A direct comparison of the temporal stability and criterion validities of experiential and retrospective global measures of subjective well-being

Abstract

Within the past several decades, scholars have expressed concerns regarding the psychometric properties of global, retrospective self-reports of well-being (e.g., life satisfaction scales). This has led to the development of purportedly psychometrically superior experiential measures of well-being, such as the day reconstruction method. However, relatively few studies have directly compared the psychometric properties of global and experiential well-being measures. The present study was a one-month longitudinal design in which we collected up to three measures of (1) global well-being and (2) experiential well-being as measured via the day reconstruction method. These data were used to examine the temporal stability in both types of measures. Moreover, we also examined the criterion-related validity of global and experiential well-being by examining their correlations with theoretically-relevant variables. Results indicated that the majority of variance in all well-being variables was stable across one month—with global life satisfaction being the most stable and experiential negative affect being the least stable. Moreover, in our study, the criterion-related validities for global and experiential well-being were similar. These results seem to affirm the reliability and validity of global measures, and suggest that global and experiential measures of well-being may have similar psychometric properties.