Health Education Research, Vol. 17, No. 6, 732-742,
December 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
Factor structure of the School Well-being Model
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
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
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
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. |
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
Measuring an individual’s health and well-being has been reported to be a challenging task:
The rising expectations of the past 150 years have led to a swift away from viewing health in terms of survival, through a phase of defining it in terms of freedom from disease, onward to an emphasis on the individual’s ability to perform daily activities, and more recently to an emphasis on positive themes of happiness, social and emotional well-being, and quality of life. [(McDowell and Newell, 1996), pp. 11–12]
The WHO definition of health (WHO, 1947) reflects this tendency to broaden the meaning of health by engaging the wider concepts of well-being, happiness, life satisfaction and quality of life. However, the use of these concepts is varied and often not explicitly defined. One of the most notable efforts to clarify the measurement of quality of life is represented by the work of the WHO Quality of Life Group (WHOQOL Group, 1998).
The concept of well-being used in this paper is based upon the Allardt’s sociological theory of welfare (having, loving, being) (Allardt, 1975, 1976, 1989). Of the other concepts mentioned above, the one that comes closest to the phenomenon we are interested in studying is that of quality of life. Well-being and related concepts have been measured using various instruments, including the Life Satisfaction Index (Neugarten, 1961), the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1978), the General Well-Being Schedule (Dupuy, 1984) and the Oxford Happiness Inventory (Argyle et al., 1987). These scales are mostly concerned with personality disorders, distress and psychological well-being, and address areas such as happiness, life-satisfaction and morale. These and other health and well-being measures have been reviewed in more detail by Bowling (Bowling, 1991) and McDowell and Newell (McDowell and Newell, 1996).
The measurement of quality of life among children is mostly health-related, which means that these methods are used to evaluate the effect of diseases and treatment protocols (Apajasalo, 1997; Drotar, 1998). One of the few indicators concerning children’s or adolescents’ well-being at a population level is ‘The Quality of Life Profile—Adolescent Version’ (Raphael et al., 1996) in Canada. They use the concept of quality of life, which is defined as ‘the degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his/her life’ [(Raphael et al., 1996), p. 366].
Huebner et al. have constructed and analyzed the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS) (Huebner, 1991; Huebner et al., 1999; Huebner and McCullough, 2000; McCullough et al., 2000). They argue that subjective well-being among children and adolescents can be seen as a three-component construct: global life satisfaction, positive affects and negative affect (Huebner, 1991;McCullough et al., 2000). In Finland, Raitasalo’s (Raitasalo, 1995) modification of the 13-item Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1972) has been used for measuring general subjective well-being among schoolchildren (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999; Konu et al., 2002). The focus of the indicator is on perceived satisfaction in specific life domains such as positive mood, future orientation, success, satisfaction, global self-esteem and specific self-esteem (appearance), social orientation, decision making, sleeping, energy, appetite, and anxiousness.
Savolainen et al. (Savolainen et al., 1998), Samdal (Samdal, 1998), and Opdenakker and van Damme (Opdenakker and van Damme, 2000) have studied well-being in the school context, although using different indicators of well-being. In the cross-national survey data studied by Samdal, subjective well-being was measured using one question: ‘In general, how do you feel about your life at present?’ (Samdal, 1998). The results showed that student support, adequate expectations and teacher support are the most important predictors of subjective well-being. In the Finnish city of Tampere, Savolainen et al. (Savolainen et al., 1998) studied several aspects of the school environment with a questionnaire initially developed in Sweden (Häggqvist et al., 1997). In this questionnaire pupils’ well-being was measured using three questions: Do you feel you can cope with your schoolwork? Do you enjoy going to school? Do you consider schoolwork inspiring? Pupils’ well-being was related to school climate, cooperation, encouragement, support with problems, school organization and physical working environment (Savolainen et al., 1998). In the Netherlands, Opdenakker and van Damme (Opdenakker and van Damme, 2000) used a well-being questionnaire designed by Van Landeghem (Van Landeghem, 1991) consisting of eight indicators: well-being at school, social integration in the class, relationships with teachers, interest in learning tasks, motivation towards learning tasks, attitude to homework, attentiveness in the classroom and academic self-concept. Their results showed that the same variables concerning instruction and knowledge acquisition were effective both for achievement and well-being. Teaching staff cooperation in relation to teaching methods and pupil counseling was also related to both achievement and well-being, whereas professional contacts between teachers were related only to school well-being.
The existing indicators of well-being and quality of life range from measures of the general phenomenon [e.g. (Raphael et al., 1996; WHOQOL Group, 1998)] to specific health-related [e.g. (Apajasalo, 1997; Drotar, 1998)] scales. A general measure of well-being or quality of life is often seen very broadly; overall life satisfaction, contentment or happiness. For example, the WHO Quality of Life Group (WHOQOL Group, 1998) included key physical, psychological, social and spiritual domains of life to their quality of life instrument.
Although Samdal, Savolainen et al., and Opdenakker and van Damme have used different indicators of well-being in school (Samdal, 1998; Savolainen et al., 1998; Opdenakker and van Damme, 2000), the measures are seldom theoretically based. The aim of this empirical study was to confirm the factor structure of the School Well-being Model (Konu and Rimpelä, 2002) using confirmatory factor analysis and data from the School Health Promotion Survey. This was done to find out if the theoretical School Well-being Model would serve as a basis for indicators to be used in evaluating the well-being of pupils and a school as an entity.
The Konu and Rimpelä School Well-being Model (Figure 1) conceptualized well-being in school as a four-dimensional phenomenon. Well-being was associated with teaching and education, on the one hand, and with learning and achievements, on the other. Well-being was divided into school conditions (having), social relationships (loving), means for self-fulfillment (being) and health status. ‘Means for self-fulfillment’ encompassed possibilities for each pupil to study according to his/her own resources and capabilities. ‘Health status’ was seen through pupil’s symptoms of diseases and illnesses. Each well-being category contained several aspects of pupil’s life in school. The School Well-being Model was theoretically developed after the review of appropriate sociological, educational, psychological and health promotion literature. The theoretical model has been discussed in more detail in a separate article (Konu and Rimpelä, 2002).
|
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
Data collection
This study used data collected by the School Health Promotion Survey. The 16-page classroom survey covers numerous aspects of pupils’ health and lifestyle, and has been conducted in Finland every year since 1995. Self-administered questionnaires were used in a classroom survey setting supervised by the pupils’ own teacher. Envelopes containing the questionnaires were sealed in the presence of pupils to ensure confidentiality. The dataset (n = 54 499) comprised the same schools (n = 173), but different respondents from the April 1998 (n = 27 341) and 2000 (n = 27 158) waves of the survey. Less than 1% of the cases was excluded from the analysis because information on gender was missing or more than half of the responses was missing. Special schools, small schools (under 70 pupils), schools with small gender/grade groups (less than 15 respondents) and schools where the number of respondents between years differed by more than 25% were removed from the data. This was done because too few respondents from a school may not be representative for the whole school. This amounted to 26% of the respondents. The final dataset used in the present study comprised 109 schools with 20 235 respondents in 1998 and 19 912 respondents in 2000; total 40 147. The schools came from southern and western parts of Finland. The respondents were in Grades 8 and 9 of secondary school, aged 14.3–16.2 years. In 1998 (2000, respectively), 51.0% (50.2%) were in Grade 8 and 49.5% (50.0%) were girls.
Measurement and analysis
The questions of the School Health Promotion Survey were selected on the basis of their relevance to the School Well-being Model (Konu and Rimpelä, 2002). Theoretically valid variables (total 43) with four-scale response options were chosen and divided into four categories according to the Model: school conditions, social relationships, means for self-fulfillment and health status. School conditions comprises 15 variables, social relationships eight variables, means for self-fulfillment 11 variables and health status nine variables. The corresponding questions are presented in Table I. The proportion of missing responses within the variables varied from 0 to 5.4%.
|
To verify the structure of the School Well-being Model, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using structural equations modeling with PROC CALIS (SAS/STAT Software, 1997
). Each variable was defined to represent only one factor, but the factors were allowed to correlate with each other. This means that each question represented only one category of the School Well-being Model, but the categories were allowed to have relations with one another. Because not all variables were normally distributed, unweighted least-squares estimation was used. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) were used as the indices of the model fit. The closer the GFI and AGFI were to the numerical value 1 and RMR to value 0, the better the theoretical model fitted the empirical data.
The internal consistency of each well-being category was calculated using Cronbach’s (SPSS 9.0 for Windows). This was done to examine if questions in each category were satisfactory in describing the underlying factors; the closer Cronbach’s s were to the numerical value 1, the better the questions described the same phenomenon.
In a former paper, the researchers found out that both the level of general subjective well-being, and the variables associated with it were somewhat different among boys and girls (Konu et al., 2002); the confirmatory factor analysis of specific school well-being was also conducted separately for boys and girls.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
The four-factor model with all 43 variables included showed a good fit. GFI was 0.93, AGFI was 0.93 and RMR was 0.06. The theoretical School Well-being Model fitted well the empirical data gathered by the School Health Promotion Survey. The between factor correlations varied between 0.30 and 0.43 (Figure 2
), except for the correlation between social relationships and means for self-fulfillment (r = 0.78). Thus social relationships were rather closely linked with questions concerning studying. The reliability coefficients (R2) for variables varied between 0.05 and 0.51, indicating varying relationships with the phenomenon in each category.
|
The internal consistencies of the four categories were good to reasonable. Cronbach’s
was 0.84 for school conditions, 0.62 for social relationships, 0.81 for means for self-fulfillment and 0.81 for health status. A lower Cronbach’s for social relationships category could indicate that the questions consisted of somewhat diverse areas of school life. The well-being scales of Opdenakker and van Damme showed reliability figures ranging from 0.63 to 0.88 (Opdenakker and van Damme, 2000) and the well-being indicator of Savolainen had Cronbach’s 0.79 (Savolainen, 2001). In the gender-specific confirmatory factor analysis, the fit indices remained similar. The correlation between school conditions and social relationships factors was 0.52 for boys and 0.40 for girls. Otherwise the factor correlations differed by no more than 0.03 to 0.06. According to this analysis, there were no notable differences between the genders in the structure of school well-being.
The reliability coefficients of individual variables are presented in Figure 2
. In the school conditions category, ‘dirtiness, ventilation, temperature and lighting’ were the most important variables. ‘Getting along with teachers’ had the highest figure in social relationships category. Having no or few problems with studies accounted for most of the variation in the means for self-fulfillment category and ‘feeling tired or weak’ had the highest figure in health status category.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
The aim of this study was to confirm empirically the factor structure of the School Well-being Model (Konu and Rimpelä, 2002
) using confirmatory factor analysis drawing on data collected in the School Health Promotion Survey. The model fit was good. The analysis showed that the theoretical School Well-being Model matched well with the appropriate questions taken from real school life. The between factor correlations were moderate with the exception of social relationships and means for self-fulfillment (r = 0.78). Thus, the questions in the four well-being categories had relations with one another, especially within social relationships and means for self-fulfillment categories. The model fit was the same among both boys and girls, but a slight difference was found in the correlation between school conditions and social relationships factors. The dataset from the School Health Promotion Survey consists of a wide variety of questions on school, learning, health and lifestyle that can be categorized according to the School Well-being Model. The questionnaire was designed separately from the conceptual model of school well-being and some topics included in the Model were missing from the survey data. Keeping this in mind, the data offered a sound basis for studying and empirically confirming the School Well-being Model.
Other studies concerning well-being in school (Samdal, 1998; Savolainen et al., 1998; Opdenakker and van Damme, 2000) have used different indicators and therefore it is not appropriate to make comparisons with these indicator structures. Opdenakker and van Damme (Opdenakker and van Damme, 2000) had some indicators similar to those used in our study; these concerned social relationships in school. Huebner and colleagues (Huebner, 1991; McCullough et al., 2000), Kaltiala-Heino et al. and Konu et al. used global/general subjective well-being indicators among schoolchildren (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999; Konu et al., 2002). Comparisons between specific and global indicator structures are not relevant. This study tried to clarify the structure of school well-being. The comparison of the particular well-being categories of this study to the corresponding separate studies is a question for further research.
Three of the four categories (school conditions, means for self-fulfillment and health status) showed good internal consistency indicating that the questions in each category measured the same broad phenomenon. The reason why social relationships showed weaker internal consistency may lie in the diversity of the indicators in this category, e.g. social relationships between teachers, social relations within groups of pupils and indicators of bullying. In addition, the total number of variables in this category was smaller than in other categories.
Allardt (Allardt, 1975, 1976) and the Research Group for Comparative Sociology at the University of Helsinki operationalized Allardt’s ‘having, loving, being’ structure in the Comparative Scandinavian Study concerning the level of living and quality of life in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Regarding this present study, it was notable that the factor analysis [(Allardt, 1975), p. 22; (Allardt, 1976), p. 236] did not place health in the same factor as most other ‘having’ category indicators. Health was placed in a separate factor together with employment. In the School Well-being Model health status is a separate category and the analysis confirmed that conceptual structure.
The questions comprising the school conditions category (Table I) mainly concerned the physical environment inside the school building (dirtiness, ventilation, temperature, facilities, etc.). There were only a few working environment factors (peaceful atmosphere, restlessness and time pressure). Two questions concerned health services. The internal consistency of the questions in this category was high. The reliability coefficients were higher for factors concerning the physical environment than the working environment or service factors. The order of the questions in the questionnaire may have had some effect on the result. The physical environment factors were assessed within one question with sub-items while the others were separate questions. Questions on health services may not have been relevant to all pupils whilst physical conditions were relevant to all. The number of questions on each topic may also have had an effect on the statistical analysis; in this case the physical environment appeared as the dominant factor.
If a survey were to be designed on the basis of the School Well-being Model, the perceptions of the school’s surroundings and the neighborhood could be included in the school conditions category. Other interesting factors would include group sizes, schedules, breaks, the amount of homework, and a rotation between active physical exercise and physically passive sitting periods. It would also be interesting to gather information about rules and punishments, counseling and lunch services.
The social relationships category contained both relations between pupils, and relations between teachers and pupils. The latter had the highest reliability coefficients within this factor. Bullying was included in this category, although it exemplifies negative social relationships. Bullying can be seen as a group phenomenon based on social relations and roles in the group (Salmivalli et al., 1996). In a meta-analysis it was found that depressiveness was the most important problem connected with bullying (Hawker and Boulton, 2000). In a longitudinal study by Olweus, it was found that people who had been bullied were still more depressed in adulthood (Olweus, 1993).
The survey questions belonging to this area were scarce; additional questions would have been needed. The nature of this factor seemed to be multidimensional. Further research with additional questions could help to clarify this issue. The conceptual model suggests additional topics like school climate, management style, and cooperation between homes and school.
The means for self-fulfillment category consisted of questions focusing on problems with schoolwork (e.g. preparing for exams, doing homework and getting help with studies); teachers expecting too much from a pupil; teachers’ encouragement; respect for pupils’ views at school. Having no or few problems with studies showed the highest reliability coefficients in this category. Teachers’ encouragement and expectations were less important. This may be explained in part by the major role of ‘schoolwork problems’ questions in this factor. On the other hand, the pupils’ role is to study and success in this role is essential for self-fulfillment. A school opens up more or less the means for that success. A previous study on general subjective well-being suggested that it would be crucial to take the educational aspect seriously when trying to improve the well-being of schoolchildren (Konu et al., 2002).
Other areas of the means for self-fulfillment category suggested by the Model are the possibility to increase self-esteem, to apply one’s creativity or the value of students’ work. Further studies would benefit from finding a way to include these areas in an overall school well-being indicator.
The health status category addressed the absence of psychosomatic symptoms or common colds. Feeling tired or weak, tension or being nervous, being irritated or having temper tantrums had the highest reliability coefficients in this category, while having common colds and lower back pains were less significant. Not feeling tired or weak had the highest single reliability coefficient in the whole model. Feeling tired or weak may be an important sign of an overall feeling of not being well.
In addition to psychosomatic symptoms, chronic and other diseases could be included in the health status category. However, this was not done because it was thought that psychosomatic symptoms were more relevant from the school well-being point of view. Also, it has been found that chronic diseases (like diabetes and asthma) were only marginally connected even with general subjective well-being among pupils attending normal schools (Konu et al., 2002). The School Well-being Model does not see health-related behaviors such as smoking or drinking as parts of health status, but rather as factors affecting it. The serious consequences of these behaviors are mostly seen on a longer time scale. Health education and health promotion concerning health-related behaviors are important parts of schooling; they are included in the teaching and education sector (Konu and Rimpelä, 2002). Measuring mental health problems in a school questionnaire is a complex matter. At least part of mental health problems express themselves as psychosomatic symptoms (Aalberg and Siimes, 1999).
The School Well-being Model was confirmed in this study using a large survey dataset. The questions did not cover all aspects of the conceptual model. The categories school conditions and health status were appropriately covered, but the social relationships and means for self-fulfillment categories would have benefited from a wider range of variables that would have enabled further investigation.
School well-being seems to be a truly multi-dimensional phenomenon. The main differences in the School Well-being Model compared with other health-promoting school frameworks [e.g. the WHO ‘Health Promoting School’ (Parsons et al. 1996; WHO, 1998; St Leger, 1999) and ‘Coordinated School Health Program’ in the USA (Allensworth and Kolbe, 1987; Marx et al., 1998)] are the use of the well-being concept, the definition of health and the subcategory means for self-fulfillment (Konu and Rimpelä, 2002). The categories in the School Well-being Model were linked together; especially social relationships and means for self-fulfillment. Although all well-being categories are important, educators and other professionals in school could draw still more attention to opening up more means for self-fulfillment for each pupil. In the school context, this could be seen as an equal possibility for each pupil to study according to his/her own pace and capabilities taking the cognizance of his/her gifts and abilities. This, together with good social relationships could have a remarkable effect on well-being in school.
|
Conclusion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
Although by no means exhaustive, the School Well-being Model can be used to construct well-being indicators and profiles for groups of pupils. The groups may be, for example, under-achievers, pupils showing disturbing behavior or overly dutiful pupils. The information from each well-being category may be obtained using a questionnaire, an interview or other convenient method. The well-being categories should be kept separate to obtain more specific information. The structure of the Model may help to detect areas these pupils find problematic or where they need more support.
Another way to use the School Well-being Model could be to construct well-being profiles for entire schools to highlight the area or areas where a school could make improvements in order to promote the well-being of its pupils. The Model could be used further as a process evaluation tool, e.g. after an intervention the profile could be drawn again to see whether the intervention was successful.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This study was financially supported by The Foundation of Juho Vainio.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
Aalberg, V. and Siimes, M. (1999) Lapsesta aikuiseksi: nuoren kypsyminen naiseksi tai mieheksi [From a Child to a Grown-up: Adolescent’s Growing into a Woman or a Man]. Nemo, Helsinki.
Allardt, E. (1975) Dimensions of Welfare in a Comparative Scandinavian Study. Research Report 9. Research Group for Comparative Sociology. University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
Allardt, E. (1976) Hyvinvoinnin ulottuvuuksia [Dimensions of Welfare]. Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiön laakapaino, Porvoo.
Allardt, E. (1989) An Updated Indicator System: Having, Loving, Being. Working Paper 48. Department of Sociology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
Allensworth, D. D. and Kolbe, L. J. (1987) The comprehensive school health program: exploring an expanded concept. Journal of School Health, 57, 409–412.
Apajasalo, M. (1997) Kouluikäisten terveyteen liittyvän elämänlaadun mittaaminen [English summary: Measuring Health-related Quality of Life of School-aged Children]. Helsingin yliopiston lastentautien laitos, Helsinki.
Argyle, M., Martin, M. and Crossland, J. (1989) Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In Forgas J. P. and Innes J. M. (eds), Recent Advances in Social Psychology. An International Perspective. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 189–203.
Beck, A. T. and Beck, R.W. (1972) Screening depressed patients in family practice. A rapid technique. Postgraduate Medicine, December, 81–85.
Bowling, A. (1991) Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Open University Press, Buckingham.
Drotar, D. (ed.) (1998) Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents. Implications for Research and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Dupuy, H. J. (1984) The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index. In Wenger, N. K., Mattson, M. E., Furberg, C. D. and Elinson, J. (eds), Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. LeJacq, New York, pp. 170–183.
Goldberg, D. (1978) Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. NFER Publishing, Windsor.
Hawker, D. and Boulton, M. (2000) Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychological maladjustment: a meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.[Web of Science][Medline]
Huebner, E. S. (1991) Further validation of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale: the independence of satisfaction and affect ratings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 363–368.
Huebner, E. S. and McCullough, G. (2000) Correlates of school satisfaction among adolescents. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 331–335.
Huebner, E. S., Gilman, R. and Laughlin, J. E. (1999) A multimethod investigation of the multidimensionality of children’s well-being reports: discriminant validity of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 46, 1–22.
Häggqvist, S., Johansson, L., Olsson, R. and Wennberg, A. (1997) Prövning av modell för internkontroll I skolan: Skolmiljö 2000-skolans arbetsmiljörond. Arbetslivsrapport 1997:4. Arbetslivsinstitutet, Solna.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P. and Laippala, P. (1999) Finnish modification of the 13-item Beck Depression Inventory in screening an adolescent population for depressiveness and positive mood. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 53, 451–457.
Konu, A. and Rimpelä, M. (2002) Well-being in schools: conceptual model. Health Promotion International, 17, 79–87.
Konu, A., Lintonen, T. and Rimpelä, M. (2002) Factors associated with schoolchildren’s general subjective well-being. Health Education Research, 17, 155–165.
Marx, E. and Wooley, S. F. (eds) (1998) Health is Academic. A Guide to Coordinated School Health Programs. Teachers College Press, New York.
McCullough, G., Huebner, E. S. and Laughlin, J. E. (2000) Life events, self-concept, and adolescents’ positive subjective well-being. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 281–290.
McDowell, I. and Newell, C. (1996) Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New York.
Neugarten, B. L., Havighurst, R. J. and Tobin, S. S. (1961) The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16, 134–143.
Olweus, D. (1993) Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term consequences. In Rubin, K. and Asendorph, J. (eds), Social Withdrawal, Inhibition, and Shyness in Childhood. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 315–341.
Opdenakker, M.-C. and Van Damme, J. (2000) 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, 165–196.
Parsons, C., Stears, D. and Thomas, C. (1996) The health promoting school in Europe: conceptualising and evaluating the change. Health Education Journal, 55, 311–321.
Raitasalo, R. (1995) Elämänhallinta sosiaalipolitiikan tavoitteena [English summary: Coping as the Target of Social Policy]. Kansaneläkelaitos, Sosiaali- ja terveysturvan tutkimuksia 1, Helsinki.
Raphael, D., Rukholm, E., Brown, I., Hill-Bailey, P. and Donato, E. (1996) The Quality of Life Profile—Adolescent Version: background, description, and initial validation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 366–375.[Web of Science][Medline]
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K. and Kaukiainen, A. (1966) Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behaviour, 22, 1–15.
Samdal, O. (1998) The School Environment as a Risk orResource for Students’ Health-related Behaviours and Subjective Well-being. Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Bergen.
SAS/STAT Software (1997) Changes and Enhancements through Release 6.12. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Savolainen, A., Taskinen, H., Laippala, P. and Huhtala, H. (1998) Oppilaiden arviot peruskoulun yläasteen työoloista [Pupils’ assessments of secondary school’s working environment]. Sosiaalilääketieteellinen aikakauslehti, 35, 129–141.
Savolainen, A. (2001) Koulu työpaikkana [School as a Worksite]. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 830. Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy Juvenes Print, Tampere.
St Leger, L. H. (1999) The opportunities and effectiveness of the health promoting primary school in improving child health—a review of the claims and evidence. Health Education Research, 14, 51–69.
Van Landeghem, L. (1991) Eindvragenlijst leerlingen [Final Questionnaire for Pupils]. Onderzoekscentrum voor Secundair en Hoger Onderwijs, LOSO-project. K. U. Leuven, Leuven.
WHO (1947) The Constitution of the World Health Organization. WHO Chronicle, 1.
WHO (1998) WHO Global School Health Initiative: Helping Schools to Become ‘Health-Promoting Schools’. Available online: http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact092.html.
WHOQOL Group (1998) The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 1569–1585.
Received on September 7, 2001; accepted on December 27, 2001
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||