International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

The Relationship between Students’ Self-esteem, Schoolwork

Difficulties and Subjective School Well-being in Finnish
Upper-secondary Education
Leena Holopainen *, Katariina Waltzer, Nhi Hoang, Kristiina Lappalainen
School of Education and Psychology, Philosophical Faculty, University of Eastern Finland, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study seeks to explore the structure of subjective school well-being (SWB) and the relation
Academic achievement between SWB, self-esteem and experienced schoolwork difficulties and some background vari­
Adolescence ables of academically oriented students in their first year in upper-secondary education. First, the
Subjective school well-being
one-factor model in SWB fitted the data best. Second, the findings from hierarchical regression
Self-esteem
School-work difficulties
analyses indicated that SWB was affected by parents’ income, schoolwork difficulty and self-
esteem. Third, self-esteem was influenced by gender and parents’ income, schoolwork diffi­
culties and SWB. The results suggest that parents’ income has a stronger effect on self-esteem than
well-being, and boys have higher self-esteem than girls. We argue that students’, especially girls’,
self-esteem and SWB need to be strengthened through educational support and psychological
guidance.

1. Introduction

Erikson (1968) defines adolescence as a period of’ role confusion against developing identity. During this period, adolescents
search for new roles that may help them to discover their sexual, social and professional identities, and they try to clarify their values,
beliefs and direction in life (Vernon & Schimmel, 2004). As adolescents develop physically and intellectually, their conception of
competences and subjective well-being is shaped by the comparisons they make between themselves and others (Brizio, Gabbatore,
Tirassa, & Bosco, 2015; Burden, 2008). Changing social contexts, for example, entering a new school environment with new orga­
nisation, new teachers and a new set of peers, requires further adaptation of one’s psycho-social behaviour (Eccles & Roeser, 2011;
Kiuru et al., 2020; Verhoeven, Poorthuis, & Volman, 2019). Moreover, behavioural and social models that have been acceptable in
previous contexts might be inappropriate or at least different in a new one (Holopainen, Lappalainen, Junttila, & Savolainen, 2012).
The most problematic in this change seems to be a lack of fit between adolescents’ needs and their environments (Eccles & Midgley,
1989). Undesirable effects of this lack of fit have presented as declines in academic achievement, lower self-esteem and subjective
well-being, and stress (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993; Gariepy, Elgar, Sentenac, & Barrington-Leigh, 2017).
In the present study, all participants have spent eight months in academically demanding upper-secondary education prior to data
collection. It is crucial to know how this new educational context – the academic track – affects students’ self-esteem, subjective school well-
being (SWB) and levels of academic achievement. Consequently, this this study examined the relationship between students’ self-reported
schoolwork difficulties, self-esteem and SWB, and the role of parents’ education and income as well as students’ gender in this relationship .

* Corresponding author at: Philosophical Faculty, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Holopainen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101688
Received 1 July 2020; Received in revised form 21 September 2020; Accepted 22 September 2020
Available online 5 October 2020
0883-0355/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

1.1. Adolescents’ Subjective Well-being (SWB) in School

For some adolescents, changes during adolescence can promote positive growth and adjustment. For others, these changes
negatively affect self-esteem and mental health (Bongers, Koot, Van Der Ende, & Verhulst, 2004). According to stage–environment fit
theory (Eccles & Midgley, 1989), the transitional nature of adolescence results from the relation between changes in adolescents’
developmental needs and changes in their social contexts. From a stage–environment fit perspective, adolescents whose environments
do not respond to their changing needs are more likely to experience difficulties and negative outcomes (Hill & Wang, 2015).
We base our theoretical concept of well-being in school on the School Well-Being Profile (SWBP) (Konu & Rimpelä, 2002), which is
a tool used to measure well-being in a school context. The profile has its basis in Allardt’s (1976) sociological well-being model, which
suggests that three independent factors – having, loving and being (school conditions, social relationships and means for
self-fulfilment) – construct well-being, and each of them can be measured both objectively and subjectively. The having dimension
consists of the material resources and the context of the school. Loving refers to social relationships and needs, and being refers to the
needs for personal growth and integration into society (Konu & Rimpelä, 2002.) We concentrate on social relationships and means for
self-fulfilment that can be theoretically connected to a strong international body of research on SWB (see Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh,
Lucas, & Smith, 1999). SWB is considered equal to life satisfaction, optimism and quality of life, which all focus on positive elements
associated with mental and physical health (Fröjd et al., 2008; Nes, Røysamb, Tambs, Harris, & Reichborn-Kjennerud, 2006). Yet, SWB
includes both a positive and a negative effect. The positive affect consists of pleasant emotions and the negative affect refers to the
absence of unpleasant emotions. The critical component is a person’s own judgement about satisfaction within these circumstances
(Diener et al., 1999; Yang, Wang, Li, Teng, & Ren, 2008).
Causes and consequences of SWB have drawn attention among researchers in the area. The notion that SWB has several correlates
that have been proposed to be its causes leads to the idea that causes and consequences are not easy to demerge and some phenomena
could be both cause and consequence (Headey & Wearing, 1991). Diener (1984) distinguished bottom-up and top-down theories of
SWB, which explain the meaning of SWB in two different ways (Fig. 1). Bottom-up theories suggest that SWB is a result of pleasant and
unpleasant affects in different domains of life. Top-down theories present SWB as a subjective, individual way of reacting and giving
meaning to events in the domains of life (Brief, Butcher, George, & Link, 1993; Diener, 1984; Headey & Wearing, 1991). Variables
treated as correlates of SWB are domain satisfaction, social support, major life events and reference standards. Reference standards
include factors such as expectations, aspirations and a sense of equity (Headey & Wearing, 1991). In this article we will consider the
relationship between SWB and self-esteem through an integrated model of SWB, where self-esteem is seen as a cause and consequence
of SWB as described in Fig. 1. Self-esteem and difficulties in schoolwork are placed in ‘reference standards’.
SWB is shown to be quite stable for long periods of life. SWB may change in response to immediate life events, but it eventually
returns to its original level (Diener, 1984). Over 50% of person’s tendency to react positively and almost 50% of the tendency to react
negatively in different events can be explained by genes (Tellegen, 1988).

Fig. 1. Integrated model of bottom-up and top-down theories of SWB.

2
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

Genetic factors explain more than 50% of logical, psychological and social changes that take place in a person’s life. The continuity
of genetic factors as well as stability of individual differences in experiencing SWB are noteworthy when considering those changes
(Nes et al., 2006). Adolescent SWB is influenced by self-esteem and expectations towards oneself, as well as by family support and
family functioning. This makes SWB during youth a complex phenomenon (Baril, Crouter, & McHale, 2007; Bergman & Scott, 2001).
When it comes to the development of social skills and community responsibility, school is an essential context for youth to develop
these skills (Puolakka, Haapasalo-Pesu, Konu, Åstedt-Kurki, & Paavilainen, 2014). The SWBP was developed to pay attention to school
as a community, not just a group of individuals (Konu & Lintonen, 2019). Schools are the main setting for interventions to reduce
inequalities among children and youth due to their capability to reach the whole cohort (Konu & Rimpelä, 2002; Moore et al., 2015).
School characteristics, however, have been shown to impact different students in different ways. For example, students with high
achievement motivation can gain experience of SWB from teaching that fosters creativity, while the level of SWB experienced by their
peers with low achievement motivation decreases in the similar conditions (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2010). SWB of youth in school
seems to be connected to family socio-economic status (SES) more than to school-related factors. Students from lower SES families
tended to have fewer positive relations with their teachers than their peers from higher SES families. This implies that the low SES
students felt they could not trust their teachers, and they did not feel the teachers cared about them (Moore et al., 2017). Statistically,
the biggest health issues among schoolchildren are related to mental health. Internationally, the estimated occurrence of mental health
disorders in adolescents ranges from 10% to 30%. The most important teenage mental health issues are depression, substance use,
disturbances of attention and eating disorders (Puolakka et al., 2014).

1.2. Self-Esteem and Schoolwork Difficulties related to SWB in Adolescents

Self-esteem refers to the extent to which individuals like, value, accept and respect themselves at a general (global) level
(Rosenberg, 1989). Self-esteem may begin to take shape in childhood, but it can continue to change and develop throughout life
(Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002). Self-esteem develops out of the extent to which a person experiences success and failure in their
life, from the value that is attributed to the activities at which they succeed or fail, and the responses they get from parents, teachers,
peers and other people about their performance (Lian & Yusoof, 2009). Researchers have found that self-esteem – defined as a person’s
sense of self-worth – is closely associated with SWB and a number of other adaptive outcomes. Positive mental health, such as the life
satisfaction and well-being of an individual, is strongly predicted by self-esteem (Lehtinen, Räikkönen, Heinonen, Raitakari, & Kel­
tikangas-Järvinen, 2006; Mann, Hosman, Schaalma, & de Vries, 2004; Wang & Fowler, 2019). Thus, without higher self-esteem,
stressors accumulated in life can overwhelm an individual’s available coping resources to support mental health (Crabtree & Rut­
land, 2001; Taylor & Stanton, 2007). McClure, Tanski, Kingsbury, Gerrard, and Sargent (2010)) carried out a study in the United States
with a large national sample of young adolescents aged 12–16. Their findings confirm that there are a number of psychological,
physical and social risk factors associated with low self-esteem, but also that there are a number of potentially modifiable factors
protecting higher self-esteem.
Previous research has the found that high self-esteem is also associated with educational achievement (e.g. Marsh, Byrne, & Yeung,
1999). Thus, this association is not self-evident as the results by Peixoto and Almeida (2010) and Alves-Martins, Peixoto,
Gouveia-Pereira, Amaral, and Pedro (2002)) show that there are significant differences between the self-esteem of high and low
achieving students in the seventh grade, but such differences disappear in later grades. Similarly, in a German study, Trautwein,
Lüdtke, Köller, and Baumert (2006)) found that academic self-concept at seventh grade significantly predicted school achievement at
ninth grade, and school achievement at seventh grade significantly predicted mathematics self-concept at ninth grade. However, they
did not find a reciprocal relationship between general self-esteem and academic achievement and conclude that a lowering of the
academic self-concept may represent a threat to self-esteem if the academic field is valued by the person. In addition, students with
high self-esteem may set higher aspirations for their studies than people with low self-esteem. They may also be more willing to persist
in the face of initial failure and less likely to submit to feelings of incompetence and self-doubt (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, &
Vohs, 2003).
One aspect in the relation between self-esteem and educational achievement in a new school context is the theory of the big-
fish–little-pond effect (BFLPE) by Marsh and Parker (1984). It contends that equally able students have lower academic self-concepts
when attending schools where the average ability levels of classmates are high, and higher self-concept when attending schools where
their classmates’ average ability is low. In our study, most students in the academic track have received good grades in basic education
and often they have to be among the best achievers in their classes. One limitation of this study is that we do not have student data from
basic education, over the transition from basic education. When students had started new schools and have to make new comparisons
between themselves and others as ‘good achievers’, it may affect their self-esteem, according to BFLPE theory.
Gender patterns have often been investigated within students’ self-esteem and well-being studies. Moksnes and Espnes (2013)
investigated gender differences on life satisfaction and self-esteem, as well as the association between self-esteem and life satisfaction,
in Norwegian adolescents aged 13–18 years. The results showed that boys scored higher than girls on both self-esteem and life
satisfaction. In a longitudinal study in the U.S., girls were recruited at ages nine and 10 years in the study and followed to age 22. The
results showed that higher self-esteem was related to more positive outcomes generally (e.g., academic achievement, social re­
lationships), whilst lower self-esteem was related to more harmful outcomes (Biro, Striegel-Moore, Franko, Padgett, & Bean, 2006). In
addition, Ireson, Hallam, and Plewis (2001)) found that males demonstrate a closer relationship between self-esteem and academic
performance. Moreover, a meta-analysis investigating self-esteem research in Western industrialised countries has found that
adolescent girls’ self-esteem is generally moderately lower than boys’ self-esteem and that this difference is greatest around 16 years of
age (Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999). Quatman and Watson (2001) also found that boys demonstrate a slightly higher level of

3
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

self-esteem than girls, but that this is unrelated to grade level during adolescence, whereas Baldwin and Hoffmann (2002) found
gender effects to be strongest for younger rather than older adolescents. Moreover, Derdikman-Eiron et al. (2011) found that boys had
stronger connections between qualities like self-esteem and SWB and symptoms of anxiety and depression than girls. To sum up, the
relation between gender, self-esteem and SWB is not very clear.
In upper-secondary and higher education, as academic demands and learning expectations and requirements increase, students may
encounter many schoolwork difficulties (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008). Students might experience significant
difficulty adjusting to the academic tasks required, such as taking lecture notes, writing essays, synthesising course material for exam­
inations and comprehending complex, lengthy texts (Simmons & Singleton, 2000). Difficulties in these fundamental skills may worsen
academic achievement, and through deterioration of academic achievement, schoolwork difficulties may contribute to lowered
self-esteem or well-being. Humphray (2002) found that there were both individual and social variables contributing significantly to
self-esteem for students with difficulties in learning. On the other hand, protective factors have an important role to play when risk factors
like schoolwork difficulties are present, because an individual can build resilience that helps them overcome the difficulties they face
(Davis, Nida, Zlomke, & Nebel-Schwalm, 2009; Jenson & Fraser, 2011). This may also explain the finding that in adolescence there is no
direct evidence that people with difficulties in learning would have poorer well-being (Mahoney-Davies, Dixon, Tynan, & Mann, 2017).
Finnish students, after basic education (at about age 16) apply to upper-secondary education, which is divided between vocational
education and upper-general education (hereafter, the academic track). Assignment to upper-secondary education is based primarily
on students’ grade point average from the last year of basic education. The academic track takes a minimum of three years and a
maximum of four years to complete (Finnish National Board for Education, 2015) and gives graduates eligibility to apply to poly­
technic institutions or universities. The Act on General Upper Secondary Education (2019) offers both social and academic support to
all students on the academic track. Students with schoolwork difficulties are provided with support for learning by special-needs
education teachers and other teaching personnel. Support for social and psychological problems is provided by, for example,
school social workers, school nurses and psychologists (Ministry of Education & Culture, 2018).
One interesting question is the role of parents’ socio-economic status in students’ self-esteem and SWB. As Ryan and Deci (2000)
stated, young people’s own access to financial resources promotes opportunities for activities that they perceive meaningful, relevant
and enjoyable. This may be seen as leading to greater SWB through more autonomous and intrinsically motivated choices and
behaviour. Jangra and Balda (2018) studied both the personally perceived and socially perceived self-esteem of adolescents and found
that both were positively correlated with parental education and family income. It has also been found that in high-income families
several contextual factors, such as more opportunities and resources to express oneself through social contacts, better health, less stress
and low likelihood of violent occurrence, support SWB during youth (Gariepy et al., 2017).

2. This Study

In this study, we investigated self-esteem and SWB in Finnish upper-secondary education students, who study, in the academic
track, and relationship between self-esteem, SWB and self-reported schoolwork difficulties, as well as between self-esteem, SWB and
students’ gender and parents’ income and education. Specifically, the study aimed to address the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What is the structure of SWB measured by the School Well-Being Profile (SWBP) in the Finnish upper-
secondary education academic track?
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between students’ self-esteem, schoolwork difficulties and SWB?
Research Question 3: To what extent do students’ gender and parents’ income and education affect these relationships?

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

The data in this study were drawn from a larger longitudinal research-based development project ‘Pathway to supported and
holistic career counselling in upper secondary school’ (2018–2021) conducted in six upper-secondary education schools in Eastern
Finland, including both urban and rural schools. The students’ (N = 464, female = 243, male = 214, other = 6) questionnaires were
administrated to them at the end of their first year in upper-secondary education (April–May 2019). In Finland, first year upper-
secondary students are about 16 years old. Data collection was conducted during the school day by project staff using electronic
forms and was organised as a group event (either small or bigger groups ranging from 18 to 130 participants at a time). Before
answering the questionnaire, the project staff explained to the participants the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of partic­
ipation in the study and the anonymisation of the answers in data analyses. Participants’ own mobile phones and laptops were used in
answering. Permission for the project was requested from city education leaders and school principals. Parents were informed about
the study.

3.2. Measurement

Subjective well-being in school: Two dimensions of the SWBP were adopted, social relations and means for self-fulfilment. Social
relations were measured by 11 items (e.g., The teachers in our school are friendly. I have friends in my school.) and self-fulfilment by
17 items (e.g., I can study subjects that I’m interested in. Teachers pay attention to my opinions on matters). All the items were rated
using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I totally agree) to 4 (I totally disagree).

4
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

Self-esteem: Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale was used to assess global self-esteem. The scale comprises 10 items with state­
ments reflecting general self-acceptance, self-respect, and overall attitude toward oneself (e.g., ‘I think I have many good qualities’).
Participants rated the items using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I totally disagree) to 7 (I totally agree). The reliability
score was .885.
Self-reported schoolwork difficulties: Self-reported schoolwork difficulties were elicited by a questionnaire. All participants were
asked if they had experienced difficulties in different kinds of activities during lessons (e.g. taking notes, understanding teachers’
instructions, making reports, preparing for exams) on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). The reliability of schoolwork
difficulties was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha .879).
Control variables: Students’ gender (1 = girl, 2 = boy), parents’ education (1 = no further education after basic education, 5 =
university) and students’ self-reported family income (1 = poor income, 10 = excellent income) were used as control variables in the
analyses.

3.3. Data analysis strategies

For the first research question, based on a theoretical framework (Allardt, 1976; Konu & Rimpelä, 2002) and previous studies (Konu
& Koivisto, 2011; Konu, Alanen, Lintonen, & Rimpelä, 2002), we used confirmatory factor analysis to determine the best structure of
SWPB to fit to the data. The fit of the model was determined by four goodness-of-fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardised root mean square residual
(SRMR). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the recommended cut-off values for a well-fitting model are closed to .90 (for CFI and
TLI) and below .08 (for RMSEA and SRMR).

Fig. 2. The structure of SWBP measurement.

Table 1
Model Fit Indices of CFA models for SWBP.
Global fit indices

Estimating model Chi-Square test of model fit

CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
df x2 p

1F model 1 405 2216.03 .00 .65 .63 .10 .08

1F model 2 392 1130.96 .00 .86 .84 .07 .06
1F model 3 337 982.49 .00 .87 .85 .07 .06
1F model 4 334 859.10 .00 .89 .88 .06 .06
1F model 5 331 787.84 .00 .91 .89 .06 .06
2F model 1 404 2058.09 .00 .68 .66 .10 .08
2F model 2 397 1269.79 .00 .83 .82 .07 .07

5
 L. Holopainen et al.
Table 2
Correlation among SWBP items.
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K 10 K 11 K 12 K 14 K 15 K 16 K 17 K 18 K 19 K 20 K 21 K 22 K 23 K 24 K 25 K 26 K 27 K 28
K 2 .63**
K 3 .56** .57**
K 4 .56** .61** .84**
K 5 .42** .37** .45** .47**
K 6 .24** .32** .30** .32** .29**
K 7 .32** .34** .31** .32** .26** .39**
K 8 .33** .39** .36** .38** .27** .39** .65**
K 9 .37** .42** .33** .37** .29** .44** .63** .72**
K 10 .24** .38** .30** .34** .20** .52** .39** .41** .47**
K 11 .32** .36** .28** .33** .23** .50** .46** .49** .50** .65**
K 12 .27** .29** .22** .24** .21** .34** .28** .32** .34** .36** .53**
K 14 .31** .35** .36** .40** .38** .30** .36** .40** .35** .27** .36** .38**
K 15 .39** .38** .38** .43** .35** .32** .50** .46** .49** .33** .40** .36** .59**
6

K 16 .34** .35** .32** .35** .30** .31** .52** .40** .44** .32** .34** .29** .47** .63**
K 17 .27** .28** .33** .36** .32** .19** .21** .24** .24** .19** .18** .25** .36** .37** .42**
K 18 .22** .38** .29** .32** .22** .32** .36** .44** .43** .47** .49** .34** .34** .33** .33** .24**
K 19 .25** .42** .32** .29** .26** .31** .31** .36** .35** .32** .37** .28** .30** .28** .27** .19** .54**
K 20 .29** .38** .31** .31** .28** .34** .37** .44** .43** .34** .40** .32** .35** .38** .40** .27** .47** .61**
K 21 .24** .33** .27** .30** .26** .24** .29** .36** .33** .31** .35** .36** .42** .38** .32** .24** .47** .65** .58**

International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

K 22 .31** .40** .34** .35** .25** .42** .48** .54** .52** .41** .44** .41** .40** .52** .46** .33** .52** .48** .49** .55**
K 23 .24** .34** .30** .33** .27** .39** .39** .40** .41** .35** .36** .37** .36** .45** .37** .31** .39** .37** .40** .49** .74**
K 24 .27** .33** .31** .34** .29** .329** .39** .41** .43** .31** .35** .41** .40** .47** .41** .35** .39** .33** .41** .48** .69** .84**
K 25 .36** .38** .37** .39** .38** .32** .47** .48** .51** .33** .41** .36** .60** .55** .49** .37** .38** .34** .42** .43** .57** .53** .57**
K 26 .30** .30** .36** .36** .33** .22** .29** .31** .36** .33** .35** .39** .57** .47** .42** .37** .34** .32** .31** .45** .43** .36** .39** .56**
K 27 .20** .24** .24** .24** .29** .21** .27** .25** .22** .11* .20** .36** .42** .38** .33** .35** .21** .29** .34** .40** .34** .29** .33** .41** .42**
K 28 .22** .27** .22** .23** .21** .19** .31** .33** .32** .24** .32** .30** .33** .38** .36** .25** .32** .36** .43** .45** .41** .34** .32** .37** .34** .57**
K 29 .26** .36** .25** .27** .16** .32** .36** .44** .40** .38** .34** .30** .29** .33** .36** .24** .45** .41** .45** .40** .49** .38** .37** .39** .35** .30** .37**

Note: ** p < . 0.01, * p < 0.05

L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

Table 3
Impacts of gender, parents’ education and income, and schoolwork difficulties on SWB.
Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients
Model t Sig. F Adjusted R2
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 93,68 4,11 22,79 0,00

Gender 2,01 1,22 0,09 1,64 0,10
1 4.42** .03
Parents’ education − 0,39 0,32 − 0,07 − 1,24 0,22
Income 1,37 0,43 0,17 3,20 0,00
(Constant) 101,20 4,33 23,36 0,00
Gender 1,59 1,19 0,07 1,34 0,18
2 Parents’ education − 0,33 0,31 − 0,06 − 1,08 0,28 20.23*** .08
Income 1,17 0,42 0,15 2,80 0,01
Schoolwork difficulties − 0,27 0,06 − 0,24 − 4,50 0,00
(Constant) 97,38 4,67 20,84 0,00
Gender 0,82 1,24 0,04 0,66 0,51
Parents’ education − 0,30 0,31 − 0,05 − 0,96 0,34
3 4.47* .09
Income 0,94 0,43 0,12 2,19 0,03
Schoolwork difficulties − 0,24 0,06 − 0,21 − 3,89 0,00
Self-esteem 0,12 0,06 0,12 2,11 0,04
(Constant) 86,61 9,63 8,99 0,00
Gender 1,06 1,24 0,05 0,85 0,39
Parents’ education − 0,41 0,32 − 0,07 − 1,30 0,20
Income 0,85 0,44 0,11 1,95 0,05
4 3.29* .10
Schoolwork difficulties − 0,24 0,06 − 0,21 − 3,89 0,00
Self-esteem 0,36 0,16 0,38 2,20 0,03
Gender x self-esteem − 0,18 0,10 − 0,30 − 1,72 0,09
Parents’ education and income x self-esteem 0,03 0,02 0,10 1,81 0,07
***
p < 0.001
**
p < 0.01
*
p < 0.05

Table 4
Impacts of gender, parents’ education and income, and schoolwork difficulties on self-esteem.
Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients
Model t Sig. F Adjusted R2
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 25,19 4,04 6,24 0,00

Gender 7,03 1,2 0,3 5,85 0,00
1 20.18*** .15
Parents’ education − 0,37 0,31 − 0,06 − 1,19 0,24
Income 2,13 0,42 0,26 5,08 0,00
(Constant) 32,53 4,26 7,64 0,00
Gender 6,62 1,17 0,28 5,65 0,00
2 Parents’ education − 0,31 0,3 − 0,05 − 1,03 0,30 19.96*** .19
Income 1,94 0,41 0,24 4,72 0,00
Schoolwork difficulties − 0,27 0,06 − 0,22 − 4,47 0,00
(Constant) 21,07 6,88 3,06 0,00
Gender 6,44 1,17 0,27 5,51 0,00
Parents’ education − 0,28 0,3 − 0,05 − 0,91 0,36
3 4.47* .20
Income 1,8 0,41 0,22 4,37 0,00
Schoolwork difficulties − 0,24 0,06 − 0,20 − 3,86 0,00
SWB 0,11 0,05 0,11 2,11 0,04
***
p < 0.001
*
p < 0.05

For the second research question, we performed correlation analysis to examine the relationships between students’ self-esteem,
schoolwork difficulties and SWB.
For the third research question, in order to investigate the roles of gender and parents’ education and income in self-esteem, SWB,
and schoolwork difficulties, we applied hierarchical multiple regression analysis. We also examined the interaction effects of gender x
self-esteem in relation to SWB. The hierarchical multiple regression analysis included four steps: (1) gender, parents’ education and
income; (2) schoolwork difficulties; (3) self-esteem; and (4) gender x esteem and parents’ education and income x self-esteem. Before
performing the analysis, we took away the students who marked genders other than male (code 2) and female (code 1) in the gender
variable, because the number of students who had another gender (code 3) was very few. Then we computed two new interaction
variables: gender x self-esteem and parents’ education and income x self-esteem. The variables were centred before computing the
interaction variables.

7
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

4. Results

4.1. Factor Structure of SWB School Well-being Measurement

Based on the theoretical framework and previous studies, we tested the one-factor and two-factor structures of SWB to find the best-
fit structure for the data. The results of the first attempt of the one-factor CFA model with 30 items did not fit the data well. After
checking the modification indices, we correlated the residuals of item 3 with items 1 and 2; the residuals of item 4 with items 1, 2, and
3; the residuals of item 8 with item 9; the residuals of item 10 with item 11; the residuals of item 19 with items 20 and 21, residuals of
item 23 with items 22 and 24; and the residuals of item 27 with item 28. The results of the second attempt showed that the model had
been improved; however, it still did not yet fit the data. After checking the modification indices and factor loadings of the models, we
deleted items 13 and 30, due to the poor loadings. This improved the model, but it still did not yet fit the data. We continued checking
the modification indices and correlated the residuals of item 11 with item 12; the residuals of item 20 with item 21, and the residuals of
item 22 with item 24, after which the model was better but still did not fit the data well. We checked the modification indices for a fifth
time, and correlated the residuals of item 9 with item 7; the residuals of item 6 with item 10; and residuals of item 18 with item 19. This
time, three (CFI, RMSEA, SRMR) out of four criteria showed that the model fit the data.
We continued testing the two-factor model of SWBP with factor one, social relationships, including items 1 to 13, and factor two,
self-fulfilment, including items 14 to 30. The results showed that the model did not fit the data and the correlation between two factors
was high (r = .85). Therefore, the one-factor model was the better structure (Fig. 2).
After identifying the structure of SWBP, we calculated the internal consistency reliability of SWBP. Cronbach’s alpha of one-factor
structure SWBP with 28 items was high (α = .91). Correlations among the SWB items are shown in Table 2. All the items were positively
and significantly correlated to each other, with correlation values ranging from .11 (between item 27 and item 10) to .84 (between
item 23 and item 24) (Table 1, Fig. 2).

4.2. Relationships Between Students’ Self-esteem, Learning Difficulties and SWB

The results of the correlation and regression analysis showed that SWB and self-esteem were positively correlated to each other (r =
.32, p < .001). Students who had higher self-esteem, also had higher SWB and vice versa. The results also showed that students who
had difficulties in schoolwork, had lower self-esteem (r = -.35, p < .001). and lower SWB (r = -.39, p < .001).

4.3. The Role of Gender and Parents’ Income and Education

The hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that parents’ education was not significantly associated to SWB and self-
esteem. Gender had significant impact on self-esteem but not on SWB. Parents’ income and schoolwork difficulties significantly
affected both students’ self-esteem and SWB. The interaction variables of gender x self-esteem and education and income x self-esteem
did not show significant impacts on students’ SWB.
According to the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, gender and parents’ education and income explained 15.3% of variance
in self-esteem with F (3, 334) = 20.18, p < .001, and 3.8% of variance in SWB with F (3, 334) = 4.42, p < .01. Schoolwork difficulty
explained 4.8% of the variance in self-esteem with F (1, 333) = 19.96, p < .001 and 5.5% of the variance in SWB with F (1, 332) =
20.22, p < .001. SWB and self-esteem significantly affected each other. SWB accounted for 1.1% of the variance in self-esteem with F
(1, 332) = 4.47, p < .05, while self-esteem explained 1.2% of the variance in SWB with F (1, 332) = 4.47, p < .05. The interaction
variables of gender x self-esteem and education and income x self-esteem explained only 1.8% of the variance in SWB with F (2, 330) =
3.29, p < .05. The correlations among the predictors were weak to moderate (see Table 5), indicating that multicollinearity was
unlikely to be a problem (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 5
Means, standard deviations and correlations for all variables.
Mean S.D. SWB Gender Parents’ Income Schoolwork Self- Gender x self-
education difficulties esteem esteem

SWB 104.32 12.51

Gender 1.47 0.50 .06
Parents’ education 6.63 1.95 -.03 .11*
Income 8.08 1.55 .24** .02 .18**
Schoolwork difficulties 21.28 10.02 -.38 -.13** .01 -.13**
**
Self-esteem 49.82 12.35 .30** .28** -.01 .28** -.34**
Gender x self-esteem 1.94 19.58 .26** .27** .02 .27** -.31** .95**
Parents’ education, income x − 1.17 40.53 .16** .08 .28** .29** -.07 .22** .20**
self-esteem
**
p < 0.01
*
p < 0.05

8
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

5. Discussion

We wanted to explore the structure of SWBP by using exploratory factor analysis, and to determine the best structure fit to the data
we used confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed that the one-factor model had the best structure. In this study, adjustment to
the upper-secondary education academic track was operationalised by measuring students’ SWB, self-esteem and self-reported
schoolwork difficulties. As has been shown also in previous studies (Konu & Rimpelä, 2002; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2010),
students who had higher self-esteem, also had higher SWB and vice versa but self-esteem was shown to have more effect on SWB than
other way round. Moreover, students who had difficulties in schoolwork had lower SWB and self-esteem. In addition, the results of
hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that parents’ income, but not education, and difficulties in schoolwork significantly
affected both students’ self-esteem and SWB, pointing out the role of families in students’ schoolwork. And finally, students’ gender
had significant impact on self-esteem but not on SWB; girls especially seem to have lower self-esteem. Based on our results we cannot
make strong interpretation for either bottom-up or top-down theories (Headey & Wearing, 1991).
We found the one-factor model of the SWBP best to describe the SWB of students in the upper-secondary academic track. This
collection of 28 items consists of two factors in the original survey carried out in basic education schools (Konu & Rimpelä, 2002). The
strong correlation between the experience of school-related social relations and means for self-fulfilment is characteristic in this data,
and there is a difference compared to surveys conducted in comprehensive schools. In the Finnish school system, pupils have to choose
between academic and occupational education at the age of 16, and our research is conducted among those who chose the academic
track. The academic track does not offer the students any kind of profession but is meant to lead into higher educational studies that
last for several years. Choosing the academic track might reflect high-level commitment or high expectations to education and at least
valuation of academic education which could be seen as a coherent experience of SWB among these adolescents. The academic track in
Finland requires good performance already in comprehensive school. This might be part of the explanation for the high and coherent
SWB measured in this group .
When the data for this study were collected, the students had studied in the new upper-secondary academic track for about eight
months. In lower school levels, most participants had been among the best achievers in their classes. If educational achievement also in
this new social context has been successful, it probably had no lowering effect on students’ self-esteem or feelings of competence
(Baumeister et al., 2003; Marsh & Parker, 1984). On the other hand, most students want to achieve good grades, and especially in the
academic track of upper-secondary education, students can place even higher expectations on themselves than they did in basic ed­
ucation, as after three years they will have their final examination, the Finnish Matriculation Examination. In Finland, as in many other
countries, many universities and universities of applied sciences select their students based on the grades achieved in the final ex­
amination of upper-secondary education. This causes competition between the students, which gives rise to stress. Higher self-esteem
can help students to put coping resources into action to avoid stress and negative effects on mental health (Taylor & Stanton, 2007).
This was seen in the present study as students who had higher self-esteem, also had higher SWB and vice versa. Also, previous studies
have shown that global self-concept has been the most powerful personal factor of life satisfaction (Delfabbro et al., 2018; Diener &
Diener, 1995; Diener et al., 1999).
Gender patterns have often been investigated within students’ self-esteem and SWB studies. Our hierarchical multiple regression
analysis found that the gender had a significant effect on self-esteem to the extent that if a student was a boy, he had higher self-esteem
than a girl. This aligns with the results of a Norwegian study in which boys scored higher than girls on both self-esteem and life
satisfaction (Moksnes & Espnes, 2013). The same result was seen also in a meta-analysis investigating self-esteem research in Western
industrialised countries (Kling et al., 1999) and in Quatman and Watson (2001) study, where boys demonstrated a slightly higher level
of self-esteem than girls. On the other hand, a study by Derdikman-Eiron et al. (2011) found that boys had lower psychosocial
functioning than girls.
As academic demands and learning expectations increase in upper-secondary education, students can encounter many schoolwork
difficulties (Berninger et al., 2008). The results of our study showed that these difficulties contributed to lowered self-esteem and SWB,
as the study by Humphray (2002) also showed. Many of the researchers (e.g. Huang, 2011; Marsh & Craven, 2006) currently support a
“reciprocal effects” model in which self-esteem and academic achievement are viewed as a reciprocal influence. Poor performance in
academics represents a lack of mastery over the academic tasks and generate a negative perception of one’s abilities, which leads to a
negative view of self. In contrast, high achievers get appraisal and positive feedback in school which enhances positive self-esteem.
When students face problems in schoolwork and learning, it is important to give them immediate support and assistance in order to
overcome difficulties and to see their strengths (Jenson & Fraser, 2011; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Nowadays, schools are conceived as the
ideal setting not only for developing learning and educational processes, but also for promoting mechanisms of learning skills,
resilience, self-esteem and psychological well-being (Gillham et al., 2007; Tian, Liu, Huang, & Huebner, 2013).
In Finland, assistance that focuses on learning difficulties, supporting learning skills and well-being is also available in upper-
secondary education. The findings of our study highlight the importance of psychological, counselling and educational support in
schools. These supports facilitate the early identification of and intervention in school-work and psychological problems before they
impede the optimal development of students. In addition, the results by Kiuru et al. (2020) suggest that promoting learning outcomes
and helping adolescents with challenges during educational transitions is a critical part of supporting school well-being. Colla,
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Tomyn, Richardson, and Tomyn (2016)) have stated, it is important to carefully plan the type, amount and content
of intervention when trying to increase the SWB of adolescents. The literature increasingly emphasises that SWB ought to be defined as
the absence of negative emotions and cognitions, and simultaneously as the presence of positive ones (e.g., Hascher, 2008). In addition,
it seems that building the actions of individual strengths in young persons could yield more enduring effects than simply focusing on,
for example, depressive or anxious symptoms (Ruini et al., 2009). Moreover, Bluth, Mullarkey, and Lathren (2018)) showed that

9
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

interventions that focus especially on self-compassion may strengthen resilience and offer new ways to cope with psychological and
school challenges, leading to improved SWB.
The family is one support mechanism through which students could be helped to overcome stress and doubts about their abilities. In
our study, parents’ education was not connected either to SWB or self-esteem, but parents’ income was. In two Swedish studies
(Hjalmarsson & Mood, 2015; Plenty & Mood, 2016), the link between family economic resources and adolescents’ (aged 14–15) social
relations was explored. It was found that lower household income predicted students’ poor self-rated health, and that economic re­
sources enable participation in social activities with one’s peers (e.g., going to cafes, the cinema), which can in turn affect SWB. We
have to remember that in our study family education and income are reported by adolescents, which precludes detail and reduces
reliability, leading to attenuation of estimated effects. Students compared their own family income with their peers’ families on a scale
from 1 to 10 (poor to excellent); however, we do not actually know how much money the student him/herself can use (e.g., for social
activities). As low income was significantly related to self-esteem, SWB and schoolwork difficulties, we suggest that the students’
replies on family income does not relate only with low financial situation but also lack of support at home. Many previous studies have
also shown that family economic situation is related to experiences in many other domains of life, such as health (Lepistö, Joronen,
Åstedt-Kurki, Luukkaala, & Paavilainen, 2012) and social relations (Chappel, Suldo, & Ogg, 2014; Laurence, 2019). It seems that a
higher family economic level indicates better physical and mental health of the family members but also better quality of social
connections between the family members, which strongly refers to support offered by the parents to the adolescents.
To conclude, as pointed out by Venning, Wilson, Kettler, and Eliott (2013)), much of the focus of earlier research on well-being has
been on negative symptoms. However, there is now evidence to suggest that mental illness and good mental health (as reflected by
indicators such as SWB) are separate constructs and do not simply represent opposite ends of the same continuum (2007, Keyes, 2005).
Consequently, there has been growing interest in models and research frameworks that examine the predictors of not only mental
health but also positive outcomes, including SWB. In addition, focus on SWB and strengths has received much attention and support in
education, mental health and social services through resiliency research (Laija-Rodriguez, Grites, Bouman, Pohlman, & Goldman,
2013). Individuals who use their strengths experience greater SWB and self-esteem, and are more likely to achieve their goals (Bis­
was-Diener, Kashdan, & Minhas, 2011; Linley, Nielsen, Wood, Gillett, & Biswas-Diener, 2010; Proctor, Maltby, & Linley, 2011).
In order to develop upper-secondary academic education, we should focus more on the characteristics of the students and the
organisation of the studies right from the beginning of the new educational phase. Based on this study, it becomes clear that even good
achievers can experience feelings of schoolwork difficulties that effect both SWB and self-esteem. This means that both individual
academic and psychological support should be offered to ensure the learning results and SWB of the students. As the whole personnel of
the school is supposed to participate in guiding students both academically and socially, teachers need training for that in addition to
their subject expertise. Ameratunga, Clark, and Banati (2018)) reported of two different three-year interventions executed in UK and
India. The purpose of these interventions was to promote students’ health and wellbeing by changing the overall school climate.
Students in the intervention group reported e.g. better quality of life, and psychological and general wellbeing. However, the benefits
were evident only in the third year of the study and not earlier, indicating the need for long-term interventions. In future studies, it
would also be important to focus on person-oriented analyses (e.g., latent profile analyses) to catch the individual development and
possible reciprocal relationship of SWB and self-esteem of these young academic people.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. The authors wish to thank Hanna Nuutinen and Heli
Pesonen, who collected the data presented in this paper, and Anne-Mari Souto, who is leading this longitudinal study.

References

Act on General Upper Secondary Education. (2019). Act on General Upper Secondary Education. Retrieved 15.6.2020 https://minedu.fi/general-upper-secondary-
education.
Allardt, E. (1976). Dimensions of welfare in a comparative Scandinavian study. Acta Sociologica, 19(3), 227–239.
Alves-Martins, M., Peixoto, F., Gouveia-Pereira, M., Amaral, V., & Pedro, I. (2002). Self-esteem and academic achievement among adolescents. Educational Psychology,
22(1), 51–62.
Ameratunga, S., Clark, T., & Banati, P. (2018). Changing school climates to promote adolescent wellbeing: two trials with one goal. The Lancet, 392(10163),
2416–2418.
Baldwin, S. A., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). The dynamics of self-esteem: A growth-curve analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(2), 101–113.
Baril, M. E., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2007). Processes linking adolescent well-being, marital love, and coparenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 645.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44.
Bergman, M. M., & Scott, J. (2001). Young adolescents’ wellbeing and health-risk behaviours: Gender and socio-economic differences. Journal of Adolescence, 24(2),
183–197.
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School
Psychology, 46(2), 151–172.
Biro, F. M., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Franko, D. L., Padgett, J., & Bean, J. A. (2006). Self-esteem in adolescent females. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(4), 501–507.
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 6(2), 106–118.

10
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. (1993). Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjective well-being: the case of health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 646.
Bluth, K., Mullarkey, M., & Lathren, C. (2018). Self-compassion: A potential path to adolescent resilience and positive exploration. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
27(9), 3037–3047.
Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., Van Der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2004). Developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviors in childhood and adolescence. Child
Development, 75(5), 1523–1537.
Brizio, A., Gabbatore, I., Tirassa, M., & Bosco, F. M. (2015). “No more a child, not yet an adult”: studying social cognition in adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(4),
1011.
Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14(3), 188–196.
Chappel, A. M., Suldo, S. M., & Ogg, J. A. (2014). Associations between adolescents’ family stressors and life satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(1),
76–84.
Colla, L., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Tomyn, A. J., Richardson, B., & Tomyn, J. D. (2016). Use of weekly assessment data to enhance evaluation of a subjective wellbeing
intervention. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 517–524.
Crabtree, J., & Rutland, A. (2001). Self-evaluation and social comparison amongst adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 11(5), 347–359.
Davis, T., Nida, R., Zlomke, K. R., & Nebel-Schwalm, M. S. (2009). Health-related quality of life in college undergraduates with learning disabilities: The mediational
roles of anxiety and sadness. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31(3), 228–234.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68.
Delfabbro, P., Stevenson, J., Malvaso, C., Duong, D., Winefield, H., Winefield, A., et al. (2018). Who is doing well: Age 15 predictors of psychological and physical
health in young adulthood. Australian Psychologist, 54(2), 114–124.
Derdikman-Eiron, R., Indredavik, M. S., Bratberg, G. H., Taraldsen, G., Bakken, I. J., & Colton, M. (2011). Gender differences in subjective well-being, self-esteem and
psychosocial functioning in adolescents with symptoms of anxiety and depression: Findings from the Nord-Trøndelag health study. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 52(3), 261–267.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Eccles, J., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In R. E. Ames, & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on
Motivation and Education: Goals and Cognitions (Vol. 3). Orlando: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation.
Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 553–574.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, Youth and crisis. London: Faber and Faber.
Finnish National Board for Education. (2015). Finnish National Board for Education. Retrieved 15.6.2020 https://www.oph.fi/en/education-system.
Fröjd, S. A., Nissinen, E. S., Pelkonen, M. U., Marttunen, M. J., Koivisto, A. M., & Kaltiala-Heino, R. (2008). Depression and school performance in middle adolescent
boys and girls. Journal of Adolescence, 31(4), 485–498.
Gariepy, G., Elgar, F. J., Sentenac, M., & Barrington-Leigh, C. (2017). Early-life family income and subjective well-being in adolescents. PloS one, 12(7), Article
e0179380.
Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Freres, D. R., Chaplin, T. M., Shatte, A. J., Samuels, B., et al. (2007). School-based prevention of depressive symptoms: A randomized
controlled study of the effectiveness and specificity of the Penn Resiliency Program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(1), 9–19.
Hascher, T. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research approaches to assess student well-being. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 84–96.
Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1991). Subjective well-being: A stocks and flows framework. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), International series in experimental
social psychology. Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (Vol. 21, pp. 49–73). Pergamon Press.
Hill, N. E., & Wang, M.-T. (2015). From middle school to college: developing aspirations, promoting engagement, and indirect pathways from parenting to post high
school enrollment. Developmental Psychology, 51(2), 224–235.
Hjalmarsson, S., & Mood, C. (2015). Do poorer youth have fewer friends? The role of household and child economic resources in adolescent school-class friendships.
Children and Youth Services Review, 57(C), 201–211.
Holopainen, Leena, Lappalainen, Kristiina, Junttila, Niina, & Savolainen, Hannu (2012). The role of social competence in the psychological well-being of adolescents
in secondary education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 199–212.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Huang, C. (2011). Self-concept and academic achievement: A meta-analysis of longitudinal relations. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 505–528.
Humphray, N. (2002). Teacher and pupil ratings of self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 29–36.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Plewis, I. (2001). Ability grouping in secondary schools: Effects on pupils’ self-concepts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2),
315–326.
Jangra, P., & Balda, S. (2018). Socio-economic status as a predictor of personally perceived and socially perceived self-esteem of adolescents. Indian Journal of Positive
Psychology, 9(2), 282–284.
Jenson, J. M., & Fraser, M. W. (2011). Social policy for children and families: A risk and resilience perspective (2nd edition). Sage Publications.
Keyes, C. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62
(2), 95–108.
Keyes, C. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3),
539–548.
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 470.
Kiuru, N., Wang, M., Salmela-Aro, K., Kannas, L., Ahonen, T., & Hirvonen, R. (2020). Associations between Adolescents’ Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-
being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(5), 1057–1072.
Konu, A., Alanen, E., Lintonen, T., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Factor structure of the school well-being model. Health Education Research, 17(6), 732–742.
Konu, A., & Koivisto, A.-M. (2011). The School Well-being Profile. A valid instrument for evaluation. In L. G. Chova, M. Belenguer, & A. L. Martinez (Eds.),
EDULEARN11 Publications (pp. 1842–1850). IATED.
Konu, A., & Lintonen, T. (2019). Myönteistä kehitystä kouluhyvinvoinnissa [Positive development in school well-being]. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 84(5–6), 601–608.
Konu, A. I., & Rimpelä, M. K. (2002). Well-being in schools: A conceptual model. Health Promotion International, 17(1), 79–87.
Laurence, J. (2019). Community disadvantage, inequalities in adolescent subjective well-being, and local social relations: The role of positive and negative social
interactions. Social Science & Medicine, 237(C), Article 112442.
Laija-Rodriguez, W., Grites, K., Bouman, D., Pohlman, C., & Goldman, R. L. (2013). Leveraging strengths assessment and intervention model (LeStAIM): A theoretical
strength-based assessment framework. Contemporary School Psychology, 17(1), 81–91.
Lehtinen, H., Räikkönen, K., Heinonen, K., Raitakari, O. T., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2006). School performance in childhood and adolescence as a predictor of
depressive symptoms in adulthood. School Psychology International, 27(3), 281–295.
Lepistö, S., Joronen, K., Åstedt-Kurki, P., Luukkaala, T., & Paavilainen, E. (2012). Subjective well-being in Finnish adolescents experiencing family violence. Journal of
Family Nursing, 18(2), 200–233.

11
L. Holopainen et al. International Journal of Educational Research 104 (2020) 101688

Lian, T., & Yusoof, F. (2009). The effects of family functioning on self-esteem of children. European Journal of Social Sciences, 36(9), 643–650.
Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Wood, A. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need
satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 6–15.
Mahoney-Davies, G., Dixon, C., Tynan, H., & Mann, S. (2017). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a “Five Ways to Well-being” group run with people with learning
disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 56–63.
Mann, M., Hosman, C. M., Schaalma, H. P., & de Vries, N. K. (2004). Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Education
Research, 19(4), 357–372.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and
unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 133–163.
Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively big fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213–231.
Marsh, H., Byrne, B., & Yeung, A. (1999). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations.
Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 155–167.
McClure, A. C., Tanski, S. E., Kingsbury, J., Gerrard, M., & Sargent, J. D. (2010). Characteristics associated with low self-esteem among U.S. adolescents. Academic
Pediatrics, 10(4), 38–44.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2018). Solid general knowledge, closer cooperation with higher education and investments in students’ wellbeing. Retrieved 07.06. 2020
https://minedu.fi/en/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/esitys-uudeksi-lukiolaiksi-julki-vahvaa-yleissivistysta-tiivistyvaa-korkeakouluyhteistyota-ja-panostuksia-
lukiolaisten-hyvinvointiin.
Moksnes, U. K., & Espnes, G. A. (2013). Self-esteem and life satisfaction in adolescents—gender and age as potential moderators. Quality of Life Research, 22(10),
2921–2928.
Moore, G. F., Littlecott, H. J., Evans, R., Murphy, S., Hewitt, G., & Fletcher, A. (2017). School composition, school culture and socioeconomic inequalities in young
people’s health: Multi-level analysis of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey in Wales. British Educational Research Journal, 43(2),
310–329.
Nes, R. B., Røysamb, E., Tambs, K., Harris, J. R., & Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. (2006). Subjective well-being: genetic and environmental contributions to stability and
change. Psychological Medicine, 36(7), 1033–1042.
Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2010). Effects of schools, teaching staff and classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: Similarities and
differences between school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(2), 165–196.
Peixoto, F., & Almeida, L. S. (2010). Self-concept, self-esteem and academic achievement: strategies for maintaining self-esteem in students experiencing academic
failure. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(2), 157–175.
Plenty, S., & Mood, C. (2016). Money, peers and parents: social and economic aspects of inequality in youth wellbeing. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7),
1294–1308.
Puolakka, K., Haapasalo-Pesu, K. M., Konu, A., Åstedt-Kurki, P., & Paavilainen, E. (2014). Mental health promotion in a school community by using the results from
the well-being profile: an action research project. Health Promotion Practice, 15(1), 44–54.
Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 153–169.
Quatman, T., & Watson, C. M. (2001). Gender differences in adolescent self-esteem: An exploration of domains. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(1), 93–117.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Wesleyan University Press.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Hastings, P. D. (2002). Stability and social-behavioural consequences of toddlers’ inhibited temperament and parenting. Child
Development, 73(2), 483–495.
Ruini, C., Ottolini, F., Tomba, E., Belaise, C., Albieri, E., Visani, D., et al. (2009). School intervention for promoting psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of
Behavioural Therapy of Experimental Psychiatry, 40(4), 522–532.
Simmons, F., & Singleton, C. (2000). The reading comprehension abilities of dyslexic students in higher education. Dyslexia, 6(3), 178–192.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 377–401.
Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality assessment. Journal of Personality, 56(3), 621–663.
Tian, L., Liu, B., Huang, S., & Huebner, E. S. (2013). Perceived Social Support and School Well-Being Among Chinese Early and Middle Adolescents: The Mediational
Role of Self-Esteem. Social Indicators Research, 113(3), 991–1008.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Self-esteem, academic self-concept, and achievement: How the learning environment moderates the
dynamics of self-concept. Journal of Personal Social Psychology, 90(2), 334–349.
Venning, A., Wilson, A., Kettler, L. J., & Eliott, J. A. (2013). Mental health among youth in South Australia: A survey of flourishing, languishing, struggling, and
floundering. Australian Psychologist, 48(4), 299–310.
Vernon, A., & Schimmel, C. (2004). Counceling children and adolescence. Love Pub.
Verhoeven, M., Poorthuis, A. M. P., & Volman, M. (2019). The Role of School in Adolescents’ Identity Development. A Literature Review. Educational Psychology
Review, 31(1), 35–63.
Wang, S. C., & Fowler, P. J. (2019). Social cohesion, neighbourhood collective efficacy, and adolescent subjective well-being in urban and rural Taiwan. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 499–510.
Yang, A., Wang, D., Li, T., Teng, F., & Ren, Z. (2008). The impact of adult attachment and parental rearing on subjective well-being in Chinese late adolescents. Social
Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal, 36(10), 1365–1378.

12