Menu
Menu
The SWLS is a short 5-item instrument designed to measure global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one’s life. The scale usually requires only about one minute of a respondent’s time, where respondents answer on a Likert scale.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a widely used 5-item self-report tool measuring global life satisfaction—a cognitive component of subjective well-being (Diener et al. 1985).
Life satisfaction in this context refers to a judgemental evaluation of one’s life on the basis of their own standards (Pavot & Diener, 1993). The SWLS aims to measure cognitive rather than emotional aspects of life satisfaction, and does not focus on specific domains such as career or relationships. Other life satisfaction scales may ask about how one feels while engaged in daily activities or the amount of time they felt in “good spirits” recently (de Boer, 2014; Kusier & Folker, 2021). Instead, the SWLS captures a broad, reflective judgement that allows one to weigh different aspects of life according to their own unique, personal criteria of what makes a good life.
The scale is suitable for use with adults as well as people as young as those from 12 years and older, as research has indicated the items are at a Year-7 to Year-11 reading level (Alfonso & Allison, 1992).
The SWLS scores are associated with a wide range of personal factors , for example, scores have been positively correlated with measures of happiness, positive domains of leisure and quality of life, while being negatively correlated to aggression, stress and feelings of hopelessness (Bendayan et al., 2013; Kacsmarek et al 2015; Lepp, 2018).
As the SWLS provides a clear measure of a client’s broad cognitive evaluation of their overall satisfaction with their life, it is useful for clinicians as an indicator of a therapeutic intervention leading to meaningful improvement, as opposed to measuring a more fluctuant emotional state (Kuiser & Folker, 2021). Additionally, as the measure is not tied to specific external factors like a particular relationship or career goal, it allows clients to weigh various factors in the way they choose. This can allow clinicians to have an overarching sense of fulfilment guide the course of therapy.
The SWLS consists of five items, and each is scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”), and is presented in raw scores, with a total score range of 5 to 35. Higher scores indicate greater life satisfaction. The below range corresponds with the following interpretive categories (Diener et al., 1985).
Percentiles are presented comparing the respondents score compared to a broad sample of community scores, indicating their level of satisfaction as it compares to typical people. The average person (50th percentile) scores in the “Slightly Satisfied” range, while most people in mental health settings score in the “Slightly Dissatisfied” category. For example, in a pooled sample (n=12,234) of clients in mental health settings had a mean score of 17.04, SD=7.44 (Arrindell et al., 2001; Friedman, 1991; NovoPsych, 2024).
Changes greater than half a standard deviation (3 points) are considered meaningful, suggesting an improvement / deterioration in overall life satisfaction, based on a Minimally Importance Difference calculation (MID). The SWLS is sensitive to detecting changes in life satisfaction during the course of therapy in both improvement and deterioration (Pavot & Diner, 2009). The scale can be complemented by the use of emotional-wellbeing and psychopathology scales (Diener, 2009, pg101). Successful changes in therapy are observed with increases in SWLS scores.
The scale has been extensively validated and tested for invariance across nations, languages, age groups, between sexes and in clinical (Arrindell) and non-clinical (Hultell & Gustavvson, 2008) settings.
The SWLS demonstrates a unidimensional structure, supported by factor analyses across various samples (Neto, 1993; Pons et al., 2000; Shevlin et al., 1997). It has also shown consistent reliability for Cronbach’s alpha above the .70 level, with a 60-study meta-analysis finding a mean alpha of .78 (CI .77-.81). This is supported by a 2017 study of over 7000 business managers in 26 countries that saw a mean alpha value of .86 (Jang et al., 2017). During development, Diener and colleagues (1985) saw high test-retest reliability values for two months (.82), and further studies support this with 1 month (.84), 4 year (.54) and 5 year (.51) time intervals (Fujita et al., 2005; Magnus et al., 1993; Pavot et al., 1991).
A review of 27 papers and over 66,000 respondents across 23 nations assessed the measurement invariance of the SWLS by sex, age and country (Emerson et al., 2017). The findings supported configural invariance in all samples, while 25/27 supported metric, 11/27 supported scalar and 6/27 supported strict measurement invariance. In sum, the SWLS is most invariant between males and females, but is less invariant by culture or age groups. These findings converge with a separate analysis by Jang et al. (2017) who examined measurement invariance of the SWLS in 7,000 managers across 26 countries. Total scores should be compared with caution when comparing an 18-year old with a 65-year old, and between respondents from different countries, particularly between translated versions.
Validity studies of the SWLS support good convergent validity, correlating positively with other subjective well-being measures such as positive affect (Smead, 1991), self-esteem (Pavot & Diener, 1993) and negatively with psychological distress, negative affect, depression and anxiety (Arrindell et al 1991; Bendayan et al., 2013; Blais et al 1989; Pons et al., 2000). The evidence supports the construct validity of the SWLS as measuring an aspect of subjective well-being that is different from both positive and negative affect (Corrigan, 2013).
Extensive normative data has been documented for the SWLS, with scores typically falling between 23 and 28 for non-clinical groups, reflecting slight to high levels of satisfaction (Kusier & Folker, 2021). NovoPsych has established normative data by calculating a weighted mean (M=24.52) and pooled standard deviation (SD=6.22) from various community samples such as the Midlife Development probability survey in the United States and similar samples from the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia (Whisman & Judd, 2015; Jang et al, 2017). See Supplementary Table 1 for a full list of the samples included and their details, it includes 12 studies and over 4,000 responses. The interpolated mean (24.52) and standard deviation (6.22) is in line with the wider literature, where the pattern of responses is substantially above neutral on various measures of subjective well-being in non-clinical samples (Pavot & Diener, 2009). Clinical data is also available, Arrindell and colleagues (1991) report a mean of 23.63(7.01) from a sample of low-back and pelvic pain patients in the Netherlands.
Normative percentiles were calculated from NovoPsych’s weighted mean and pooled standard deviation, allowing clients to be compared to a combined community sample. These percentiles can be mapped on to equivalent raw score descriptors:
Table 1. Sample characteristics for the weighted mean and pooled standard deviation.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). Development of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Alfonso, V. C., & Allison, D. B. (1992). The readability of the Extended Satisfaction With Life Scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Arrindell, W. A., Meeuwesen, L., & Huyse, F. J. (1991). The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties in a non-psychiatric medical outpatients sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90094-R
Bendayan, R., Blanca, M. J., Fernández-Baena, J. F., Escobar, M., & Trianes, M. V. (2013). New empirical evidence on the validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in early adolescents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000118
Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Brière, N. M. (1989). L’Échelle de satisfaction de vie: Validation canadienne-française du “Satisfaction With Life Scale” [French-Canadian validation of the Satisfaction With Life Scale]. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079854
Corrigan, J. D., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S., Wright, J., Bellon, K., & Carufel, P. (2013). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation, 28(6), 489–491. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000004
de Boer, J. (2014). Scaling happiness. Philosophical Psychology, 27(5), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2013.792715
Emerson, S. D., Guhn, M., & Gadermann, A. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Quality of Life Research, 26(9), 2251–2264.
Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: stability and change. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(1), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.158
Hultell, D., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the satisfaction with life scale in a Swedish nationwide sample of university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1070–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.030
Jang, S., Kim, E. S., Cao, C., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., Lapierre, L. M., O’Driscoll, M. P., Sanchez, J. I., Spector, P. E., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Abarca, N., Alexandrova, M., Antoniou, A.-S., Beham, B., Brough, P., Carikci, I., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Geurts, S., . . . Woo, J.-M. (2017). Measurement invariance of The Satisfaction With Life Scale across 26 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117697844
Kusier, A. O., & Folker, A. P. (2021). The Satisfaction with Life Scale: Philosophical Foundation and Practical Limitations. Health Care Analysis, 29(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00420-y
Kaczmarek, L. D., Bujacz, A., & Eid, M. (2015). Comparative latent state–trait analysis of satisfaction with life measures: The Steen Happiness Index and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 16(2), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9517-4
Lepp, A. (2017). Correlating leisure and happiness: the relationship between the leisure experience battery and the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Annals of Leisure Research, 21(2), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017.1325759
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1046–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1046
Neto, F. (1993). The satisfaction with life scale: Psychometrics properties in an adolescent sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 125–134.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of personality assessment, 57(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_17
Pons, D., Atienza, F.L., Balaguer, I., & García-Merita, M.L. (2000). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance for adolescents and elderly persons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 62–68.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. In: Assessing well-being (pp. 101–117): Springer.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
Shevlin, M., Brunsden, V., & Miles, J. N. (1997). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance, mean structures, and reliability. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 805–816.
Smead, V. S. (1991). Measuring well-being is not easy. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology.
Whisman, M. A., & Judd, C. M. (2016). A cross-national analysis of measurement invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000181
NovoPsych’s mission is to help mental health services use psychometric science to improve client outcomes.
© 2023 Copyright – NovoPsych – All rights reserved
