Five-factor PERMA profiler – Amharic version

The primary goal of the present study was to test the Amharic version of the five-factor PERMA profiler: P (positive emotion), E (engagement), R (positive relationships), M (meaning in life), and A (accomplishment) aimed to assess University instructors’ positive functioning of their work. Exploratory factor analysis, single and multi-Group confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance, and path analysis were employed. The details of an examination of the PERMA profiler are discussed.

We evaluated the reliability of the five-factor PERMA profiler sub-scales (positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, meaning in life, and accomplishment).The reliability coefficients of the PERMA profiler were a) positive emotion: α = 0.96,CR = 0.96, b) engagement: α = 0.95, CR = 0.95, c) positive relationships: α = 0.95,CR = 0.95, meaning in life: α = 0.93, CR = 0.93, and accomplishment: α = 0.95, CR = 0.95.The results of this study indicated that the five core PERMA profilers are characterized by high levels of reliability or internal consistency. The other variables used for convergent(psychological well-being and life satisfaction) and divergent validity (anxiety, depression, and loneliness scales) demonstrated acceptable reliability (see Table 4).

(4) (PDF) Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the PERMA Profiler in an Ethiopian Higher Education Setting. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363924838_Psychometric_Properties_and_Measurement_Invariance_of_the_PERMA_Profiler_in_an_Ethiopian_Higher_Education_Setting

Factor structure Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2(105) = 3425.940, p .05), which means that the corresponding items that compose each of the five factors correlate well with each other. The PERMA well-being subscales’ discriminant validity was also tested since their AVE values were higher than their MSV. Hence, the result of this study indicated that the subconstructs of the PERMA well-being subscales AVE was greater than MSV: for positive emotion (AVE=0.90 > MSV=0.70), engagement (AVE=0.87 > MSV=0.58),positive relationships(AVE=0.87 > MSV=0.65), meaning in life(AVE=0.81 > MSV=0.69),and accomplishment (AVE=0.87 > MSV=0.70), which suggests that each factor’s variance is better explained by the corresponding items that mainly load on each factor. In addition, convergent and divergent validity of the PERMA profiler subscales were further assessed by testing its correlation with other positive and negative measures. To explore the convergent validity with positive constructs (psychological well-beingand life satisfaction) and with negative constructs to explore divergent validity (anxiety, depression, and loneliness) were used (See Table 4). We found weak and positive correlations between instead of the PERMA well-being model with the PWBS and the SWLS: r = 0.190 (p < 0.01) and r = 0.134 (p < 0.01), respectively. We also found negligible to weak correlations between the PERMA well-being model subscales and the PWBS and SWLS subscales. The PWBS (Lee et al., 2017) is the most widely used tool for measuring the convergent validity of the PERMA well-being model. Regarding the divergent validity, we compared the PERMA profiler to depression, anxiety, and loneliness scales and found negative associations (r = −0. 264, −0.215, and −0.179, p= 0.01, and r = −0. 255, −0.248,and −0.228; p= 0.01, respectively).Single and Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (SGMGCFA)We arrived at a five-factor PERMA well-being model with 15 items derived from Butler and Kern (2016). We examined the theoretically driven PERMA well-being model using the correlated, single-factor, bifactor, and higher-order factor models following the global goodness-of-fit indices. Figures 1a–d clearly shows the single-factor, correlated,higher-order, and bi-factor PERMA well-being models. As, the Appendix 5 shows thegoodness-of-fit findings for all four models; the five- PERMA correlated factor (χ2 (90)=299.135, P < .001, TLI= 0.983, CFI= .987, RMSEA= .056, CI [.050– .063], Bi-Factor Model(χ2 (75) = 306.412, , P < .001, TLI=0.981, CFI= 0.986, RMSEA=.060, CI[.053–067], andHigher-Order Model (χ2 (85) = 338.262, , P < .001, TLI= 0.981, CFI= .985, RMSEA= .059,CI[.052– .066] was found to be the best model fit. However, the same Table indicates thatthe PERMA single-factor model showed poor fit with the data (χ2(104) = 4166.65, P < .001,TLI = .719, CFI = .759, RMSEA = .1161, CI: .155–.167). In addition, all models showedstatistically significant differences in the variances and factor loadings (see Appendix 3).The inter-scale correlations for the five-factor model ranged from 0.71 to 0.81 (seeAppendix 2), indicating strong relationships (Schober et al., 2018), and the standardizedfactor loadings were high as well (see Appendix 2). The bi-factor model showed the low-est factor loadings, with loadings below 0.72 t 0.88 of the 15 items (see Appendix 3). Inconclusion, the five-factor PERMA model showed the best fit with the data and instead fit with the original assumptions of the PERMA well-being theory (Butler & Kern, 2016;Wammerl et al., 2019).

ppendices Appendix

1The PERMA Profiler Questionnaire for Both English and Amharic Version Block Items Original English Version Amharic Version Block

Scoring Original-English Amharic Version Block 0 10 0 101 Never always በጭራሽ ሁልጊዜ2 not at all completely በጭራሽ ሙሉ በሙሉ3 Never always በጭራሽ ሁልጊዜ4 not at all completely በጭራሽ ሙሉ በሙሉNote. P1-P3 = positive emotion factor; E1-E3 = Engagement factor; R1-R3 = positive relations factor; M1-M3 = Meaning in life factor; A1-A2 = Accomplishment factor.