients ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 in earlier SWFLS investigations [34, 36] with various sample groups.

Additionally, there was a positive correlation between the WEMWBS and SWFLS (r = .483, p < .01). There is currently no previous study on the relationship between the WEMWBS and SWFLS; therefore, it is impossible to compare the findings. In terms of general mental health, research indicates that those who report higher levels of satisfaction with family life should also exhibit higher levels of psychological well-being [57,58,59]. Therefore, these two factors are expected to have a positive association. These findings are in line with the basic understanding that close relationships and family ties significantly contribute to our emotional state. This research at this time advances the field with these findings.

Limitations and Future Research

While the results of the current study demonstrate the SWFLS’s validity and reliability in gauging family life satisfaction, several study limitations must be acknowledged. First, people who were at least 18 years old are included in the example. Future studies should examine the application of this scale in various scenarios with Turkish children and teenagers. Studies on validity and reliability can be carried out with groups of students (from kindergarten through university) to enhance educational policies and achieve goals, such as figuring out the best psychological counseling services. Second, the SWFLS could be evaluated as a limitation in terms of the test-retest reliability of the participant group and period. Future research should examine test-retest reliability with various participant groups and periods, despite the test-retest correlation’s remarkable temporal consistency. Third, the convergent validity of the association between family life satisfaction and mental well-being was investigated. Convergent validity using only one variable was considered a limitation of our study.

Future studies should examine the connections between various qualities, including support from family, resilience, and positive and negative affect. Additionally, utilizing the SWFSL, longitudinal research should be carried out in the Turkish context to determine whether correlations between mental health and family life satisfaction hold over time. The SWFLS is also applicable to cross-cultural research. The SWFLS is also applicable to cross-cultural research. It will be necessary to pinpoint both the typical and distinctive healing components of family life in today’s multicultural culture, where painful life events such as pandemics and natural disasters occur regularly. Finally, it’s possible that using an online survey for participants decreased the quality of responses. However, the study variables were limited, and the purpose of the study was explained to the participants before administering the scales. Additionally, all participant groups read and signed an informed consent form before completing the sociodemographic data form and study instruments.

Conclusion and implications

Despite these limitations, the current study is the first to demonstrate the construct validity and consistency of the Turkish SWFLS, addressing the need for an internationally recognized measure of family life satisfaction. The Turkish SWFLS has proven to be a reliable and credible instrument for assessing family life satisfaction among individuals aged 18 years and older. This version of the SWFLS offers reliability and validity that has the potential to strengthen family oriented research both theoretically and practically, particularly in the domains of young adult and adult populations. The SWFLS stands out for its brief format, simple instructions, and unidimensional factor structure. It is believed that it can be used in Turkish-speaking contexts and will be useful in terms of both practice and research.

Reduced family life satisfaction is associated with emotional and social difficulties [60], which are frequently affected by family stress and coping mechanisms [61]. This significance is clear in research, family therapy, and psychiatric/psychological counseling. Family therapists and counselors can incorporate the SWFLS into family counseling procedures, enabling them to monitor their clients’ development both before and after the interventions, thereby promoting individual and family well-being. Importantly, the measure functions well for research involving individual interviews, groups, and family counseling with couples.

Data availability

The data that supports the findings of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SWFLS:

Satisfaction with Family Life Scale

SWLS:

Satisfaction with Life Scale

WEMWBS:

Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Scale

FACES II:

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II

FSAS:

Family Satisfaction by Adjectives Scale

References

  1. Kasapoğlu F, Yabanigül A. Marital satisfaction and life satisfaction: the mediating effect of spirituality. Spiritual Psychol Couns. 2018;3(2):177–95. https://doi.org/10.12738/spc.2018.3.2.0048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schimmack U, Diener E, Oishi S. Life satisfaction is a momentary judgment and a stable personality characteristic: the use of chronically accessible and stable sources. J Pers. 2009;70(3):345–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brigoli MB, Sandoval LB. The mediating effect of marital satisfaction on the relationship between quality family life and well-being of married couples. Eur J Educ Stud. 2023;10(8):311–40. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v10i8.4929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim HK, McKenry PC. The relationship between marriage and Psychological Well-being: a longitudinal analysis. J Fam Issues. 2002;23(8):885–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251302237296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Çetintaş A. (2021). Examining the relationship between family life satisfaction, psychological resilience, and emotional autonomy in adolescents. Master dissertation. Sabahattin Zaim University; 2021.

  6. Poff R, Zabriskie R, Townsend J. Modeling family leisure and related constructs: a national study. J Leisure Res. 2010;42:365–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2010.11950210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bandura A, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Regalia, Scabini E. Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family functioning and satisfaction with family life. Appl Psychol. 2011;60(3):421–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00442.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zabriskie RB, Ward PJ. Satisfaction with family life scale. Marriage Family Rev. 2013;49(5):446–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2013.768321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alonso Ruiz RA, San Emeterio V, Sáenz MÁ, de Jubera Ocón M, Sanz Arazuri E. Family leisure, self-management, and satisfaction in Spanish youth. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02231.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell A, Converse PE, Rodgers WL. The quality of American life: perceptions, assessments, and satisfactions. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Andrews IM, Withey SB. Social indicators of well-being. American perceptions of life quality. New York, NY: Plenum; 1976.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Olson DH, Portner J, Bell RQ. FACES II: family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Place M, Hulsmeier J, Brownrigg A, Soulsby A. The Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scale (FACES): an instrument worthy of rehabilitation? Psychiatr Bull. 2005;29(6):215–8. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.29.6.215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McCollum EE, Schumm WR, Russell CS. Reliability and validity of the Kansas Family Life Satisfaction Scale in a predominantly middle-aged sample. Psychol Rep. 1988;62:95–8. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.1.95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schumm WR, McCollum EE, Bugaighis MA, Jurich AP, Bollman SR. Characteristics of the Kansas Family Life Satisfaction Scale in a regional sample. Psychol Rep. 1986;58(3):975–80. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1986.58.3.975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carver MD, Jones WH. The family satisfaction scale. Social Behav Personality. 1992;20:71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Barraca J, Yarto LL, Olea J. Psychometric properties of a new family life satisfaction scale. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2000;2:98–106. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.16.2.98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Taşdelen-Karçkay A. Family life satisfaction scale-turkish version: psychometric evaluation. Social Behav Personality. 2016;44(4):631–9. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.4.631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Diener ED, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zabriskie R, McCormick B. Parent and child perspectives of family leisure involvement and satisfaction with family life. J Leisure Res. 2003;35(2):163–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2003.11949989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Álvarez CA, Briceño AM, Álvarez K, Abufhele M, Delgado I. Revista Chil de Pediatría. 2018;89(1):51–8. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0370-41062018000100051. Estudio de adaptación y validación transcultural de una escala de satisfacción con la vida para adolescentes.

  22. Lang J, Schmitz B. German translation of the satisfaction with life scale for children and adolescents. J Psychoeducational Assess. 2020;38(3):291–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919849361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Köker S. Comparison of life satisfaction level of normal and problematic adolescents Master dissertation. Ankara University; 1991.

  24. Neto F, Wilks DC. Predictors of psychological adaptation of Cape Verdean students in Portugal. J Coll Student Dev. 2017;58(7):1087–100. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Plagnol AC. Financial satisfaction over the life course: the influence of assets and liabilities. J Econ Psychol. 2011;32(1):45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Neto F, Fonseca ACM. The satisfaction with Job Life Scale among immigrants. Psychol Stud. 2018;63(3):209–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-018-0449-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Neto F. The satisfaction with Love Life Scale. Meas Evaluation Couns Dev. 2005;38(1):2–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2005.11909765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Neto F. The satisfaction with Sex Life Scale. Meas Evaluation Couns Dev. 2012;45(1):18–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175611422898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pavot W, Diener E. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol Assess. 1993;5(2):164. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dullas AR, Yncierto KD, Labiano MA, Marcelo JC. Determinants of a variety of deviant behaviors: an analysis of family satisfaction, personality traits, and their relationship to deviant behaviors among Filipino adolescents. Front Psychol. 2021;12:645126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.645126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Diener E, on Subjective Well-Being. Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum. 2006; 7(4): 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9000-y

  32. Blom N, Kraaykamp G, Verbakel E. Current and expected economic hardship and satisfaction with family life in Europe. J Fam Issues. 2019;40,1:3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18802328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Guimarães Amorim LA, Fonsêca PN. Satisfaction with Family Life Scale: Adaptação E Evidências De Validade E Precisão. Avaliaçao Psicologica: Interamerican J Psychol Assess. 2021;20(3):299–307. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8164944.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Ventura-León J, Barboza-Palomino M, Reyes-Bossio M, Gallegos W, L. A, Cadena CH, G, Cahua J. C. H. Validez E invarianza factorial de una medida breve de Satisfacción con la Vida Familiar. Universitas Physiol. 2018;17(5):1–17. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-5.vifm.

  35. Schnettler B, Miranda-Zapata E, Grunert KG, Lobos G, Denegri M, Hueche C, Poblete H. Life satisfaction of university students about family and food in a developing country. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1522. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01522.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. da Costa MP, Neto F. (2019). Psychometric evaluation of the Portuguese satisfaction with family life scale. Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences. 2019;1(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42409-019-0009-5

  37. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford; 2023.

  38. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: pearson; 2013.

  39. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.

  40. White M. Sample size in quantitative instrument validation studies: a systematic review of articles published in Scopus, 2021. Heliyon. 2022; 8(12):1–6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon. 2022.e12223.

  41. Uygur OF, Uygur H, Chung S, Ahmed O, Demiroz D, Aydin EF, Hursitoglu O. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Glasgow sleep effort scale. Sleep Med. 2022;98:144–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2022.06.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Uygur H, Tekdemir R, Uygur OF, Aydin EF, Celik M, Babacan HE, Hursitoglu O. Psychometric properties of the Turkish reduced morningness and eveningness questionnaire. Chronobiol Int. 2024;1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2024.2339964.

  43. Hayes A F, Coutts J J. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability.But… Communication Methods and Measures. 2020; 14(1): 1–24.

  44. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Beauducel A, Wittmann WW. Simulation study on fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural equation modeling. Multidisciplinary J. 2005;12(1):41–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18:39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kong F. The validity of the Wong and law emotional intelligence scale in a Chinese sample: tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences across gender and age. Pers Indiv Differ. 2017;116:29–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Li M, Yang D, Ding C, Kong F. Validation of the social well-being scale in a Chinese sample and invariance across gender. Soc Indic Res. 2015;121(2):607–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2002;9(2):233–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 2007;14(3):464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Koh K. Univariate Normal Distribution. In: Michalos, A.C, editors Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer. 2014; 6817–6819. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-53109

  52. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Keldal G. Warwick-Edinburgh mental iyi oluş ölçeği’nin Türkçe Formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. J Happiness Well-Being. 2015;3(1):103–15.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press; 2009.

  55. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Neto F, Reyes-Bossio M, Vilca LW, García Cadena CH, Pinto da Costa M, Neto J, White M. Factorial invariance of satisfaction with Family Life Scale in adolescents from Peru and Portugal. J Gen Psychoogy. 2022;149:421–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1867496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ferketich S. Focus on psychometrics: aspects of item analysis. Research. Nurs Health. 1991;14:165–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770140211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bakalım O, Taşdelen-Karçkay A. Positive and negative affect as predictors of family life satisfaction. J Hum Sci. 2015;12(1):1330–7.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Downward P, Rasciute S, Kumar H. Mental health and satisfaction with partners: a longitudinal analysis in the UK. BMC Psychol. 2022;10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00723-w.

  59. Wahyuningsih H, Kusumaningrum FA, Novitasari R. Parental marital quality and adolescent psychological well-being: a meta-analysis. Cogent Psychol. 2020;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1819005.

  60. Gilman R. The relationship between life satisfaction, social interest, and frequency of extracurricular activities among adolescent students. J Youth Adolesc. 2001;30(6):749–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ng DM, Jeffery RW. Relationships between perceived stress and health behaviors in a sample of working adults. Health Psychol. 2003;22(6):638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.22.6.638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants in this study.

Funding

The authors (s) reported that there was no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study design was done by A.T.K., O.B. Manuscript was wrote by A.T.K., T.S. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuğba Sarı.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval was obtained from the Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Izmir Democracy University prior to administering the questionnaires. All methods were performed according to the 1964 Helsinki Declaration. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

SWFLS items

  1. 1.

    Aile yaşamım çoğu açıdan ideale yakındır.

  2. 2.

    Aile yaşamımın koşulları mükemmeldir.

  3. 3.

    Aile yaşamımdan memnunum.

  4. 4.

    Şimdiye kadar aile yaşamımda istediğim önemli şeyleri elde ettim.

  5. 5.

    Aile yaşamımı yeniden yaşayacak olsaydım, neredeyse hiçbir şeyi değiştirmezdim.

Declarations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karçkay, A.T., Sarı, T. & Bakalım, O. Satisfaction with family life scale: a validity and reliability study in the Turkish context. BMC Psychol 12, 510 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02037-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02037-5

Keywords