It is crucial to establish the validity of existing measures of children’s subjective well-being (SWB) for use within specific contexts. Two important measurement issues that implicate the validly of SWB scales are ‘question framing’ and ‘response options’. Fundamental to the latter is the concept of scale granularity, which refers to the number of response options imposed on a scale. However, the majority of studies on the topic have used adult and not child samples. The overarching aim of the study was to explore how children from three different contexts (Catalonia, Cape Town and North-Western Romania) perceive, understand, and make sense of SWB instruments, using focus group interviews and thematic analysis. A key finding of the study was the similarities in children’s understandings of the response options across these contexts. While this does not represent a claim for a ‘universal understanding’ of measurement scale response formats, it is suggesting that there are similar cognitive processes that children across the contexts apply when making sense of and deciding on which response option to endorse (for both verbal and numerical formats). Another key finding is the unique perspective on the process of how children make sense of the scale declarative statement in relation to these response options, and the life aspects they draw on for the final endorsement. Future studies should endeavour to focus on a range of different contexts and cohorts of children and include various types of measurement scales and response options.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Adams, S., Savahl, S., & Fattore, T. (2017). Children’s representations of nature using photovoice and community mapping: Perspectives from South Africa. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being., 12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2017.1333900.
Ben-Arieh, A. (2000). Beyond welfare: Measuring and monitoring the state of children – New trends and domains. Social Indicators Research, 52(3), 235–257.
Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frønes, I., & Korbin, J. (Eds.) (2014) Multifaceted concept of child well-being, In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, and J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being (pp. 1–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Casas, F., Bălţătescu, S., Bertran, I., González, M., & Hatos, A. (2013). School satisfaction among adolescents: Testing different indicators for its measurement and its relationship with overall life satisfaction and subjective well-being in Romania and Spain. Social Indicators Research, 111, 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0025-9.
Casas, F., & Bello, A. (Coord.), (2012). Calidad de vida y bienestar subjetivo en España. Qué afecta al bienestar de niños y niñas españoles de 1° de ESO? Girona: Documenta Universitaria, UNICEF, España.
Casas, F., Castella-Sarriera, J., Abs, D., Coenders, G., Alfaro, J., Saforcada, E., & Tonon, G. (2011). Subjective indicators of personal well-being among adolescents. Performance and results for different scales in Latin-language speaking countries: A contribution to the international debate. Child Indicators Research, 5, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9119-1.
Casas, F., Coenders, G., González, M., Malo, S., Bertran, I. and Figuer, C. (2012). Testing the relationship between parent’s and their own children subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9305-3
Casas, F., Bello, A., González, M., & Aligué, M. (2013). Children’s subjective well-being measured using a composite index: What impacts Spanish first-year secondary education students’ subjective well-being? Child Indicators Research, 6(3), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-013-9182-x.
Coelho, P. S., & Esteves, S. P. (2007). The choice between a five-point and a ten-point scale in the framework of customer satisfaction measurement. International Journal of Market Research, 49(3), 313–339.
Cook, C. F., Heath, R., Thompson, L., & Thompson, B. (2001). Score reliability in web or internet-based surveys: Unnumbered graphic rating scales versus Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 697–706.
Corsaro, W. A (2008). Sociologia Copilăriei, ediţia a II a. Cluj Napoca: International Book Access.
Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9167-0.
Cummins, R. A. (2014). Understanding the well-being of children and adolescents through homeostatic theory. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 635–662). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Misajon, R., & Davern, M. (2001). Australian Unity wellbeing index: Survey 2, report 1.0. Australian Centre on quality of life, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Fattore, T., Fegter, S., & Hunner-Kreisel, C. (2018). Children’s understandings of well-being in global and local contexts: Theoretical and methodological considerations for a multinational qualitative study. Child Indicators Research, 12(2), 385–407.
González-Carrasco, M., Casas, F., Viñas, F., Malo, S., & Crous, G. (2019). The interplay between school and home location and its relationship with children’s subjective well-being. Children's Geographies, 17, 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1635993.
International Test Commission. (2016). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). [www.InTestCom.org].
James, A., & Prout, A. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the social construction of childhood. London: Falmer.
Jones, W. P., & Loe, S. L. (2013). Optimal number of questionnaire response categories: More may not be better. SAGE Open, 3, 215824401348969. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013489691.
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measurement in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 213–236.
Lietz, P. (2010). Research into questionnaire design: A summary of the literature. International Journal of Market Research, 52(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.2501/S147078530920120X.
O' Muircheartaigh, C., Krosnick, J.A., & Helic, A. (2000). Middle alternatives, acquiescence, and the quality of questionnaire data. Working papers 0103, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.
O'Muircheartaigh, C., Gaskell, G., & Wright, D. B. (1995). Weighing anchors: Verbal and numeric labels for response scales. Journal of Official Statistics, 11(3), 295–307.
Pearse, N. (2011). Deciding on the scale granularity of response categories of Likert-type scales: The case of a 21-point scale. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 159–171.
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5.
Rees, G., Andresen, S. & Bradshaw, J. (Eds.) (2016). Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 16 countries: A report on the Children’s worlds survey of children aged eight years old, 2013-15. York, UK: Children’s Worlds Project (ISCWeB).
Rees, G., & Dinisman, T. (2015). Comparing children’s experiences and evaluations of their lives in 11 different countries. Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 5–31.
Ryan, K., Gannon-Slater, N., & Culbertson, M. J. (2012). Improving survey methods with cognitive interviews in small- and medium-scale evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 414–430.
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. (2007). Estimation of the effects of measurement characteristics on the quality of survey questions. Survey Research Methods, 1(1), 29–43.
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Coenders, G. (2004). A new approach for evaluating quality of measurement instruments. Sociological Methodology, 34(1), 311–347.
Savahl, S., Adams, S., Florence, M., Casas, F., Mpilo, M., Isobell, D., & Manuel, M. (2019). The relation between children’s participation in daily activities, their engagement with family and friends, and subjective well-being. Child Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-019-09699-3.
Savahl, S., Malcolm, C., Slembrouk, S., Adams, S., Willenberg, I., & September, R. (2015). Discourses on well-being. Child Indicators Research, 8(4), 747–766.
Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B., Hippler, H., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991). Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 570–582.
Smithson, M. (2006). Scale construction from a decisional viewpoint. Minds & Machines, 16, 339–364.
Tomyn, A. J., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. D., Cummins, R. A., & Norrish, J. M. (2017). The validity of subjective wellbeing measurement for children: Evidence using the personal wellbeing index—School children. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1859–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9804-3.
Tourangeau, R. (2018). The survey response process from a cognitive viewpoint. Quality Assurance in Education, 26(2), 169–181.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Montserrat, C., Savahl, S., Adams, S. et al. Children’s Perspectives on Scale Response Options of Subjective Well-Being Measures: A Comparison between Numerical and Verbal-Response Formats. Child Ind Res 14, 53–75 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09748-2
- Scale granularity
- Children’s subjective well-being measures
- Focus group interviews
- Thematic analysis
- Child participation