Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Assesses psychometric properties of the Chopra Wellbeing Index, highlighting its validity in measuring multidimensional wellbeing.
ObjectiveChopra Wellbeing Index (CWI) was developed as a multidimensional measure of wellbeing, integrating physical, emotional, social, and spiritual domains consistent with contemporary models of human flourishing. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the psychometric properties of this measure.MethodsThe psychometric properties of the CWI were assessed in 1637 participants (ages 18-83) who completed the CWI alongside established comparator measures of wellbeing, mental health, and quality of life. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to test the dimensionality of the instrument. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Criterion validity was assessed via correlations with validated scales. Measurement invariance testing was conducted with respect to several demographic dimensions to assess generalizability of the scale's underlying factor structure.ResultsThe 24-item CWI demonstrated strong internal consistency across subscales. Factor analyses supported a multidimensional structure with four correlated subscales: physical, psychological, social, and spiritual wellbeing. Evidence of criterion validity was found via positive correlations with wellbeing and life satisfaction measures along with negative correlations with measures of depression, anxiety, and negative emotions. Partial measurement invariance was supported with respect to gender, education, marital status, employment status, income, race/ethnicity, and country.ConclusionsThe Chopra Wellbeing Index is a reliable and valid tool for assessing multidimensional wellbeing in adults. Its integration of spiritual and existential domains alongside traditional health indicators distinguishes it from existing instruments, making it suitable for use in holistic health research, clinical practice, and population wellbeing monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: