• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一种用于评估工作场所和个人生活幸福感的数字工具:全人幸福感指数的开发与验证

A Digital Tool for Assessing Well-Being at the Workplace and in Personal Life: Development and Validation of the Quan Well-Being Index.

作者信息

Floridou Georgia A, Katre Freya, Jeuken Emile

机构信息

Quan, The Hague, The Netherlands.

King's Business School, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

JMIR Form Res. 2025 Aug 8;9:e73713. doi: 10.2196/73713.

DOI:10.2196/73713
PMID:40779765
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Quan is a workplace well-being digital platform that supports employees, teams, and organizations in measuring, understanding, and improving their well-being. It is important to develop a validated measurement instrument that enables users to assess and track their well-being over time. Currently, no digital measurement instrument comprehensively evaluates well-being across both personal and professional domains.

OBJECTIVE

We detail the development and validation of the Quan Well-being Index, a new digital self-report measure for assessing well-being in personal life and at the workplace.

METHODS

We performed 3 studies. The first study involved the conceptualization of 6 initial factors, the generation of 51 items, and the steps of face and content validity. In the second study, revised items were presented to a UK sample. In the third study, an independent UK sample completed the final assessment along with a battery of well-being and personality questionnaires. A subsample of participants from the third study retook the assessment approximately 2 weeks after initial completion.

RESULTS

In the first study, after face and content validity processes, the number of items was reduced to 45. In the second study, exploratory factor analysis on data from 1020 participants (age: mean 43.06, SD 12.98 years; 525 female participants) identified a 4-factor solution with 35 items (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value=0.98; Bartlett test: χ=37063.54; P<.001), accounting for 64% of variance. The 4 factors were thrive and connect in personal life, thrive and connect at work, mental health, and physical health. In the third study, confirmatory factor analysis on data from 966 participants (age: mean 44.4, SD 12.52 years; 480 female participants) tested 4 structural models. A hierarchical model (model 1) where the general factor influenced the 4 group factors demonstrated the best fit (χ=3467.00; Bentler comparative fit index=0.906; Tucker-Lewis index=0.892; root mean square error of approximation=0.077; standardized root mean square residual=0.048; ΔAkaike information criterion=0.0; ΔBayesian information criterion=0.0). Internal reliability was high across subscales (Cronbach α=.88-.93; McDonald ω total=0.89-0.94; Guttman λ6=0.86-0.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated by strong correlations with the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (r=0.45-0.85; P<.001) and Flourishing-at-Work Scale (r=0.80-0.84; P<.001). Divergent validity was supported through weak or negative correlations with Big Five Personality Inventory traits (eg, neuroticism: r=-0.29; P<.001). Test-retest reliability assessed in a subset of 275 participants (age: mean 52.12, SD 9.56 years; 170 female participants) over a 2-week interval was strong to very strong across factors (r=0.74-0.81; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The Quan Well-being Index provides a comprehensive assessment of well-being at the workplace and in personal life, and is anticipated to be a valuable digital tool, enabling individuals, teams, and organizations to gain insights, monitor progress, and implement appropriate interventions for a healthier workforce.

摘要

背景

Quan是一个工作场所福祉数字平台,支持员工、团队和组织衡量、理解并改善他们的福祉。开发一种经过验证的测量工具很重要,它能让用户随时间评估和跟踪自己的福祉。目前,没有数字测量工具能全面评估个人和职业领域的福祉。

目的

我们详细介绍Quan福祉指数的开发与验证,这是一种用于评估个人生活和工作场所福祉的新型数字自我报告测量工具。

方法

我们进行了3项研究。第一项研究涉及6个初始因素的概念化、51个条目的生成以及表面效度和内容效度步骤。第二项研究将修订后的条目呈现给英国样本。第三项研究中,一个独立的英国样本完成了最终评估,并填写了一系列福祉和人格问卷。第三项研究的一部分参与者在初次完成评估约2周后重新进行了评估。

结果

在第一项研究中,经过表面效度和内容效度流程后,条目数量减少到45个。在第二项研究中,对1020名参与者(年龄:平均43.06岁,标准差12.98岁;525名女性参与者)的数据进行探索性因素分析,确定了一个包含35个条目的四因素解决方案(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin值 = 0.98;Bartlett检验:χ = 37063.54;P <.001),解释了64%的方差。这四个因素分别是在个人生活中茁壮成长与建立联系、在工作中茁壮成长与建立联系、心理健康和身体健康。在第三项研究中,对966名参与者(年龄:平均44.4岁,标准差12.52岁;480名女性参与者)的数据进行验证性因素分析,测试了4个结构模型。一个层次模型(模型1),其中一般因素影响四个组因素,显示出最佳拟合(χ = 3467.00;Bentler比较拟合指数 = 0.906;Tucker-Lewis指数 = 0.892;近似均方根误差 = 0.077;标准化均方根残差 = 0.048;ΔAkaike信息准则 = 0.0;Δ贝叶斯信息准则 = 0.0)。各子量表的内部信度较高(Cronbach α = 0.88 - 0.93;McDonald ω总 = 0.89 - 0.94;Guttman λ6 = 0.86 - 0.92)。与沃里克 - 爱丁堡心理健康量表(r = 0.45 - 0.85;P <.001)和工作繁荣量表(r = 0.80 - 0.84;P <.001)的强相关性证明了收敛效度。与大五人格量表特质的弱相关或负相关支持了区分效度(例如,神经质:r = - 0.29;P <.001)。在275名参与者(年龄:平均52.12岁,标准差9.56岁;170名女性参与者)的子集中进行的为期2周的重测信度在各因素间很强到非常强(r = 0.74 - 0.81;P <.001)。

结论

Quan福祉指数提供了对工作场所和个人生活福祉的全面评估,预计将成为一种有价值的数字工具,使个人、团队和组织能够获得见解、监测进展并实施适当干预措施,以打造更健康的员工队伍。

相似文献

1
A Digital Tool for Assessing Well-Being at the Workplace and in Personal Life: Development and Validation of the Quan Well-Being Index.一种用于评估工作场所和个人生活幸福感的数字工具:全人幸福感指数的开发与验证
JMIR Form Res. 2025 Aug 8;9:e73713. doi: 10.2196/73713.
2
A New Measure of Quantified Social Health Is Associated With Levels of Discomfort, Capability, and Mental and General Health Among Patients Seeking Musculoskeletal Specialty Care.一种新的量化社会健康指标与寻求肌肉骨骼专科护理的患者的不适程度、能力以及心理和总体健康水平相关。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Apr 1;483(4):647-663. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003394. Epub 2025 Feb 5.
3
Is It Possible to Develop a Patient-reported Experience Measure With Lower Ceiling Effect?是否有可能开发一种天花板效应较低的患者报告体验测量方法?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Apr 1;483(4):693-703. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003262. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
4
Quality of Life Among Family Caregivers of Individuals With Rare Diseases: Web-Based Population Study on the Validity and Reliability of the Polish World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF Questionnaire.罕见病患者家庭照顾者的生活质量:基于网络的波兰世界卫生组织生活质量简表问卷有效性和可靠性的人群研究
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2025 Jul 18;11:e72590. doi: 10.2196/72590.
5
Transcultural Adaptation, Validation, Psychometric Analysis, and Interpretation of the 22-Item Thai Senior Technology Acceptance Model for Mobile Health Apps: Cross-Sectional Study.22项泰国移动健康应用老年人技术接受模型的跨文化调适、验证、心理测量分析及解读:横断面研究
JMIR Aging. 2025 Mar 11;8:e60156. doi: 10.2196/60156.
6
Outcomes of specialist physiotherapy for functional motor disorder: the Physio4FMD RCT.功能性运动障碍专科物理治疗的效果:Physio4FMD随机对照试验
Health Technol Assess. 2025 Jul;29(34):1-28. doi: 10.3310/MKAC9495.
7
Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the digital addiction scale for children (DASC).儿童数字成瘾量表中文版(DASC)的改编与验证
BMC Public Health. 2025 Jul 30;25(1):2599. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-23817-7.
8
Sexual Harassment and Prevention Training性骚扰与预防培训
9
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
10
Development of an instrument for screening mental health based on Ayurvedic concept of Triguna.基于阿育吠陀三德概念的心理健康筛查工具的开发。
J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2025 Aug 6;16(5):101175. doi: 10.1016/j.jaim.2025.101175.

本文引用的文献

1
Android and iPhone Mobile Apps for Psychosocial Wellness and Stress Management: Systematic Search in App Stores and Literature Review.用于心理社会健康和压力管理的安卓与苹果手机应用程序:在应用商店中的系统搜索及文献综述
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 May 22;8(5):e17798. doi: 10.2196/17798.
2
Why is it so difficult to govern mobile apps in healthcare?为何治理医疗保健领域的移动应用程序如此困难?
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2019 Nov;26(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2019-100006.
3
Mental Health in the Workplace: A Call to Action Proceedings From the Mental Health in the Workplace-Public Health Summit.
工作场所的心理健康:行动呼吁 来自工作场所心理健康-公共卫生峰会的会议记录。
J Occup Environ Med. 2018 Apr;60(4):322-330. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001271.
4
On the promotion of human flourishing.论人类繁荣的提升。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Aug 1;114(31):8148-8156. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702996114. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
5
Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward.工作需求-资源理论:总结与展望。
J Occup Health Psychol. 2017 Jul;22(3):273-285. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056. Epub 2016 Oct 10.
6
Very Simple Structure: An Alternative Procedure For Estimating The Optimal Number Of Interpretable Factors.非常简单的结构:一种估计可解释因子最优数量的替代方法。
Multivariate Behav Res. 1979 Oct 1;14(4):403-14. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1404_2.
7
The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature.世界卫生组织-5 幸福指数:文献系统综述。
Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167-76. doi: 10.1159/000376585. Epub 2015 Mar 28.
8
Workplace Stress, Organizational Factors and EAP Utilization.工作场所压力、组织因素与员工援助计划的使用
J Workplace Behav Health. 2009;24(3):344-356. doi: 10.1080/15555240903188380.
9
Reversed item bias: an integrative model.反向项目偏差:一个综合模型。
Psychol Methods. 2013 Sep;18(3):320-34. doi: 10.1037/a0032121. Epub 2013 May 6.
10
Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being.在欧洲蓬勃发展:一种用于定义幸福的新概念框架的应用
Soc Indic Res. 2013 Feb;110(3):837-861. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7. Epub 2011 Dec 15.