VALIDATION OF A NEW SOCIAL

WELL-BEING QUESTIONNAIRE

Bachelor thesis Psychology

Mental Health Promotion

Jacqueline Radzyk (s1171984)

Enschede,

Universiteit Twente

Attendants: Prof. Dr. Gerben Westerhof and Dr. Peter Meulenbeek

 Evaluation of a new Social Well-Being Questionnaire

Author:

Jacqueline Radzyk

Bachelor Psychology

s1171984

First attendant:

Dr. Gerben Westerhof

Department of Psychology, Health & Technology

University of Twente, Netherlands

Second attendant:

Dr. Peter Meulenbeek

Department of Psychology, Health & Technology

University of Twente, Netherlands

2
Abstract

In the last few years there was an ongoing change in the field of psychology. Instead of
exclusively focusing on mentally ill people, psychologists also want to promote mental health
and well-being. One way to do so is establishing prevention programs that give support to
people in capacity building. MOVISIE, the national institute for applicable knowledge, advise
and solutions in social questions, gives trainings that are supposed to help people being an
active member of society. In order to evaluate these trainings, MOVISIE closely works
together with the University of Twente for developing a new questionnaire that measures
social well-being. The aim of this study is to develop the questionnaire further and to
evaluates it.

For the sake of evaluating the questionnaire, the construct of organizational participation is
treated as an aspect of social participation and is used to calculate the concurrent validity of
the questionnaire. Furthermore participants got the opportunity to rate the questionnaire and to
make comments on the questionnaire. It is investigated whether different groups of people
rate the questionnaire in another way. Therefore the population is subdivided into groups of
gender, age and education. Through this ratings it is possible to improve the questionnaire and
develop it further.

77 students and 106 participants that were acquired by MOVISIE filled in and rated the
questionnaire. 40 comments were analyzed and categorized under the regard of the ease of
use.

The results are that organizational participation and social well-being are only weak
correlated to each other, in this questionnaire. Besides that, the questionnaire was rated as not
too difficult to answer, clear and interesting. Nonetheless, it did not made the participants
consider the topic of social well-being further. Major issues were faced in the structure of the
questionnaire, the answer options, the structure of the questions, the definition of words and
the length of the questionnaire.

3
Samenvatting
In de laatste jaren was er een voortdurend verandering in het veld van de psychologie. In
plaats van het focussen op mentaal ziekte mensen gaan psychologen zich meer richten op het
bevorderen van mentale gezondheid en welbevinden. Een mogelijkheid is preventie
programma's te ontwikkelen, die ondersteuning geven vaardigheden zoals zelfhulp op te
bouwen. MOVISIE, het landelijke kennisinstituut en adviesbureau voor toepasbare kennis,
adviezen en oplossingen bij de aanpak van sociale vraagstukken, geeft trainingen die mensen
helpen een actief lid van de maatschappij te zijn. Om deze trainingen te evalueren,werkt
MOVISIE samen met de Universiteit Twente eraan een nieuwe vragenlijst te ontwikkelen, die
sociaal welbevinden meet. Het doel van deze studie is dit vragenlijst verder te ontwikkelen en
te evalueren.

Om de vragenlijst te evalueren, wordt het construct “organisatorische participatie” behandeld

als een aspect van sociale participatie en gebruikt om de concurrente validiteit van de
vragenlijst te bepalen. Verder hadden de participanten de mogelijkheid de vragenlijst te
waarderen en middels commentaren zijn eigen mening over de vragenlijst te uiten. Het is
onderzocht of verschillende groepen van mensen de vragenlijst op een andere manier
beoordelen. Daarom werd de populaties ingedeeld in groepen van geslacht, leeftijd en
educatie. Bovendien werden de commentaren gecategoriseerd en geanalyseerd m.b.t. de
enkelvoudigheid van het invullen van de vragenlijst. Zomede is het mogelijk de vragenlijst te
verbeteren en verder aan te passen.

77 studenten en 106 participanten wie zijn geworven door MOVISIE hebben de vragenlijst
ingevuld en geëvalueerd. 40 commentaren worden geanalyseerd en gecategoriseerd m.b.t. de
enkelvoudigheid van het invullen van de vragenlijst

De resultaten zijn dat organisatorische participatie en sociaal welbevinden alleen zwak

correleren. Bovendien wordt de vragenlijst als niet te moeilijk te beantwoorden, duidelijk en
interessant beoordeelt. Echter heeft de vragenlijst de participanten niet aan het denken gezet.
Voornamelijk hadden de respondenten problemen met de structuur van de vragenlijst, de
antwoord mogelijkheden, de structuur van de vragen, de definitie van woorden en de lengte
van de vragenlijst.

4
Preface
This thesis is written as a part of the requirements for a Dutch Bachelor's Degree in
psychology. It contains work done from February to June 2014. The supervisor on the project
has been Prof. Dr. Gerben Westerhof. The thesis has been made solely by the author; much of
the text, however, is based on the research of others, and I have done my best to provide
references to these sources.

The aim of this study was to develop a new questionnaire that assesses social well-being and
to test it for reliability and usefulness. On the basis of comments and rating questions it is
examined where major problems were faced in the questionnaire.

Since this thesis is written as the final thesis of the bachelor's degree in psychology, the text is
primarily aimed at teachers of psychology at the University of Twente and pupils attending
the courses there, but I hope it will be of interest for other people as well.

I would like to thank my supervisors Prof. Dr. Gerben Westerhof and Dr. Peter Meulenbeek
for the collaboration and support they have given in the last few month.

Special thanks to my parents and my uncle, who constantly supported me through my whole
study and who I always can count on.

Jacqueline Radzyk

Enschede

June 2014

5
Table of Content
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 3

Samenvatting...................................................................................................................... 4

Preface............................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Definition of Mental Health..............................................................................................................9

1.2 Definition of Social Well-Being.......................................................................................................11

1.3 Definition and Relevance of Social Exclusion..................................................................................12

1.4 Developing a Questionnaire for Measuring Social Well-Being........................................................15

2 Method........................................................................................................................... 16

2.1 The Procedure................................................................................................................................16

2.2 Respondents...................................................................................................................................18

2.3 Instruments....................................................................................................................................20

2.3.1 The Social Well-Being Questionnaire.................................................................................20

2.3.2 Organizational Participation..............................................................................................21

2.3.3 Evaluation of the Questionnaire........................................................................................22

2.4 Analysis...........................................................................................................................................23

3 Results........................................................................................................................... 25

3.1 Relation of Organizational Participation and Social Well-Being......................................................25

3.2 Evaluations.....................................................................................................................................26

3.2.1 Gender...............................................................................................................................27

3.2.2 Age....................................................................................................................................28

3.2.3 Education...........................................................................................................................29

3.3 Comments......................................................................................................................................30

4 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 33

4.1 Weaknesses, Strengths and Recommendations For Future Studies...............................................36

6
5 References.................................................................................................................... 38

6 Appendix........................................................................................................................ 40

7
1 Introduction
When thinking about the work of psychologists, people often have the idea that psychologists
have to do with mentally ill people and that they can see into their clients' minds. However,
this is not the case. In the last few years a shift in the field of psychology took place.
Psychologists do not exclusively focus on mental illness and their treatment. As positive
psychology, and the notion that health is “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-
being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” (World Health Organization, 2010),
emerged in the recent years, the question comes up, which conclusions of science can be used
for making people happier (Ahern, Kiehl, Sole, Byers, 2006). So not only tests that classify
mental illness need to be developed, but also tests that focus on mentally healthy people. This
is what this study aims at doing: Developing a new questionnaire that measures a positive
aspect of mental health, social well-being.

To start from the beginning, one must explain why this questionnaire focuses on social well-
being. It is assumed that the construct of well-being is interconnected with mental health. This
seems obvious: If a person feels well, this person is less likely to develop mental problems
(this point is discussed more in detail in §1.1). Because well-being seems to be a striking
factor in improving mental health, it needs to be examined what can enhance well-being in
general.

So what defines well-being? According to the World Health Organization (2004), well-being
can be subdivided into three aspects: psychological well-being, emotional well-being and
social well-being. This study specifies in greater detail the aspect of social well-being. It is
assumed that enhancing social well-being also enhances well-being in general.

The identification of the dimensions of social well-being provides useful advice for
prevention services and social policy making in the mental healthcare. Thereby good
prevention programs can be established. For instance, if social participation would be
beneficial to social well-being, it would be necessary that interventions are directed towards
improving the social situation of the clients. Care workers and nurses could be trained to
support the vulnerable people in social problems. Thereby the clients' (social) well-being
could be enhanced.

8
Enhancing social well-being is what MOVISIE, the national institute for applicable
knowledge, advise and solutions in social questions, does. One aim of MOVISIE is capacity
building that is achieved through social interventions. Vulnerable people should not only be
able to take care of themselves but should participate actively in society, so that their social
well-being is improved. So MOVISIE gives trainings and develops social interventions
supposing to improve social coexistence. In pursuance of evaluating these interventions and
since there are few questionnaires that address social well-being in the Netherlands,
MOVISIE has the need to extend and evaluate their questionnaire addressing social well-
being.

The question is now how to establish a good questionnaire that evaluates social interventions?
As a basis, some background knowledge is needed. In §1.1 it is defined what mental health is
and how social well-being can contribute to it. The next logical step is to get a deeper insight
in the construct of social well-being (§1.2). Through identifying the dimensions of social
well-being it can be worked out which factors of the construct are important to make a
statement whether a person feels socially well. It is obvious that clients in social interventions
have problems with their social life. Therefore it needs to be studied what factors can impair
social well-being and how these factors can be overcome. So finally §1.3 deals with the issue
of social exclusion and why it is relevant for this study.

1.1 Definition of Mental Health

Since the beginning of mankind philosophers and scientists are concerned with the question
“What makes people happy?”. In order to give an answer to this question, first it has to be
examined what happiness includes. Ancient Greek philosophers like Aristippus thought “that
the goal of life is to experience the maximum amount of pleasure, and that happiness is the
totality of one’s hedonic moments.“ (Ryan & Deci, 2001). To understand what is meant by
hedonic moments, one can inspect the word hedonism. It evolves from the Greek word of
delight, or pleasure. The tradition of hedonism had many followers and was described as
„bodily pleasures to a broad focus on appetites and self-interests“ (Ryan & Deci, 2001). It is
understandable that merely bodily pleasures could not lead to happiness. So later on,
psychologists added subjective well-being as a criterion that contributes to happiness.
Subjective well-being in turn is defined as “life satisfaction, the presence of positive mood,

9
and the absence of negative mood”. In accordance with this definition Ryan and Deci
reasoned from Diener et al (1998) that happiness can be „derived from attainment of goals or
valued outcomes in varied realms“.

But can short-term happiness (like a good mood or bodily pleasures) lead to life satisfaction?
This is where the eudaimonic view (eu =good; daimon = spirit) ties in. The word says that one
must live in congruence with ones inner spirit. This view argues in favor for achieving long-
term goals. It is the basis for many other theories such as the Self-determination theory [SDT]
by Ryan and Deci (2000), which states that through autonomy, competence, and relatedness
self-actualization can be achieved. Ryff and Keyes (1995) accentuate the concept of
psychological well-being, which underlines six aspects of human actualization: autonomy,
personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, mastery, and positive relatedness.

For this study, especially positive relatedness is important. In Ryan's and Deci's study on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in 2001, they summarize the results of studies that deal
with the relation between social relationships and well-being outcomes. Among others,
Baumeister and Leary (1995) defined relatedness as a basic human need that is crucial for
well-being.

In sum one can conclude that it is probable that both, the hedonic and the eudaimonic view,
contribute to happiness and thus to mental health. The World Health Organization (1948) also
pledges for the interaction of these concepts by the definition that follows: “Health is a state
of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity.” Accompanied by this definition, there is an ongoing change in the field of
psychology. Instead of curing the ill, there is more emphasis placed on promoting mental
health and preventing mental illness. This is what positive psychology does. Ernst Bohlmeijer,
Linda Bolier, Gerben Westerhof and Jan Auke Walburg argue in their handboek of positive
psychology (2013) that there are two pioneers in this field. Seligman and Csikszentmihaly,
who campaigned in the year 2000 that it is not sufficient to investigate mechanisms of
disfunctioning, but to examine the mechanisms of optimal functioning, relations and
communal life.

This is where another definition of the WHO (2004) builds on. It describes mental health as “a
state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with

10
the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a
contribution to her or his community.” As Bohlmeier et al (2013) wrote in their handboek,
one can see that there are three components in this definition: psychological, emotional and
social well-being.

In fact there is evidence that social factors contribute to mental health. For instance Berkman
and Syme (1979) found a relation between socially integrated adults and mortality. Those
who were married, had friends and belonged to social groups were more likely to live at a
nine year follow-up study. On the other side there is evidence that not only social integration
promotes health, but that social isolation works destructively. Social isolation is associated
with higher stress levels in individuals and in turn could “increase neuroendocrine and
cardiovascular responses, suppress immune function, and interfere with performance of health
behaviors” (Cohen, 2004).

In the face of this fact it is important to consider social well-being as an important factor of
physical and mental health. In consequence one must define social well-being. This is done in
§1.2.

1.2 Definition of Social Well-Being

In the following section, the work of Keyes, Social Well-Being, which is published in the
Social Psychology Quarterly in 1998, is used. Through a literature study, he defined the
dimensions of social well-being, from which I make use of.

Keyes described social well-being as “the appraisal of one's circumstance and functioning in
society” (Keyes, 1998, p. 122) and identified five dimensions that are seen to cover this
construct: Social acceptance, Social contribution, Social actualization, Social coherence and
Social integration.

With social acceptance is meant the “construal of society through the character and qualities
of other people as a generalized category” (Keyes, 1998, p. 122). Which connotes that the
individual feels good about other people and trusts them in being honest and diligently. This
contributes to a general believe and a a positive view towards society.

11
Social contribution means “the evaluation of one’s social value” (Keyes, 1998, p. 122). In this
sense the person feels of him-/herself that he/she is an active member of society. The person
thinks that he/she can contribute to the commonwealth. This implies that the individual thinks
that he/she is able to perform certain actions and can take social responsibility.

Social actualization deals with “The evaluation of the potential and the trajectory of society”
(Keyes, 1998, p. 123). People believe that the full social potential of a society can be realized
through the people, the government and institutions. The person itself also contributes to that
actualization and is optimistic about the society's future.

Social coherence is about “the perception of the quality, organization and operation of the
social world and a concern for knowing about the world” (Keyes, 1998, p. 123). People feel
involved and think that they can understand in the world they live in. Although they are
conscious about not living in the perfect world, they set goals and want to give purpose to
their lives.

Lastly social integration involves “the evaluation of the quality of one’s relationship to society
and community” (Keyes, 1998, p. 123). The person has a feeling of belonging to a group or
community on the basis of norms and values. This group can be the own neighborhood,
friends, clubs or the society as a whole in which the person can get support.

Keyes also states that “themes of integration, social involvement, and public consciousness in
classical sociological theory […] suggest the social challenges faced by adults.” (Keyes, 1998,
p. 123) So what if adults fail to obtain these challenges? The result would be social exclusion.

1.3 Definition and Relevance of Social Exclusion

In 2004 a report was published by Gerda Jehoel-Gijsbers, which deals with social exclusion in
the Netherlands. In this report she discusses different views of social exclusion and tries to
give a definition of this phenomenon. In the literature social exclusion is often compared with
unemployment, economic deprivation and concomitant with fewer or no access to institutions.
However, Jehoel-Gijsbers concludes that the concept of social exclusion is multidimensional.

12
First, one has to differentiate between the state itself and risk factors. The state itself is
subdivided into the economic-structural and the social-cultural dimension. The economic-
structural dimension on the one side describes material deprivation, such as debts, a shortage
of money and goods or lifestyle-deprivation. On the other side there is insufficient access to
governmental and social institutions like medical care and education, insufficient social
security and an insecure housing situation. The social-cultural dimension involves deficient
social participation, which is characterized by social isolation and a lack of social networks.
Furthermore there is little normative and/or cultural integration, as delinquency, the misuse of
social welfare or insufficient work or education ethics. As one can see these dimensions are
on an absolute and a relative level. Sen (1983) declares necessaries of life as absolute, but the
ways and the goods to achieve a satisfying living standard as relative, seen that some people
need more or less goods, which depends on one way on the country one live in or the attitude
a person has. To go in further, there is a difference between the subjective and objective
evaluation of social exclusion. To get the idea of subjective and objective evaluation across, I
give an example. Older people can objectively be seen as more socially excluded than young
people: Older people are retired and therefore do not need to work anymore (unemployment is
seen as a risk factor for being socially excluded; see below) or their social network is
impoverished, because many people moved away in retirement homes or already died.
Subjectively old people may not feel socially excluded at all. It is possible that they occupy
themselves with hobby activities or that the quality of their relations satisfy them and make
them feel socially integrated.

To go on further, Jehoel-Gijsbers describes risk factors that can be existent on three niveaus:
the micro-, meso- or macroniveau. The microniveau refers to the person. Risk factors and
groups at risk are: age (elderlies), gender (gender inequality), civic state (singles), family (no
family, single parents), social background (people with low education) and ethnicity
(foreigners). Other risk factors deal with characteristics that can be partly can be changed or
improved: Efficacy (physical or psychic limitations, skills and competencies), health
(chronical diseases, handicaps, addiction), education (not finished or low level of education),
position (unemployment or inability to work), income (low income or debts), physical and
social environment (homeless, stay in health facilities, no/few facilities in living quarters).

13
One has to mention that social exclusion cannot always be seen as self-imposed. There are
also other factors that contribute to social exclusion. One example on the macroniveau is the
government, which can have impact due to financial policy or in general does not act with
circumspection towards the socially disadvantaged.

On the mesoniveau are institutions that have to execute state policy. But also employers,
fellow citizen or the communal life with it's development can contribute so social exclusion.
Examples are individualization, bureaucratization, discrimination, stigmatization, and so on.

In sum to be socially excluded a person must have deficits in multiple dimensions. The other
way around one does not need to fall behind in all areas to be excluded. One can conclude that
the more dimensions are in arrears, the more the person is seen as socially excluded.

As mentioned does the social-cultural dimension of social exclusion contain social

participation, that is characterized by social inclusion and having a social network.
Consequently social participation can on one way be attained through organizational
participation, which in turn can result in social inclusion. By taking part in an organization, a
person also socializes. Connections to other people are made and a social network may be
established, that gives support to the person.

Studies reveal that social support (received by social networks) and inclusion contribute to
mental health outcomes. One example is the study of Cohen (1988) that states: “Interacting
with others is also thought to aid in emotional regulation increasing positive affect and
helping limit the intensity and duration of negative affective states.“ Consequently the
interaction with others has a positive psychological effect on a person. Moreover Cohen,
Sherrod and Clark found in 1986 that “perceived social support buffered the effects of
psychological stress on depression”. This suggests that the more a person is integrated in a
social network and acknowledges this social support, the less psychological afflictions the
person has. In conclusion: Being socially integrated enhances well-being and being socially
isolated impairs well-being.

14
 1.4 Developing a Questionnaire for Measuring Social Well-Being
As already mentioned there are only few questionnaires measuring social well-being.
Kienhorst et al (1990) investigated psychometric properties of nine self-report rating scales
measuring (un)well-being. They acknowledge that many Dutch questionnaires miss
psychometric properties and that this is the case especially for edited American
questionnaires. They also note that the psychological properties for the American population
are good evaluated, but that this is not the case for the Dutch population.

Of course, since 1990 there are some years passed, but the overall situation did not improve
with regard to full validated questionnaires that assess social well-being. There are several
questionnaires that assess overall personal well-being, like the The Personal Wellbeing Index,
that is validated for the Netherlands (van Beuningen and de Jonge, 2011) or the life situation
index (Netherlands Institute for Social Research, 2010), but these do not address social well-
being in particular.

However, toward improving social interventions it is crucial to isolate the construct of social
well-being and to develop a questionnaire that deals exclusively with this construct. Thereby
it is not only important to assess the outcome, but to evaluate it. In order to do so, there has to
be a valid measuring tool.

As argued in §1.3, do social participation, organizational participation and well-being have a

relation. Because of that, the construct of organizational participation is expected to be related
to the dimension of social well-being, meaning that the more a person participates in an
organization, the higher is his or her social well-being. By examining whether the Social
Well-Being Questionnaire and the questions about organizational participation correlate with
each other, it is possible to make a statement over the concurrent validity of the new
questionnaire. Is there a correlation do social well-being and organizational participation, as
an aspect of social in-/exclusion, have a relation and the questionnaire is valid.

It is important that this measuring tool is applicable for a great population. People differ in
their personal backgrounds as for example in their level of education. For that reason it is
useful to offer the possibility to rate the questionnaire and to make suggestions on how the
questionnaire can be improved. By subdividing the population into groups of gender, ages and

15
education, these evaluations can then be compared with each other. Thereby systematic
differences between different groups of people can be detected. By that it is possible to draw
conclusions, whether the questionnaire is appropriate for a great population in regard to the
ease of use .

In this study, two main research questions are formulated that should give an indication on
how valid this questionnaire is. Question 2 is analyzed more precisely:

1. To which extend is the Social Well-Being Questionnaire concurrent valid correlated

with the construct of organizational participation?“

2. How did the respondents rate the new Social Well-Being Questionnaire?

2.1 Are there differences in the ratings with regard to gender, age or education?

2.2 Which elements in the questionnaire were commented by the participants?

2 Method
In this section the method of the study is presented. In §2.1, the procedure of development and
the spreading of the questionnaire is explained. Secondly, the descriptive statistics of the
respondents are presented in §2.2. The used instruments are illustrated in §2.3. Finally the
analyses that are carried out are described in §2.4.

2.1 The Procedure

The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with MOVISIE. Martijn Bool, the reference
person of MOVISIE, sent a set of questions, which should be incorporated in the final
questionnaire. After a meeting with Mr. Bool and careful considerations between the three
bachelor candidates and the attendant Prof. Dr. Gerben Westerhof, a questionnaire was
developed.

This questionnaire is on the one hand composed of statements about the experienced social
well-being of the participants. On the other hand, as mentioned in §1.4, reference
questionnaires are needed to evaluate the new questionnaire. So questions about
organizational participation, societal participation, social activities and the the dimension of

16
social well-being of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form [MHC-SF] are also integrated.
Theresa Steeger examines convergent validity with MHC-SF, compares the construct of
societal participation to social well-being and considers construct validity of the Social Well-
Being Questionnaire. Diana Schilliger also investigates convergent validity with the MHC-
SF, concurrent validity with social activity as latent construct, internal consistency and test-
retest reliability.

This thesis only deals with the relation of social well-being and organizational participation.
For more information about the MHC-SF, societal participation and social activities and their
relationship to social well-being see the bachelor theses of Steeger (2014) and Schilliger
(2014). The sets of questions are described in more detail in §2.3.

Because of limited access to other people than students, it was decided that the questionnaire
was sent to other external institutions as well. Thereby it is ensured that the scope of diversity
is sufficient. The aim was to reach as many different ages and educational levels as possible.
First, Martijn Bol sent the questionnaire to other MOVISIE employees, who were asked to fill
it in and to pass it on. Additionally, the MOgroep, an employers' association and GGZ
Nederland, a professional organization for people in the sector of Mental Healthcare were also
contacted and asked to load the link of the questionnaire up on their homepage or their
platform. Third, GGD Nederland, an association for Public Health and Security sent the
questionnaire to a local GGD institute,which also spread the questionnaire. Finally, the
questionnaire was distributed among students by the Hogeschool Arnhem Nijmegen.

Simultaneously the graduates uploaded the questionnaire on www.thesistools.nl and sent the
link to the bureau of educational matters of the University of Twente. Thereby the study could
be uploaded on Sona Systems, which provides online subject pool management. This site is
used by students in order to offer and participate in studies. Furthermore, the link to the
questionnaire was uploaded on facebook.

Before the participants filled in the questionnaire, it was explained that the researchers are
students of the University of Twente, who work on their bachelor thesis. The development of
a new questionnaire that assesses social well-being was stated as the aim of the study.
Furthermore it was stated how long the procedure of filling in the questionnaire takes and that
the respondents can stop answering the questions at any time. Next it was mentioned that the

17
data, handed out by the participants, is treated confidential. The study started not until the
respondents gave their informed consent.

2.2 Respondents
There were two groups of participants in this study. The first group are students of the
University of Twente who were found by the bachelor graduates themselves. This group is
henceforth referred to as “students”. The second group involves people who were acquired by
MOVISIE and who spread the questionnaire forward (see §2.1). This group is henceforth
referred to as “MOVISIE participants”.

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics of the participants. For the sake of clarity, both
groups were described separately.

Before analyzing the data of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire, the data of participants
who did not finish the questionnaire was deleted. When 50% or more of the data contained a
0, the data was also deleted. This data was not usable, because the data was supposed to range
from 1-4. Scattered missing values were replaced with the average score of the associated
item.

After deleting the missing values, 77 students were left. 22 of these respondents were male
and 55 were female. The average age was 22 years and most students live under other
conditions than specified. All of the respondents were unmarried.

After deleting respondents with missing values in the MOVISIE dataset, 106 participants
were left. 20 of these respondents were male and 86 were female. The average age was 47
years and most participants were married and lived with the partner or with the partner and
children. 88 people occupy themselves with paid work and 61 people have a HBO degree.

18
Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Participants (n=183)

Students (n=77) MOVISIE (n=106)

Count Mean Count Mean

Gender M 22 20

F 55 68

Age 21,8 46,75

Education Lower education/ LBO/ 2 9

MAVO/ VMBO

HAVO/ VWO 5 3

HBO 7 61

University 63 33

Civil status married 0 55

unmarried 77 43

Widowed/divorced 0 8

Living conditions alone 23 12

with partner or children 10 48

with partner and children 0 39

other 44 7

Most important occupation Education/study 71 2

paid work 5 88

voluntary work 0 3

Household/care for children 0 7

other 1 6

19
 2.3 Instruments

Before presenting the main sets of questions, participants were asked to provide background
information about their gender, age, educational level, civil status, living conditions and their
most important occupation.

2.3.1 The Social Well-Being Questionnaire

The Social Well-Being Questionnaire tries to assess how a person experiences his or her own
social life and how this is related to the construct of social well-being. This set contains 45
statements (see Appendix 1). The statements were mixed up in order to ensure that
participants do not get a notion what the questions are about. Consequently they need to think
about the questions and it is prevented that questions are given too fast. Participants evaluated
the statements within a 5-point Likert Scale, which consists of five categories. Strongly
disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree/disagree (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5).

At the beginning, the questionnaire contained statements arranged according to 10

dimensions: Social contacts, social isolation and social exclusion (1), work (2), neighborhood
and neighbors (3), cohesion of the neighborhood (4), feeling of security in and around the
own house (5), social integration and participation (6), material deprivation (7), giving and
getting help (8), conceptions about society (9) and the own life in general (10).

However, the factoranalysis that is carried out by Theresa Steeger (2014) identified seven
subscales: social contacts, neighborhood and neighborhood cohesion, material deprivation,
most important occupation, social isolation, societal institutions and societal participation. For
these factors, the mean scores were calculated. It is assumed that the higher the score, the
higher is the perceived social well-being.

20
Table 2
The Seven Factors of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire

Factors Items

Factor 1: Social contacts 20, 25, 26 ,29, 30,31, 32, 34, 39

Factor 2: Neighborhood and neighborhood 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28
cohesion

Factor 3: Material deprivation 24, 35, 36, 37, 38

Factor 4: Most important occupation 12, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

Factor 5: Social isolation 1, 8, 17, 40

Factor 6: Societal institutions 13, 14, 19

Factor 7: Societal participation 5, 6, 18

Before analyzing the data, all negative statements are recoded. Affected were items 1, 10, 13,
28 and 40. Item 21 “I feel insecure on the street and in the surrounding of my house” was
deleted, because it was enlisted twice.

Because factor 3 does not measures material deprivation in the sense that the higher the score,
the higher the extent of deprivation, I will rename it into material satisfaction. The questions
are formulated in a positive way, meaning that the higher the score, the more the participants
are satisfied with their financial and material situation.

2.3.2 Organizational Participation

In this study, only the third set of questions about societal organizations is reviewed, because
it provides information whether participants take part actively in society. So, in this set the
respondents are asked to state whether they take part or took part in societal organizations in
the last 12 months (see Appendix 3). Furthermore the participants are asked to describe their
relationship to this organization or club in the manner of no commitment (1), making
donations (2), participated in an activity (3), member (4) and/or doing voluntary work (5).

21
In order to answer question 1, whether social well-being and the active or passive
participation in organizations have a relation, the answer options are coded. Due to technical
problems, the dataset of the students and the dataset of the MOVISIE participants differ from
each other. The students got the opportunity to select multiple answer options, whereas the
MOVISIE participants only could select one option. For the students, a 0 was coded if the
option was not selected and 1 if the option was selected. The selected option was coded in
ascending order, whereby “no commitment” got the lowest score (0) and “doing voluntary
work” the highest score (4). The same procedure of coding was applied to the the data of the
MOVISIE participants

Average scores across the items of organizational participation were calculated for each
respondent. This is supposed to array the commitment to an organization. The higher the
score, the higher is the commitment to an organization.

By coding the answers in the described manner, it is ensured that the datasets are comparable
to each other.

2.3.3 Evaluation of the Questionnaire

In order to give an answer to the question of investigation, whether this questionnaire is an
useful instrument to validate social interventions, questions about the questionnaire itself were
presented at the end of the questionnaire. By making the questions mandatory, it is guaranteed
that some information about the questionnaire is given and improvements on the
questionnaire can be made.

The questions that needed to be answered were:

1. Did you find it difficult to answer the questions?
2. Did you find the questions clear?
3. Did the questionnaire make you contemplate?
4. Did you find the topic interesting?
Thereby, the following answer options were given: absolutely not (1), not (2), in between (3),
yes (4) and absolutely yes (5).

22
For the purpose of answering question 2, how participants rate the questionnaire, the answer
options of the four opinion questions were also coded. “Absolutely not” got the lowest score
(1) and “absolutely yes” got the highest score (5).

Additionally to the opinion poll, the opportunity to make notes and points of critique was
given at the end of the questionnaire. It is examined how the respondents managed the
questionnaire and whether there were major problems that need to be solved.

2.4 Analysis
First it is examined, whether the seven factors of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire are
normally distributed. The result can be seen in table 3. The data of the students and the data of
the MOVISIE participants are investigated with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. If the test is
significant, the factors are not normally distributed. Because only factor 2 ”Neighborhood and
neighborhood cohesion” is normally distributed, the Spearman Rho Correlation is used to
investigate the relation between the seven factors and the organizational participation.

23
Table 3
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Students (n=77) MOVISIE participants (n=106)

social contacts ,103 76 ,045 ,127 106 ,000

neighborhood
and
,071 76 ,200* ,079 106 ,102
neighborhood
cohesion

material
,158 76 ,000 ,207 106 ,000
satisfaction

most
important ,151 76 ,000 ,122 106 ,001
occupation

social
,122 76 ,007 ,160 106 ,000
isolation

societal
,179 76 ,000 ,151 106 ,000
institutions

societal
,146 76 ,000 ,150 106 ,000
participation

For both sets, the mean score of organizational commitment was calculated. The higher the
mean score, the higher the commitment to an organization. This mean score is correlated with
the mean scores of the seven factors of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire. Because the
datasets differed from each other (see §2.3.2) the sets were analyzed apart.

Because there were no differences between the dataset of the students and the dataset of the
MOVISIE participants , the data of the evaluations of the questionnaire, could be analyzed
altogether.

Question 2, how respondents rated the questionnaire, is answered with a cross-tab. The
percentages show how frequent the four questions were answered with “absolutely not”,
“not”, “in between”, “yes” or “absolutely yes”.

24
For the purpose of answering question 2.1, whether there are systematic differences in the
ratings of the participants, the population is divided into groups of gender, age and education.
By dividing the population in different groups, it can be analyzed whether man and women,
young and old people or low educated and high educated participants rate the questionnaire
identically or differently. For gender, there are obviously only two groups: men (n=41) and
women (n=142). For age, there are three groups: Group 1 (n=86) ranges from 18-29 years,
group 2 (n=64) from 30-54 years and group 3 (n=33) from 55-70 years. Finally for education
4 groups were created: Group 1 (n=12) includes all people who have a lower education than
specified, a LBO, MAVO or a VMBO education. Group 2 (n=7) contain people with a HAVO
or VWO education, group 3 (n=68) HBO education and group 4 (n=96) people with
university education.

The differences in the groups were detected with the Kruskal Wallis test. If the test yields that
the result is not significant, there are no significant group differences. The outcome gives an
indication of how the questions must be improved in order to diminish the differences and
make the questionnaire suitable for as many people as possible. When getting the same ratings
from all groups, the questionnaire is appropriate for a broad population. This is the final aim
in developing a questionnaire.

For making the questionnaire more suitable for a broad population, all comments are enlisted
and categorized by their content. In this way it is ensured that the issues respondents had are
identified and improvements can be made. It is analyzed whether the problems had to do with
the scale itself (difficulties with the structure), the questions, the answer options, or the
language (definition problems).

25
3 Results

In the following section, the results of the analyses are presented. These results are subdivided
into three parts. The first research question about the relation between organizational
participation and social well-being is answered in §3.1. In §3.2 it is presented how
participants rated the questionnaire and whether there were systematic differences between
the different groups of population. In the last paragraph, §3.3 the comments that were made at
the end of the questionnaire are analyzed.

3.1 Relation of Organizational Participation and Social Well-Being

In order to answer research question 1, whether organizational participation and social well-
being have a relationship, the Spearman Rho Correlation was calculated. The results can be
seen in table 4.

Table 4

Spearman Rho Correlation Between The Seven Factors and The Means of Organizational
Participation (n=183)

Organizational Participation Organizational Participation

For Students For MOVISIE Participants
(n=77) (n=106)

social contacts ,01 ,01

neighborhood ,22 ,22*

and neighborhood
cohesion

material -,01 ,23*

satisfaction

most important ,01 -,06

occupation

social isolation ,06 0,4

societal -,07 0,7

institutions

societal ,27* ,28**

participation

26
As the table displays, in the population of students are only low correlations and those are not
significant (p > 0,05). Only the societal participation shows a low correlation that is
significant (ρ = ,27; p < 0,05). That means that societal participation and organizational
participation have a relationship with each other. In other words, the more a person
participates in societal organizations, the more likely it is that this person also participates in
another organization.

For the MOVISIE population there are also low correlations, which are statistically not
significant (p > 0,05). Only the correlations for neighborhood and neighborhood cohesion (ρ
= ,22; p < 0,05), material satisfaction (ρ = ,23; p < 0,05) and societal participation (ρ = ,28; p
< 0,05) are statistically significant. That means that neighborhood and neighborhood
cohesion, material satisfaction, societal participation and organizational participation have a
relationship with each other. In other words, the more a person feels integrated in his or her
neighborhood or society or is materially satisfied, the more likely it is that this person also
participates in an organization.

3.2 Evaluations
For the sake of answering how the respondents rated the new Social Well-Being
Questionnaire, the descriptive statistics of the answers that were given to the opinion
questions are presented in table 5.

Only 6,5% found it difficult to answer the questions, while 52,5% of the participants
answered that the answers of the questionnaire were not difficult to answer. 64% of the
participants perceived the questions as clear. The distribution of the answers that were given
on the question whether the questionnaire made the participants, is almost equal: 43,9%
claimed that the questionnaire did not make them contemplate, whereas 39,2% answered that
the questionnaire did make them contemplate. Despite the fact that slightly more participants
did not think about the topic further, 73,3% found the topic of social well-being interesting.

In sum, the questionnaire was rated not too difficult to answer, clear and interesting.
However, it does not made the participants contemplate.

27
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of The Opinion Questions (n=183)

Did you find it Did you find the Did the Did you find the
difficult to answer questions clear? questionnaire make topic interesting?
the questions? you contemplate?

absolutely not 19,0% 1,1% 7,1% 2,7%

not 43,5% 3,3% 38,6% 5,4%

in between 31,0% 31,0% 15,2% 17,9%

yes 6,0% 52,2% 33,2% 59,2%

absolutely yes 0,5% 12,0% 6,0% 14,1%

In the next paragraph, the answers are analyzed according to gender, age and educational
level. Thereby question 2.1 “Are there differences in the ratings with regard to gender, age or
education?” can be answered.

3.2.1 Gender
In table 6 the result of the Kruskal Wallis test is displayed: No differences were found in the
way men and women gave the answers.

Table 6
Kruskal Wallis Test of Gender Differences in Answering the Opinion Questions (n=183)

Did the
Did you find it questionnaire
difficult to answer Did you find the make you Did you find the
the questions? questions clear? contemplate? topic interesting?

Chi-
,639 ,000 ,487 ,648
Square

df 1 1 1 1

Asymp.
,424 ,991 ,485 ,421
Sig.

28
3.2.2 Age
The results of the Kruskal Wallis test is presented in table 7. It is found that there are only
significant differences between the groups in answering whether the questionnaire made the
participants contemplate (χ² =8,98, 3 d.f., p < 0,05).

Table 7

Kruskal Wallis Test of Age Differences in Answering the Opinion Questions (n=183)

Did the
Did you find it questionnaire
difficult to answer Did you find the make you Did you find the
the questions? questions clear? contemplate? topic interesting?

Chi-
7,30 5,63 8,98 3,38
Square

df 3 3 3 3

Asymp.
,063 ,131 ,030 ,337
Sig.

Table 8 displays the answers which were given. It can be seen that there is a difference
between the different groups of age. Whereas 53,1% of all people between the ages of 30-54
gave the answer that the questionnaire did not made them contemplate, only 29,9% of the
people between the ages of 18-29 and 33,3% of the people of the ages of 55 and older
answered with “not”.

29
Table 8
Answers of Question 3 (n=183)

Did the questionnaire make you contemplate?

absolutely absolutely
not not in between yes yes

Age 18-29
6,9% 29,9% 18,4% 34,5% 10,3%
(n=86)

30-54
7,8% 53,1% 10,9% 26,6% 1,6%
(n=64)

55+
6,1% 33,3% 15,2% 42,4% 3,0%
(n=33)

Total 7,1% 38,6% 15,2% 33,2% 6,0%

3.2.3 Education

In table 9 the result of the Kruskal Wallis Test is presented. It is found that there are only
significant differences between the groups in making a statement whether the questions were
difficult to answer (χ² =8,35, 3 d.f., p < 0,05).
Table 9
Kruskal Wallis Test of Gender Differences in Answering the Opinion Questions (n=183)

Did the
Did you find it questionnaire
difficult to answer Did you find the make you Did you find the
the questions? questions clear? contemplate? topic interesting?

Chi-Square 8,35 1,44 6,89 3,71

df 3 3 3 3

Asymp.
,039 ,697 ,075 ,295
Sig.

In table 10 it an be seen that although the questions were answered largely identically, the
scope of answering the questions was different. In group 1, the group with the lowest
educational background, answered 58,4% of the people that they had absolutely none to no
problem and 41,4% that they had moderate to immense problems answering the

30
questionnaire. In group 2 (HAVO or VWO education), no one answered that the questionnaire
was absolutely difficult or absolutely easy to answer. Despite this it was answered that 71,4%
had no problem and 28,6% had difficulties filling in the questionnaire. Group 3 (HBO
education) answered with 74,3% that there was absolutely none to no problem. 25,8% rated
the difficulty “in between” and no one had problems or immense problems. Lastly in group 4
(university education) 54,6% had absolutely none to no problem, 9,1% had a problem and
36,4% answered “in between”. These results indicate that people with lower education, LBO,
MAVO, VMBO and university education had the most problems filling in the questionnaire.

Table 10
Answers of Question 1 (n=183)

Did you find it difficult to answer the questions?

absolutely absolutely
not not in between yes yes

Education Lower
group education/LBO/
16,7% 41,7% 33,3% 8,3%
MAVO/VMBO
(n=12)

HAVO/VWO
71,4% 28,6%
(n=7)

HBO
25,8% 48,5% 25,8%
(n=68)

University
16,2% 38,4% 36,4% 9,1%
(n=96)

Total 19,0% 43,5% 31,0% 6,0% 0,5%

3.3 Comments
Initially 52 comments about the questionnaire were made. However, 12 comments referred to
the MHC-SF questionnaires and not to the newly developed questionnaire. These comments
were left out, because they do not have relevance for this study.

31
The difficulties are categorized as follows: Problems with the structure of the questionnaire,
problems with the answer options, problems with the structure of the questions, definition
problems and the length of the questionnaire.

One comment is selected, which shall represent the other comments:

Yes, namely that it was unpractical that there were too many questions and you needed to
scroll, because the answer options can't be seen on the screen anymore. And like always, are
there some questions that you can't answer (e.g. many people that you can trust? Enough
appears to me sufficient).

Here one can see that the structure of the questionnaire (n=10) was criticized. Structural
problems with the questionnaire were that the questionnaire span 45 questions and that these
were displayed once at a time. Participants got confused, because the answer categories could
not be seen anymore in the process of answering the last questions. In order to answer
consciously it was needed to scroll at the beginning of the page, which was regarded as
inconvenient. The questionnaire should be split into multiple sets. Instead of presenting the
whole questionnaire, it is more clear if the questions were arranged into categories and
presented one after another. In this way it is ensured that the participants are not confused by
the answer categories.

Another point that was often mentioned is, that some questions did not apply to all of the
respondents and that the participants therefore had problems with the answer options (n=12).
It would have been useful to integrate the answer category “not applicable”. Because there
was no such category, participants were impelled to make a choice. This determining factor
can impair the reliability of the questionnaire.

Yes, namely... I missed the answer option “not applicable”, why I felt impelled to answer,
although this topic was not applicable.

Another critique point was that the structure of the questions (n=5) was unclear. The problem
was that they were not neatly arranged or overlapped each other. It was argued that the
questions were not arranged in categories and did not have the same structure. Some
statements were formulated in a positive way (“I am content with my neighborhood”) and
some were formulated in a negative way (“People know each other too little in my

32
neighborhood”). Because the answer options were always presented in the same way, from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, participants were needed to think carefully about the
answer they give so that they consciously fill in the questionnaire. According to the
respondents this could contribute to errors. Additionally respondents complained about
overlapping questions. This was also done on purpose. Respondents should not get a notion
what the questions are about, in order to prevent that answers were given too fast. Through
overlapping questions it can be analyzed whether respondents filled in the answers
consciously.

Yes, namely... negative and positive formulated questions are mixed up, why you need to
switch from the right to the left side from the scale and the other way around. This can
increase the chance of errors.

Yes, namely... Some questions overlap each other (question 10 I feel pleasant in my home, I
feel secure in my own home)

Furthermore there were definition problems (n=10). Misunderstandings in the definition of

words made the participants insecure. Especially the term “most important occupation” was
seen as hindering. Either they did not know what to think of, or they were conflicted and did
not know which occupation they should choose. Mostly there was a problem with identifying
the most important occupation in everyday life. For the further development of the
questionnaire it is suggested that the term is defined more precisely. It may have a positive
influence if a criterion like “time exposure” or “most fun” is presented to the participants in
order to help them making a decision what to think of.

Language use seems to be a barrier (.. most important occupation.. this is no common
expression)

My most important occupation is a combination of my work and the parenting of my

children, distribution is approximately 50/50.

Nice questionnaire, but I think it's hard to focus on the most important occupation. It's just
everything that I like to do like work, family, friends, church, etc.

Four respondents criticized the length of the questionnaire (n=4) and that it was very time-
consuming. This can impair their motivation to finish the questionnaire or answer the

33
questions consciously. One of the participants made the suggestion that a progress bar could
be helpful. This may increase motivation to finish the questionnaire.

4 Discussion
This study was conducted in order to construct and evaluate a new questionnaire that assesses
social well-being. First it is discussed to which extend the Social Well-Being Questionnaire is
concurrent valid correlated with the construct of organizational participation. Secondly, the
evaluations of the questionnaire are reviewed.

In order to test the questionnaire on its validity, a set of questions about organizational
participation is integrated. This set is and the seven factors of the Social Well-Being
Questionnaire are investigated with the Spearman Rho Correlation. Therewith the concurrent
validity can be assessed. This procedure was carried out for answering to which extend the
Social Well-Being Questionnaire is concurrent valid correlated with the construct of
organizational participation. In the student population was found that only the factor of
societal participation significantly correlated with the construct of organizational
participation. However, in the MOVISIE population was found that additionally the factors of
neighborhood and neighborhood cohesion and material satisfaction were significantly
correlated to organizational participation. This result does not fully correspond with the
expectations that were made at the beginning at the study, because it suggests that the
concurrent validity of all other dimensions, which are not mentioned, is low. It was expected,
that organizational participation and social well-being have a relation and therefore should
have at least a moderate but significant correlations with all dimensions of the questionnaire.
One reason for this finding could be that the questionnaire does not entirely measure the
construct of social well-being. Keyes (1998) identified five dimensions of social well-being
(social acceptance, social contribution, social actualization, social coherence and social
integration), that are not fully applied to the new questionnaire. It may have been beneficial to
concentrate more on these dimensions instead of the development of new dimensions. The
dimensions that are now integrated can indeed be compared to the dimensions of Keyes, but
with using the original dimensions one would have been confident that these really represent
the construct of social well-being. Now the dimensions of material deprivation and societal
institution are incorporated. However, according to Keyes these dimensions do not appertain

34
to social well-being. This can interfere with the results and therefore with the reliability of the
questionnaire, because it is not proven that the questionnaire really measures social well-
being.

Another reason may be that organizational participation is not as strongly linked to social
exclusion and therefore to social well-being as other constructs (e.g. social participation in
§1.3). Because the study of social well-being and especially the relation of social well-being
and organizational participation is a new field of study, there are no earlier studies found that
confirm or disconfirm this finding.

It is left to say that social exclusion and social well-being have a relation and that this relation
needs to be further studied.

The dimensions that correlate with organizational participation, thus have concurrent validity.
These are societal participation, neighborhood and neighborhood cohesion and material
satisfaction. However, the significance of the results change, when the population differs. In
the student's population a positive correlation, thus concurrent validity, was only found for
societal participation. This result is consistent with the literature. The dimension of societal
participation can be compared to Keyes (1998) dimensions of social contribution and social
integration. It is comprehensible that the more a person has the feeling of belonging to a a
group or community and is aware of one's own social value, the more probable it is that this
person engages in an organization. This finding is confirmed by the the study of Cicognani,
Joshanloo, Keyes, Nosratabadi, Pirini and Rostami (2007). The feeling of belonging is derived
by the “sharing of activities, positive experiences, and a common history, and these processes
occur through membership of social groups, associations, etc.”(Cicognani et al, pp. 13). Thus,
the feeling of belonging (to society/a community), is seen as the driving force in the social
engagement of the youth's in their communities (Cicognani et al, 2007).

Additionally, one can predict adults' and senior's organizational participation by investigating
the intensity of their neighborhood cohesion, societal participation and the extent of material
satisfaction. The same argument that is evident for adolescents, may hold true for adults and
seniors. The more they feel integrated in community (also: neighborhood), the more they long
for social engagement. Interestingly do organizational participation and material deprivation
have a positive correlation, meaning that the more a person is materially satisfied, the more

35
probable is it that this person participates in an organization. In fact, this was expected,
however, by reviewing other literature the opposite can be expected as well.

On the one hand did Jehoel-Gijsbers (2004) identify dimensions of the state of social
exclusion and postulates that material deprivation would contribute to social exclusion. This
fits with the results, that materially satisfied people are more likely to participate in
organizations and thus take part actively in society.

On the other hand it seems logical that the more a person is materially deprived, the more
likely it is that this person is integrated in an organization, seeing that they are searching for
social contacts and support in organizations. This finding is also confirmed in the literature.
Uphoff (2000) argued that “social capital is an accumulation of various types of social,
psychological, cultural, cognitive, institutional, and related assets that increase the amount (or
probability) of mutually beneficial cooperative behavior” (p. 216).

This argument also indicates that organizational participation may not represent the construct
of social exclusion. In order to identify the relation between social exclusion, material
deprivation/satisfaction and organizational participation, further studies need to be conducted.

The second aim was to test the Social Well-Being Questionnaire on the ease of use and to find
out, whether different populations would rate the ease of use of the Social Well-Being
Questionnaire differently.

Four questions at the end of the questionnaire give insight in the opinion of the participants.
These questions were analyzed according to gender, age and education. The questionnaire
was rated not too difficult to answer, clear and interesting. However, it does not made the
participants contemplate. Because the differences were only small and made no great
distinction it is concluded that there are almost no differences in the rating between gender,
the ages or educational level. This indicates, that the questionnaire was rated equally among
the different populations and subgroups. It was stated that the less differences are found
among the groups the more the questionnaire is suitable for a broad population. Making a
questionnaire applicable for a broad population is the final aim in developing a questionnaire.

Besides the already stated questions, the possibility to make a comment at the end of the
questionnaire was given. Major issues were problems with the structure of the questionnaire,

36
problems with the answer options, problems with the structure of the questions, definition
problems and the length of the questionnaire. Seeing that only 52 out of 183 people made
comments and 12 comments did not refer to the Social Well-Being Questionnaire, it can be
concluded that the questionnaire was well perceived. However it needs to be mentioned that
participants shared broad consent in criticizing the questionnaire. ¼ of the comments dealt
with the structure of the questionnaire, ¼ claimed that the answer options were not sufficient
and ¼ had problems with the definition of words. It is likely that many people did not give a
comment, because they wanted to finish the questionnaire quickly. So it is possible that the
comments that were made represent the general evaluation of the questionnaire. Therefore,
this criticism should be taken seriously and the issues should be adapted as described in §3.3.

4.1 Weaknesses, Strengths and Recommendations For Future

Studies
The first point that needs to be discussed is the procedure of finding respondents has both
strength and foibles. Although the potential pool of respondents via internet is high and
everybody has the same chance to participate in the study, the promotion of the questionnaire
needs to be expanded. It is insufficient to upload the link on facebook and other homepages
that are visited by only one type of population. This is why mostly students and respondents
in the social sector participated in this study. So, the sample was not aselect chosen and
therefore only had little diversity in personal backgrounds. For future studies it is suggested
that the promotion of the questionnaire is extended to other sectors and organizations as well.

Another weakness in uploading the questionnaire on the internet is that it cannot be controlled
whether the participants filled in the questionnaire consciously. This can only be maintained
by structuring the questionnaire in a way that makes it probable that participants need to think
consciously over their answers. For this reason, some items were formulated in a similar way,
questions were reversed and mixed-up. This, however, was mentioned to exhaust people.
Furthermore, the possibility to ask questions when facing problems is not fulfilled. For this
reasons it is suggested to let the participants fill in the questionnaire in the presence of a
researcher.

37
Positive was that the evaluations of the questionnaire not only were analyzed quantitatively,
but also qualitatively. By analyzing the evaluations qualitatively, participants can give their
own opinion and do not need to choose on prescribed answer options. Thereby they can
create own categories, which the researcher may not be aware of. By analyzing the data
qualitatively, the evaluations can be studied more in detail.

Finally, with this study, the improvement of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire can be
continued and deepened. Now it is possible to adapt the structure and the questions of the
questionnaire to the needs of the participants, so that more valuable results can be received.
Thereby other factors of social well-being can be investigated and inferences can be drawn for
the social health care and social policy making more in general.

38
5 References
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments
measuring resilience. Issues in comprehensive pediatric nursing, 29(2), 103–125.
doi:10.1080/01460860600677643
Berkman, L. F., & Syme, L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: A nine-
year follow-up study of Alameda county residents. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 109, 186–203.
Bohlmeijer, E. T., Bolier, L., Westerhof, G. J., & Walburg, J. (Eds.). (2013). Handboek
positieve psychologie. Amsterdam: Boom.
CBS-Statline (2012). Regionale kerncijfers Nederland. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70072NED&D1=1-2,10-
11,18-55,57-88&D2=0&D3=9-18&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2&VW=T
CBS-Statline (2012). Zorgrekeningen; uitgaven (in lopende en constante prijzen) en
financiering. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?
DM=SLNL&PA=71914ned&D1=0-36,44-45&D2=0,l&HDR=G1&STB=T&VW=T
Cicognani, E., Joshanloo M., Keyes C., Nosratabadi M., C. & Pirini, Rostami R. (2007).
Social Participation, Sense of Community and Social Well Being: A Study on
American, Italian and Iranian University Students. Springer Science+Business Media
B.V.
Cohen, S. (1988). Psychosocial models of social support in the etiology of physical disease.
Health Psychology, 7, 269–297.
Cohen, S. (2001). Social relationships and health: Berkman & Syme [1979]. Department of
Psycholgy. Paper 244.http://repository.cmu.edu/psychology/244

Cohen, S. (2004). Social Relationships and Health. American Psychologist. (Volume, issue?
November 2004), pp. 676-684
Cohen, S., Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective role
of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 963–973.
de Boer, M.E., van Beek, A.P.A., Gerritsen, D.L. & Wagner, C. (2006). Het vaststellen van
kwaliteit van leven bij cliënten in de ouderenzorg. Utrecht: NIVEL.
Diener E., Sapyta J.J. & Suh E. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being.
Psychol.Inq. 9:33–37
Jehoel-Gijsbers, G. (2004). Sociale Uitsluiting in Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel
planbureau.
Keyes, C. (1998). Social Well-Being. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 2
(Jun. ,1998), pp. 121-140

39
Kienhorst C.W.M., de Wilde E.J., van den Bout J. & Diekstra R.F.W. (1990).
Psychometrische eigenschappen van een aantal zelfrapportage-vragenlijsten over
'(on)welbevinden'. Nederlandse Tijdschrijft voor de Psychologie, 45, 124-133.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55:68–78
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research
on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Reviews Psychol. (2001). 52:141-66
Ryff, C.D. & Keyes C.L.M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69:719–27
Schillinger, D. (2014). Validering van een schaal om sociaal welbevinden te meten.
Universiteit Twente.
Steeger, T. (2014). Hoe is uw sociaal welbevinden? De constructie en validatie van een nieuw
ontwikkelde vragenlijst over het sociaal welbevinden. Universiteit Twente.
Sen, A. (1983). ‘Poor, relativily speaking’. In: Oxford Economic Papers, (35), p. 153-159.
Uphoff, N. (2000). Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience
of participation. In P. Dasgupta, & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted
perspective (pp. 215-49). Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Health Organization (1948). WHO definition of Health. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html.
World Health Organization (2004). Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence,
practice (Summary report). Geneva: WHO.
World Health Organization (2010) Mental health: strengthening our response, Fact sheet
N°220. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/

40
 6 Appendix

1. Dutch end version of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire

2. English end version of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire

3. Dutch version of the Organizational Participation Questions

4. English version of the Organizational Participation Questions

5. Original Comments

6. Informed Consent

41
1. Dutch end version of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire

42
43
 2. English end version of the Social Well-Being Questionnaire

strongly disagree neither agree strongly

disagree agree/ agree
disagree

I feel voidness o o o o o
I'm content with my surrounding o o o o o
I have close contact with my direct o o o o o
neighbors

I feel pleasant in my home o o o o o

I think it's important to be a member of o o o o o
an association

I have sufficient money for a o o o o o

membershop in an association or a club

I know from which organization I can o o o o o

get help if I need it

Because of the law and rules of the o o o o o

government is it possible to live
together

I'm content with my social position o o o o o

I miss people around me o o o o o
I'm content with the relation to my o o o o o
neighbors

People in my neighborhood handle each o o o o o

other in a positive manner

I feel insecure in my own home o o o o o

44
I see myself as a part of society o o o o o
I have sufficient money to visit o o o o o
somebody

I feel understood and heard by welfare o o o o o

organizations (society work, home
health care, mental health care, doctor)

I can trust in the police if I need them o o o o o

I'm content with my current life o o o o o
I gladly participate in activities in my o o o o o
neighborhood

I live in a sociable neighborhood with o o o o o

cohesiveness

I feel insecure on the street and in the o o o o o

surrounding of my house

I sufficiently contribute to society o o o o o

I'm content with my financial situation o o o o o
I get proper help from organizations if I o o o o o
need it

There are enough people on who I can o o o o o

count in the case of inconvenience

My work situation contributes to my o o o o o

well-being

I trust in the people in my surrounding o o o o o

People know each other too less in my o o o o o
surrounding

I find the way in the Dutch communal o o o o o

45
life

I get sufficient help from my friends or o o o o o

family if I need it

I know many people who I can trust o o o o o

entirely

I feel accepted in my neighborhood o o o o o

I'm content with the composition of the o o o o o
population in my neighborhood

I gladly help other people if they need o o o o o

my help

There are enough people with who I feel o o o o o

stongly connected

Other people accept me like I am o o o o o

I gladly have contact with other people o o o o o
via social media (facebook, e-mail)

I gladly spent time with online gaming o o o o o

with other people

I have social contacts who I can trust o o o o o

I often feel forsaken o o o o o

46
3. Organizational Participation

47
 4. English version of the Organizational Participation Questions

no making participated member doing

commitment donations in an voluntary
activity work

a sports club or club for o o o o o

activities out of house

a cultural association or a o o o o o
hobby club

a labor union o o o o o
an enterprise, business or o o o o o
agricultural organization, a
consumer's organization or an
automobile association

an organization for o o o o o
humanitarian help, human
rights, minority groups or
immigrants

an organization for o o o o o
environment protection, peace
or animal rights

a political party o o o o o
a scientific, educational, o o o o o
teacher or parental association

a society; an association for o o o o o

youths, retired people/seniors,
women; club of friends

other organization which you o o o o o

can join voluntarily

a religious or church-based o o o o o
organization

48
other organization o o o o o

5. Original Comments

Door de Duitse nationoliteit te hebben, zijn dingen als even iemand bellen niet echt van
toepassing. Het gaat meer om afspraken maken voor een praatje

Ik nam aan dat welbevinden welzijn betekende, maar dat was me slecht duidelijk.

Er stond bij 1 vraag twee keer hetzelfde antwoord (1/2 keer per week)

meer werken met intervallen, nu was er 1 groot stuk waarin het lezen van de vragen
onoverzichtelijk werd.

misschien woorden als veel, weinig, moeilijk proberen te vermijden omdat deze voor elk
persoon een andere persoon iets anders betekenen.

Deze vragen komen heel raar over als je nog bij je ouders woont..

De vraag hoe vaak ik heb gedacht dat ik ons maatschappij heb begrepen vind ik best wel
moelijk en eigenlijk kon ik helemaaal niks met deze vraag...

Bij de eerste tijdsaanduiding die ik moest geven zat er wel veel verschil tussen eens per
maand en eens per week voor mij. Verder: mooie lijst

Ja namelijk...vooral de laatste vragen over de frequentie van belevingen lastig. Verder zou ik
in de eerste vragen de vraag stellen of mensen een ingrijpend lifeevent hebben meegemaakt.
Een overlijden bv kleurt de hele beantwoording van een vragenlijst.

een voorgangsmeter zou handig zijn

Ja namelijk... Ik miste heel erg de mogelijkheid "enkele keren per maand" en "niet van
toepassing". En ik mis echt vragen over een spirituele kijk op het leven en hoe welbevinden
daarmee samenhangt! (is inmiddels bewezen!) Het hebben van betaald werk
(mijn \'belangrijkste bezigheid\' is niet wat het meest voldoening geeft, dat is mijn spirituele
levensvisie. :-)

Ja namelijk...succes met het onderzoek, ik zou graag de uitkomst ontvangen!

Ja namelijk vertellen hoe veel tijd het van je vraagt om de vragenlijst in te vullen.

Ja namelijk...Wat wordt bedoeld met belangrijkste bezigheid?

49
Vreemde vraag: Door de wetten en regels van de overheid kunnen wij goed samenleven

Twee uitspraken in een vraag: Ik woon in een gezellige buurt met veel samenhorigheid

Niet relevant: Ik kan mijn weg goed vinden in de Nederlandse samenleving

Te abstarct: Ik heb sociale contacten waar ik op kan vertrouwen; Ik ben tevreden met mijn
belangrijkste bezigheid

Lijkt me logisch: Mijn belangrijkste bezigheid heeft veel waarde voor mij

Dubbelop: andere organisaties waarvan u vrijwillig lid kunt worden/een andere organisatie

Ja namelijk...van sommige termen is niet duidelijk hoe je ze moet opvatten, bv de definitie

van mantelzorg. Ik bezoek mijn moeder wekelijks, waak over haar welzijn, verzorg haar
financiën, regel dingen. Is dat gewone dochterliefde of mantelzorg?

Sommige vragen, over hulp krijgen van instanties, kunnen nvt zijn maar die antwoord-optie
ontbreekt. Vragenlijstje met oa hoe vaak per week je denkt dat mensen goed zijn, nogal
onlogisch. Dat denk je niet elke dag of elke maand, dat is meer een atate of mind, denk ik.

Ja namelijk... misschien is het welbevinden ook te scoren met \'rapportcijfers\'. bijvoorbeeld

ik geef mijn dagelijkse hoofdbezigheid een 7 op de schaal van 1-10 betreffende gevoel
welbevinden.

Bij opleidingen mist M.B.O.

Ja namelijk het maken van een keuze tussen belangrijkste bezigheid. Werk en zorg voor
jonge kinderen zijn beiden een belangrijk onderdeel van mijn leven. Daarbij zijn kinderen
ook lid van sportclub, waarbij ik dus ook betrokken ben. Ook mis ik de vraag hoeveel
beschikbare tijd er is voor vrijetijdsbesteding.

Tussen eens per week en eens per maand zit een te groot verschil

Ja namelijk dat het onhandig is dat bij een vraag met veel antwoorden en je dus moet
scrollen, de antwoordcategorieën buiten beeld raken. En zoals altijd zijn sommige vragen
niet te beantwoorden (bv. Veel mensen die je kunt vertrouwen? Voldoende lijkt mij genoeg.)

De vragen staan erg door elkaar, ik zou ze wat meer per catagorie indelen zodat het wat
overzichtelijker wordt.

Ja namelijk, sommige vragen overlappen elkaar (vr 10 prettig in woningen veilig in woning).
sommige vragen staan met een ontkennende vraag, kan lastig zijn. vraag 4 verweduwd? raar
ouderwets woord. sommige vragen zoals die bij sportclubs of kerkgenootschap lidmaatschp

50
staat niet nvt bij zodat ik dan met een neutraal antwoord moet invullen terwijl dat niet klopt.

Ja namelijk...de laatste vragenrij stond de vraag hoe vaak ik het gevoel heb dat de
samenleving steeds beter wordt voor mensen, deze vraag was totaal anders van strekking dan
de andere vragen in de rij, dat vond ik een beetje raar.

Taalgebruik lijkt een barrière (.. belangrijkste bezigheid .. is niet echt een toegankelijk
begrip. Daarnaast zou bij sommige vragen een [niet van toepassing] bij moeten (bijvoorbeel
bij hulpverlening afgelopen tijd -> kwam bij mij niet voor.

Ja namelijk...vraag 12 vind ik niet helemaal logisch, aantal keren per week is niet zo
relevant. Andere lijsten zijn erg lang, en als je onderaan bent weet je soms niet meer of het
linkervakje nou mee eens of mee oneens was, moet je weer omhoog om te kijken.

Ja namelijk...of ik ondanks mijn persoonlijke situatie nog iets meer kan betekenen, en wie
iets meer kunnen betekenen voor mij. Ik heb geen positief beeld over \'de nederlanders\' in
het algemeen, dus houd me afzijdig van de samenleving. Behalve in mijn werk, waar ik knok
voor een positiever beeld van intermenselijke relaties.Met name voor kinderen, met een laag
zelfbeeld en slechte toekomstperspectieven, i.v.m hun achterstand ( allochtoon-zijn). Voor
de rest zoek ik het het wel uit, voor mezelf.

Ja namelijk...Een belangrijk onderdeel van welbevinden is ook gezondheid. Ik mis hier zelfs
1 vraag over

Ja namelijk...vragen soms door elkaar (over buurt en eigen netwerk). doel van de vragenlijst
of interventies bijdragen aan welbevinden lijkt me moeilijk te toetsen

Ja namelijk...Er zijn vragen die niet op mij van toepassing zijn maar nvt was niet aan te
kruizen. De vraag; "hoe vaak denk je aan"... vond ik minder relevant en nauwelijks in te
vullen. Bij sommige vragen miste ik de nuance in de vraag waardoor dezee nauweijks te
beantwoorden was.

het laatste setje vragen vond ik wel erg lastig (met de antwoordmogelijkheden ertussen, wel
niet). Denk ik ook omdat je daar niet echt over na denkt, en nu moet je ineens in cijfers
aangeven hoeveel keer per week ik bv denk dat ik iets bijdraag...lastige vragen, wel
interessant! :) Succes!

Ja namelijk...de vragenlijst kan in 5 minuten ingevuld worden, dus de aankondiging klopt

niet en schrikt misschien mensen af.

Een van de lijsten is veel te lang. Je raakt kwijt waar de bullets ook al weer vor staan.
Goed/minder etc

51
Ja namelijk... Vragenlijst zit goed in elkaar!

Bij vraag 3 is er geen keuze om een MBO opleiding te kiezen. En ik vind dat zozeer niet
onder laag onderwijs vallen.

Ja namelijk...negatief en positief geformuleerde vragen staan door elkaar waardoor je moet

switchen van de rechter naar de linkerkant van de schaal en omgekeerd. Dat kan m.i. de
foutenkans vergroten.

Ja namelijk ik miste de antwoordcategorie niet van toepassing, waardoor ik me soms

verplicht voelde te antwoorden, terwijl het thema niet van toepassing was. Daarnaast vond ik
sommige vragen moeilijk te begrijpen, bijv de vragen over de maatschappij. Nu is het zo dat
ik vanuit mijn werk daar veel mee bezig ben, waardoor ik er meer over weet maar ik vraag
me af of deze vragen voor een leek te begrijpen zijn. De vragen die ik bedoel zijn duidelijk
geschreven door iemand die meer af weet van sociale participatie e.d. en minder afgestemd
op de leek.

Ja namelijk... wat is het uiteindelijke doel van deze vragenlijst? Moet \'t een score opleveren?

Ja namelijk... Soms kon ik wat ik wilde aangeven niet in de antwoordcategoriën kwijt.

Succes verder

Ja namelijk...Geen zin om aan te geven dat ik gescheiden ben, dat hoef ik niet de rest van
mijn leven met me mee te dragen. Ik ben dus ongehuwd! Verder is het handig de
optie: \'alleenstaand met kinderen\' op te nemen, komt nogal eens voor. Tot slot is mijn
belangrijkste bezigheid de combinatie van mijn werk en de opvoeding van mijn kinderen,
verdeling is ongeveer 50/50.

aard van het werk kan van belang zijn bij deze lijst. Ik ben werkzaam in het sociale domein
waardoor ik wellicht andere kennis bezit dan mensen die niet hierin werkzaam zijn. Ook
bepaald dat mijn beeld op de samenleving.

Ja namelijk...ik tel mijn zegeningen en heb het goed getroffen met mijn leefsituatie.

Ja namelijk op dit moment zit ik in me afstudeerperiode waardoor ik weinig contacten ook

aanga. Mijn sociale leven is even gepauzeerd zodat ik me kan focussen. Daarnaast loop ik
stage (HBO Duaal-student), ik weet niet of dat ook hoort bij het deel uitmaken van een
sociale groep? Succes!

Prima vragenlijst, maar vond het lastig te focussen op belangrijkste bezigheid. Het is van
alles wat, wat ik leuk vind, werk, familie, vrienden, kerk enz. Bij vraag 9 zouden meerder
opties mogelijk moeten zijn. Dit lukte niet. Succes met dit project! H.gr. Mirjam

52
Ja namelijk...dat ik bij terugkijken het grootste deel van de antwoorden niet kon bekijken . Er
stond niets ingevuld !

Ja namelijk...bij de lijst met meerdere antwoorden, kon je deze helaas niet geven: "pakt" niet

vraag 12. Antwoorden corresponderen vreemd met de vraag.

Ja namelijk...dat de laatste 4 vragen moeilijk te beantwoorden waren omdat je daar niet

bewust over na denkt maar dat dat automatisch gaat.

Op sommige vragen wou ik met een weet ik niet/niet van toepassing antwoord komen, maar
dit was geen mogelijkheid om aan te vinken

Bij lijst 10 zitten er toch vragen bij die vrijwel identiek zijn, maar net iets anders gesteld.

Ja namelijk... soms veel verschil tussen antwoorden, bijv 1 keer per week of een aantal keer
per maand..

Ja namelijk...er waren een aantal suggestieve vragen, waaronder de laatste vragen over hoe
vaak een bepaald gevoel voor kwam in de afgelopen maand. Deze vragen zijn niet goed
opgesteld en ik had er moeite mee ze te beantwoorden. Wat wil het onderzoek er mee weten?

Ja namelijk...bij punt 5 of 6 was de lijst te lang en moest je nadenken waar het een of ander
stond b.v. eens of oneens.

53
 6. Informed Consent

Beste deelnemer,

Alvast bedankt voor het meedoen aan dit onderzoek. We zijn studenten aan de Universiteit
Twente en zijn op dit moment bezig met onze bachelor in samenwerking met Movisie. Het
doel van ons onderzoek is een nieuwe vragenlijst te ontwikkelen die sociaal welbevinden
meet. De vragen gaan over sociale activiteiten, maatschappelijke participatie en over sociale
integratie.

Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal ongeveer 30 minuten van uw tijd in beslag nemen. Lees de
vragen goed door en geef de antwoorden die voor u het meest van toepassing is. Er zijn geen
goede of foute antwoorden. Vul de vragenlijst in een rustige omgeving in.

De gegevens van het onderzoek zullen anoniem verwerkt worden, zodat de antwoorden niet
meer tot u herleid kunnen worden.

Theresa, Jacky en Diana

Hieronder kunt u aangeven of u akkoord bent om aan het onderzoek deel te nemen. U behoudt
daarbij het recht om op elk moment zonder opgaaf van redenen uw deelname aan dit
onderzoek te beëindigen.

Ik heb bovenstaande tekst gelezen en ga ermee akkoord

54