Validitas dan Reliabilitas Kuesioner Eudaimonic Well-Being Versi Bahasa Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57214/jasira.v3i4.272Keywords:
Eudaimonic Well-Being, Measurement Adaptation, Psychometric Analysis, QEWB, Structural ValidityAbstract
This study examines the psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (QEWB) with a focus on internal structural validity and reliability. The research aims to provide empirical evidence regarding the feasibility of QEWB as an instrument to assess eudaimonic well-being within the Indonesian population. The process involved the adaptation of the original scale, followed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate its dimensional structure. Findings indicate that the Indonesian QEWB demonstrates adequate internal structural validity and reliable measurement consistency. The four-factor model meaning in life, self-discovery, personal expression enjoyment, and personal satisfaction and fulfillment showed the best fit, confirming the stability of this structure across analyses. Further examination through group comparison suggests that the instrument does not exhibit gender bias within the sample, supporting its fairness and applicability across male and female respondents. These results highlight the potential use of the Indonesian QEWB for research and psychological assessment, particularly in studies focusing on well-being, personal development, and organizational contexts. However, the generalization of findings should be approached with caution due to sample limitations. Future research is recommended to involve more diverse populations and explore additional psychometric evidence to strengthen the scale’s applicability across broader cultural and demographic groups.
References
Areepattamannil, S., & Hashim, J. (2017). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being (QEWB): Psychometric properties in a non-Western adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 236–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.018
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.
Diedericks, E., & Rothmann, S. (2014). Flourishing of information technology professionals: Effects on individual and organizational outcomes. South African Journal of Business Management, 45(1), 27–41.
Eignor, D. R. (2013). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Dalam K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology (Vol. 1, hlm. 245–250). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14047-013
Hancock, G. R., Mueller, R. O., & Stapleton, L. M. (2010). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. Taylor & Francis.
Hinton, P. R. (2014). Statistics explained (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Hogan, T. P. (2019). Psychological testing: A practical introduction (4th ed.). Wiley.
Kinderen, S. der, Valk, A., Khapova, S. N., & Tims, M. (2020). Facilitating eudaimonic well-being in mental health care organizations: The role of servant leadership and workplace civility climate. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041173
Krekel, C., Ward, G., & De Neve, J. (2019). Employee wellbeing, productivity, and firm performance (Saïd Business School Working Paper No. 4). University of Oxford.
Niemiec, C. P. (2014). Eudaimonic well-being. Dalam A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (hlm. 2004–2005). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_929
Norton, D. L. (1976). Personal destinies: A philosophy of ethical individualism. Princeton University Press.
Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., & Johnson, S. (2011). Well-being: Productivity and happiness at work. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Ryff, C. D. (2017). Eudaimonic well-being, inequality, and health: Recent findings and future directions. International Review of Economics, 64, 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-017-0277-4
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813494240
Siaputra, I. B., & Natalya, L. (2016). Teori dan praktik cara asyik belajar pengukuran psikologis. Center for Lifelong Learning Universitas Surabaya.
Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? University of Northern Colorado.
Supratiknya, A. (2014). Pengukuran psikologis. Penerbit Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Swart, J., & Rothmann, S. (2012). Authentic happiness of managers, and individual and organizational outcomes. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631204200403
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B., Kim, S. Y., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903435208
Widaman, K. F. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Dalam H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 3, hlm. 361–389). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13621-018
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Siti Rufaidah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
