Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Konu, A.
Right arrow Articles by Rimpelä, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Konu, A.
Right arrow Articles by Rimpelä, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 17, No. 6, 732-742, December 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press

Factor structure of the School Well-being Model

A. Konu, E. Alanen1, T. Lintonen and M. Rimpelä2

Tampere School of Public Health, 33014 University of Tampere, 1 Social Insurance Institution, Research and Development Centre, 20720 Turku and 2 STAKES, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, PO Box 220, 00531 Helsinki, Finland

The aim of this study was to confirm empirically the factor structure of the School Well-being Model. In this Model well-being was divided into school conditions, social relationships, means for self-fulfillment and health status. Data for this study were collected by the School Health Promotion Survey in Finland with 40 147 respondents from Grades 8 and 9. The 43 variables from the Survey were fitted into the School Well-being Model using confirmatory factor analysis. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) for the four-factor model was 0.93 and GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom was 0.93. The correlations between factors varied from 0.30 to 0.78 and internal consistencies (Cronbach’s {alpha}s) from 0.62 to 0.84. The categories school conditions and health status had a good variety of variables. However, the social relationships and the means for self-fulfillment categories would have benefited from additional questions. The School Well-being Model can be utilized to construct school well-being profiles both for groups of pupils and for schools as a whole. The school well-being profile could highlight the area or areas in which schools could make improvements in order to promote the well-being of its pupils.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
T. Saaranen, K. Tossavainen, H. Turunen, V. Kiviniemi, and H. Vertio
Occupational well-being of school staff members: a structural equation model
Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2007; 22(2): 248 - 260.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
A. I. Konu and T. Lintonen
School well-being in Grades 4-12
Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2006; 21(5): 633 - 642.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 HEALTH PROMOT INTHome page
A. Konu and T. Lintonen
Theory-based survey analysis of well-being in secondary schools in Finland
Health Promot. Int., March 1, 2006; 21(1): 27 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.