RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Satisfaction With Life Scale

Satisfaction With Life Scale

Last Updated

Purpose

A subjective quality of life measure designed to measure global life satisfaction, a subjective cognitive assessment, in contrast to an objective quality of life survey (e.g. Sickness Impact Profile, Short Form-36).

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym SWLS

Area of Assessment

Activities & Participation

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

CDE Status

Supplemental -- Highly Recommended for Traumatic Brain Injury

Supplemental for Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) and Sport-Related Concussion (SRC) Acute (time of injury until 72 hours)

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery
  • Spinal Cord Injury

Populations

Brain Injury
Mixed Conditions
Spinal Cord Injuries
Neurologic Conditions
Multiple Sclerosis
Cancer
Mental Health
Non-Patient
Intellectual Disability

Key Descriptions

  • The SWLS contains five statements about life satisfaction: three set in the present, one in the past, and one in the future.
  • Can be self-administered or completed by interview.
  • 7-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, 5 items:
    1) In most ways my life is close to my ideal
    2) The conditions of my life are excellent
    3) I am satisfied with my life
    4) So far I am getting the important things I want in life
    5) If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing
  • Scoring:
    1) Global score is computed
    2) Higher scores indicate better health
    3) Scores range from 5 to 35
    4) A score of 20 represents a neutral point at which the respondent is equally satisfied and dissatisfied
  • Translated into a number of languages.

Number of Items

5

Equipment Required

  • Survey form

Time to Administer

Less than 5 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Susan Deems-Dluhy, PT, NCS in 7/2011; Updated by Anna de Joya, PT, MS, NCS and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 5/2012; Reviewed by Rie Yoshida, Heather D Anderson, and the Stroke Edge II Task Force on 4/11/2016. Updated in 6/2026 by Sydney Fackrell, PT, DPT, and Elizabeth Pubchara, PT, DPT, Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, Neuro Residency Program. 

ICF Domain

Participation

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: 

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

 

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

 

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post) 

(Vestibular < 6 weeks post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

SCI EDGE

LS

LS

R

StrokEDGE

UR

UR

UR

 

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

StrokEDGE

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

TBI EDGE

NR

NR

NR

LS

LS

 

Recommendations based on SCI AIS Classification: 

 

AIS A/B

AIS C/D

SCI EDGE

R

R

 

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

 

Completely Independent

Mildly dependant

Moderately Dependant

Severely Dependant

TBI EDGE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

SCI EDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

StrokEDGE

No

No

No

Not reported

TBI EDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

  • Not recommended for use as a physical therapy outcome measure at this time; may be useful as a team screening tool
  • Studied mainly in general population
  • Some questions may be inappropriate in rehab population

Brain Injury

back to Populations

Normative Data

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Corrigan et al, 1998; n = 95 adults with traumatic brain injuries, 6 months to 5 years after inpatient rehabilitation; mean age = 32.4 years) 

  • Mean score of 19.0 (7.6)
  • Time post-injury was significantly associated with higher SWLS total score

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Hanks et al, 2008; n = 174 who met criteria for admission to inpatient brain injury rehabilitation; mean age = 38.15 (18.07) years) 

  • Poor predictive validity for quality of life 1 year post-injury

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Corrigan et al, 1998)

  • Mean score declines at year 1 post injury with a subsequent gradual increase over five years post injury

Spinal Cord Injuries

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Spinal Cord Injury (SCI): (Hill et al, 2010; n = 14 articles reporting on 13 QOL measures)

  • Poor two week test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.39 - 0.65)

Internal Consistency

SCI: (Post et al., 2012; n = 225 (145 at 5-yr follow-up); Mean Age = 45.4 (13.7) yrs; Dutch translation of SWLS)  

  • Excellent for total score (n = 129) (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83)

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

SCI: (Post et al., 2012)

  • Excellent concurrent validity with the LiSat-9 (r = 0.60)
  • Adequate concurrent validity with the Life Satisfaction Questions (r = 0.59)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity: 

SCI: (Post et al., 2012)

  • Adequate correlation with the Mental Health Scale of the SF-36 (MHI-5) (r = 0.48).
  • Adequate correlation with the Sickness Impact Profile 68 (SIP-SOC) (r = -0.41).
  • Excellent correlation between SWLS Item 3 ("I am satisfied with my life") and the LiSat-9 overall life satisfaction item (r = 0.60.)

 

Discriminant validity:

SCI: (Post et al., 2012)

  • Excellent  correlations between the SWLS and the FIM, and lesion characteristics:
    • FIM (r = 0.14)
    • Level of injury (r = 0.21, p < 0.05)
    • Completeness of injury (r = 0.15)
    • Cause of injury (r = 0.02)

 

Face Validity

Spinal Cord Injury: (Hill et al, 2010)

  • Level of injury, number of hospitalizations and number of pressure ulcers related to life satisfaction (p < 0.05), but completeness of injury did not

Floor/Ceiling Effects

SCI: (Post et al., 2012)

  • Excellent:  No floor or ceiling effects found

 

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Normative Data

Undergraduate students: (Diener et al, 1985; n = 176 undergraduates at University of Illinois who were enrolled in psychology classes) 

  • Mean score of 23.5 (6.43)

Cross-sectional assessment of the SWLS: (Durak et al, 2010; study assessed difference in life satisfaction between three groups; n = 547 university students, n = 166 correctional officers, n = 123 elderly persons; mean age = 68.18 (5.10) years; for the elderly population 2 reported their health as "very poor", 10 as "poor", 51 as "average", 46 as "well" and 14 as "very well"; Turkish sample)

SWLS Item Level Norms

 

 

 

Item #

Mean

SD

ITC*

1

4.77

1.80

0.68

2

4.82

1.72

0.78

3

5.18

1.58

0.70

4

4.91

1.70

0.78

5

4.14

2.11

0.72

All Items

23.8

7.44

 

* ITC item total correlation

 

 

 

 

SWLS and Other Major Life Outcomes:

 

 

 

Scale

Range

Mean

SD

SWLS

5 to 35

23.82

7.44

Self esteem

10 to 50

36.94

6.84

Perceived current health status

1 to 5

3.49

0.86

Late-life depression

0 to 30

11.13

5.70

Test/Retest Reliability

Undergraduate Students:(Diener et al, 1985) 

  • Adequate two month test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.82)
 

Older Adults and College Students: (Pavot et al, 1991; Study 1:  n = 39 older members of the Champaign-Urbana community; mean age = 74 (8.97); sex = 16 males, 23 females; Study 2:  n = 125 University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana students; sex = 51 males, 85 females)

  • Excellent overall test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.83)
  • Study 2:  Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.84)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

General population: (Pavot et al, 1993; A review of the SWLS) 

  • Adequate to Excellent item total correlations (ICC = 0.51 - 0.80)

Internal Consistency

Undergraduate students: (Diener et al, 1985) 

  • Adequate to Excellent internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha = 0.61 - 0.89)

Cross-sectional assessment of the SWLS: (Durak et al, 2010; only assessing internal consistency for elderly respondents)

  • Adequate internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha = 0.72)

Older Adults: 

  • Excellent:  McDonald's ω = 0.92, 95% CI [0.91–0.94]) (Dominguez-Vergara et al., 2024; n = 407; Mean Age = 69.5 (6.7) years; age range = 60-95; subjects from three comprehensive senior centers in Peru, Spanish translation of SWLS)
  • Adequate: Cronbach's α = 0.74 (López-Ortega et al., 2016; n = 13,220; Age ≥ 50; Mean Age = 64.7 (9.4) years; female = 56.9%; Mexican sample w/Spanish translation of SWLS; modified number of response options/scoring from original SWLS).

 

Mixed Traumatic Injury Conditions: (Amtmann et al., 2019; n = 17,897; SCI = 48% [n = 8,566]; TBI = 44% [n = 7,941]; Burn Injury = 8% [n = 1,390]; Mean age = 38.85 (17.58) years for combined sample; male = average of 75.14% across injury groups) 

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85) 
    • Removal of item 5 increased Excellent Cronbach's α from 0.85 to 0.86

Infertile Women: (Maroufizadeh et al., 2016; n = 125; Mean Age (SD) = 31.23 (5.81) years; Iranian infertile women undergoing IVF treatment; Persian translation of SWLS) 

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .887)

 

 

Construct Validity

Undergraduate students: (Diener et al, 1985) 

  • Adequate correlation with Life Satisfaction Index (r = 0.46)
  • Adequate correlation with interviewer (r = 0.43)

Correlations between the SWLS and other measures of subject well-being:

 

Sample 1 (n = 176)

Sample 2 (n = 163)

Fordyce 1

0.58 (Adequate)

0.57 (Adequate)

Fordyce (%)

0.58 (Adequate)

0.62 (Excellent)

DPQ

0.68 (Excellent)

-----

Cantril

0.62 (Excellent)

0.66 (Excellent)

Gurin

0.59 (Adequate)

0.47 (Adequate)

Andrews and Withey

0.68 (Excellent)

0.62 (Excellent)

Campbell

0.75 (Excellent)

0.59 (Adequate)

Bradburn-PAS

0.50 (Adequate)

0.51 (Adequate)

Bradburn-NAS

0.37 (Adequate)

-0.32 (Adequate)

Summed Domain Satisfaction

-----

0.57 (Adequate)

AIM

0.09 (Poor)

-----

DPQ = Differential Personality Questionnaire; PAS = Positive Affect Scale; NAS = Negative Affect Scale; AIM = Affect Intensity Measure; Sample 2 was not administered to the the DPQ or AIM, and Sample1 did not complete the domain satisfaction items

 

Older Adults: (Pavot et al, 1991)

  • Adequate convergent validity with Life Satisfaction Index (r = 0.81)

Older Adults: (Dominguez-Vergara et al., 2024)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (χ?/df = 3.48, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.02, RMSEA = 0.07 [90% CI 0.05–0.08]) 
  • Poor negative correlation with anxiety measured by the GAD-7 (r = -0.144)
  • Poor negative correlation with depressive symptoms measured by the PHQ-9 (r = -0.129)

 

Older Adults: (López-Ortega et al., 2016)

  • Poor positive correlation with depressive symptoms (r = 0.29). 
  • Poor positive correlation with limiting pain (r = 0.15).
  • Poor positive correlation with self-reported health (r = 0.19).
  • Poor positive correlation with perceived financial situation (r = 0.23).
  • Poor positive correlations with perceived social support from spouse (r = 0.21–0.23).
  • Poor positive correlations with perceived social support from children (r = 0.20–0.21).
  • Poor positive correlations with perceived social support from friends (r = 0.10–0.13).
  • Poor negative correlations with frequency of disappointment when counting on: spouse (r = -0.14), children (r = -0.11), and friends (r = -0.07)

 

Mixed Traumatic Injury Conditions: (Amtmann et al., 2019)

  • One-factor confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional structure of the SWLS (CFI = .99)  
  • Residual correlations ranged from r = -0.04 to 0.09, supporting local independence among items
  • Metric invariance: ΔCFI = .001  
  • Scalar invariance: ΔCFI = .000

Infertile Women: (Maroufizadeh et al., 2016)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (χ? = 7.91, df = 5, p = 0.161; χ?/df = 1.58; GFI = 0.975; CFI = 0.995; NFI = 0.985; RMSEA = 0.069; SRMR = 0.027)
  • Adequate negative correlation with anxiety (HADS-A) (r = -0.410, p < 0.001).
  • Adequate negative correlation with depression (HADS-D) (r = -0.434, p < 0.001).
  • No significant association between SWLS scores and age (r = 0.041, p = 0.653) or between SWLS scores and duration of infertility (r = 0.013, p = 0.884)

 

  

 

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Older Adults and College Students: (Pavot et al, 1991; Study 1:  n = 39 older members of the Champaign-Urbana community; mean age = 74 (8.97); sex = 16 males, 23 females; Study 2:  n = 125 University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana students; sex = 51 males, 85 females)

  • Excellent overall test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.83)
  • Study 2:  Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.84)

Construct Validity

Older Adults: (Pavot et al, 1991)

  • Adequate convergent validity with Life Satisfaction Index (r = 0.81)

Neurologic Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Parkinson’s Disease: (Rosengren et al., 2015; n = 97; Mean Age = 73 (8) years; age range = 52-91; Mean time since diagnosis= 7 (6) years (range = 1-30 years))

  • SEM = 3.6 points

     

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Parkinson’s Disease: (Rosengren et al., 2015)

  • Smallest Detectable Difference (SDD) = 10.0 points

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Parkinson’s Disease:  (Rosengren et al., 2015)

  • Acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.68–0.85)

 

Internal Consistency

Parkinson’s Disease: (Rosengren et al., 2015)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.90)

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Parkinson's Disease: (Rosengren et al., 2015)

  • Adequate floor effects of 1.1% found for the SWLS)
  • Adequate ceiling effects of 4.5% found for the SWLS)

Multiple Sclerosis

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Multiple Sclerosis: (Learmonth et al., 2014; n = 274; Mean age = 48.0 (10.4) years; female = 229 (84%); Mean disease duration = 10.3 (7.8) years)  

  • SEM = 3.8 points (%SEM = 12.7%)

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Multiple Sclerosis: (Learmonth et al., 2014)

  • Smallest Detectable Change (SDC95) = 10.5 points; (%SDC95 = 35%)

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Multiple Sclerosis: (Learmonth et al., 2014; test-retest interval = 6 months)

  • Acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.772; 95% CI = 0.720–0.816)

 

Internal Consistency

Multiple Sclerosis: (Lucas-Carrasco et al., 2014; n = 84; Mean Age = 52.3 (10.8) years; Spanish translation of SWLS)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.84)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Multiple Sclerosis: (Learmonth et al., 2014)

  • Excellent correlation with the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Scale (LMSQOL) (r = -0.674).
  • Adequate correlation with the SF-12 Mental Composite Score (r = 0.410).
  • Adequate correlation with the SF-12 Physical Composite Score (r = 0.355).
  • Adequate correlation with the MSIS-29 Physical Scale (r = -0.489).
  • Adequate correlation with the MSIS-29 Mental Scale (r = -0.561).
  • Adequate correlation with Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) (r = -0.309).

Multiple Sclerosis: (Lucas-Carrasco et al., 2014)

  • Excellent convergent validity with depressive symptoms measured by HADS-D (r = -0.627).
  • Adequate convergent validity with WHOQOL-BREF Psychological Health (r = 0.571).
  • Adequate convergent validity with WHOQOL-DIS (r = 0.423).
  • Adequate convergent validity with WHOQOL-BREF Physical Health (r = 0.394).
  • Adequate convergent validity with WHOQOL-BREF Social Relationships (r = 0.359).
  • Adequate convergent validity with WHOQOL-BREF Environment (r = 0.321).

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Multiple Sclerosis: (Lucas-Carrasco et al., 2014) 

  • Excellent: no floor or ceiling effects found 

 

Cancer

back to Populations

Internal Consistency

Breast Cancer: (Cerezo et al., 2022; n = 222; Mean Age = 51.67 (9.75) years; Mean time since diagnosis = 3.87 (4.95) years; Spanish translation of SWLS)

  • Excellent:  McDonald's ω = 0.80 

 

Cancer: (Lorenzo-Seva et al., 2019; n = 713; Age ≥ 18 years; Mean Age (SD) = 59.3 (12.2) years; female = 57.8%; non-advanced, resected cancer initiating adjuvant chemotherapy; Spanish translation of SWLS)

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.91* 

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Breast Cancer: (Cerezo et al., 2022)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a one-factor structure (CFI = .99, NNFI = .99, RMSEA = .046)
  • Excellent positive correlation with self-esteem (SES*) (r = 0.69).
  • Excellent positive correlation with flourishing (FS*) (r = 0.69).
  • Excellent positive correlation with positive affect (NAPAS*) (r = 0.62).
  • Adequate positive correlation with resilience (CD-RISC 10*) (r = 0.50).
  • Adequate positive correlation with emotional repair (TMMS-24*) (r = 0.47).
  • Adequate positive correlation with optimism (LOT-R*) (r = 0.42).
  • Adequate positive correlation with emotional clarity (TMMS-24*) (r = 0.35).
  • Adequate negative correlation with depression (DASS-21*) (r = -0.47).
  • Adequate negative correlation with anxiety (DASS-21*) (r = -0.31).
  • Poor negative correlation with stress (DASS-21*) (r = -0.30).
  • Adequate negative correlation with pessimism (LOT-R*) (r = -0.25).
  • Adequate negative correlation with negative affect (NAPAS*) (r = -0.59)

*CD-RISC 10 = Conor-Davidson Resilience Scale; DASS-21 = Depressive, Anxiety, & Stress Scales; FS = Flourishing Scale; LOT-R = Life Orientation Test-Revised; NAPAS = Negative and Positive Affect Scale; SES = Self-Esteem Scale; TMMS-24 = Trait Meta-Mood Scale

 

Cancer: (Lorenzo-Seva et al., 2019)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.056; SRMR = 0.02).
  • Adequate negative correlation with depression (r = -0.42).
  • Adequate negative correlation with anxiety (r = -0.33).
  • Adequate negative correlation with global quality of life (r = -0.32).
  • Poor correlation with somatization (r = -0.26).
  • Poor correlation with functional status (r = -0.29).
  • Poor correlation with symptom burden (r = 0.25).

 

Mental Health

back to Populations

Internal Consistency

Psychiatric/Medical Outpatient: (Aishvarya et al., 2014; n = 483; Mean Age = 42 years; Malaysian sample; 283 psychiatric outpatients and 200 medical outpatients)

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.86
  • Inter-item correlations ranged from 0.48–0.76.

 

Psychiatric Patients: (Jovanovi? et al., 2020; n = 216; Mean Age = 44.56 (12.68) years; Serbian sample; Clinical sample of psychiatric patients w/diagnoses including depressive disorders (31.9%), mixed anxiety-depression (20.4%), anxiety disorders (16.7%), alcohol abuse (14.8%)

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.87

 

Mental Illness: (Garcia et al., 2021; n = 264; Mean Age = 43.46 (13.31) years; age range = 17-74 years; Swedish translation of SWLS) 

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.86

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Psychiatric/Medical Outpatient: (Aishvarya et al., 2014)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (CFI = 0.999; RMSEA = 0.019; GFI = 0.993; AGFI = 0.979).
  • Adequate positive correlation with the Positive and Negative Suicide Ideation Inventory–Positive Scale (r = 0.508).
  • Adequate positive correlation with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = 0.502).
  • Adequate positive correlation with the Provision of Social Relations Scale (r = 0.472).
  • Adequate positive correlation with the Adult Trait Hope Scale (r = 0.372).
  • Adequate positive correlation with the Reasons for Living Inventory (r = 0.371).
  • Adequate negative correlation with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (r = -0.533).
  • Adequate negative correlation with the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (r = -0.515).

  • Adequate negative correlation with the Positive and Negative Suicide Ideation Inventory–Negative Scale (r = -0.412)

     

Psychiatric Patients: (Jovanovi? et al., 2020)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a one-factor structure for clinical sample (CFI = 0.996; TLI = 0.991; RMSEA = 0.036; SRMR = 0.024)
  • Excellent positive correlation with positive affect (r = 0.608).
  • Excellent negative correlation with life functioning problems (r = -0.633).
  • Adequate negative correlation with subjective well-being problems* (r = -0.588).
  • Adequate negative correlation with depression (r = -0.597).
  • Adequate negative correlation with problems/symptoms (r = -0.510).
  • Adequate negative correlation with negative affect (r = -0.497).
  • Adequate negative correlation with stress (r = -0.480).
  • Adequate negative correlation with risk/harm (r = -0.412).
  • Poor negative correlation with anxiety (r = -0.296)

*Higher scores on Subjective well-being subscale reflect lower well-being.

 

Mental Illness: (Garcia et al., 2021)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (CFI = 0.97; IFI = 0.97; NFI = 0.97)
  • Exploratory factor analysis supported a one-factor solution accounting for 64.58% of the variance
  • Items 1–4 demonstrated high discrimination values (alpha = 1.95–3.81).
  • Item 5 demonstrated a moderate discrimination value (alpha = 1.17).

 

Non-Patient

back to Populations

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Caregivers: (Athay, 2012; n = 610; caregivers of youth receiving mental health services)

  • Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) = 0.82 SWLS points (75% confidence)

 

Cut-Off Scores

Caregivers: (Athay, 2012)

  • Low life satisfaction: < 3.4.
  • Medium life satisfaction: 3.4–5.6.
  • High life satisfaction: > 5.6.

 

Test/Retest Reliability

University Students: (de Almeida Cardoso et al., 2023; Validity sample n = 195; Reliability sample n = 117; Online format w/Brazilian translation of SWLS; Brazilian university students from a low-income region)

  • Item 1: Spearman’s rho = 0.66
  • Item 2: Spearman’s rho = 0.69
  • Item 3: Spearman’s rho = 0.73
  • Item 4: Spearman’s rho = 0.42
  • Item 5: Spearman’s rho = 0.63

 

Internal Consistency

University Students:

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.87 for SWLS-3 and 0.88 for SWLS) (Ali et al., 2025; n = 1,401; Sample 1: n = 422, 75.6% female; Sample 2: n = 979, 65.9% female; Saudi university students; Arabic translation of SWLS) 
  • Adequate to Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.72–0.83) (de Almeida Cardoso et al., 2023)
  • Excellent: McDonald's omega (ω) = 0.84 (López-Guerra et al., 2025; n = 4,524; Mean Age = 22 (3.15) years; 55% female; 94% single; 90% full-time students; Spanish translation of SWLS for Ecuadorian university students)
  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.839 for Mexican university students (n = 522) and α = 0.817 for Columbian university students (n = 339)  (Norambuena-Paredes et al., 2025; n = 861; Mean Age (SD) = 20.55 (2.72) years; age range = 18-31 years; Spanish translation of SWLS w/6-point (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) scale)
  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.90 (Barki et al., 2020; n = 120; Mean Age (SD) = 22.7 (3.6) years; age range = 17-28 years; male = 50%; Pakistani university students; Urdu translation of SWLS)
  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.863 for non-native English-speaking Asian international students using the English version and α = 0.851 for Italian university students using the Italian translation of the SWLS. (Valenti & Faraci, 2024; n = 333 (n = 167; Mean Age (SD) = 23.82 (3.78) years; female = 50.3%; Non-Native English-Speaking Asian International University Students and n = 171; Mean Age = 22.38 (4.24); female = 69.6%; Italian university students)

 

Caregivers:

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.90 (Athay, 2012) 
  • Excellent: McDonald's omega (ω) = 0.94 (García-Castro et al., 2022; n = 3,754 caregivers; mean age = 66.0 (9.0) years)

 

Adolescents:

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.82 (Jovanovi?, 2016; Study 1: n = 481; Mean Age (SD) = 17.01 (0.72) years; Serbian high school students)
  • Excellent for Spanish (α = 0.83) and Portuguese (α = 0.81) adolescents (Atienza González et al., 2016; Spanish sample: n = 2,183; Mean Age (SD) = 15.4 (1.5) years; age range = 13-18 years; female = 51.5%; Portuguese sample: n = 4,082; Mean Age (SD) = 15.4 (1.5) years; age range = 13-18 years; female = 54.4%) 

 

Healthy Adults:

  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.893 (Dirzyte et al., 2021; n = 2,003; Mean Age (SD) = 50.67 (17.46) years; age range = 18–90 years; female = 53.2%; Lithuanian translation of SWLS) 
  • Excellent: Cronbach's α = 0.89 (Hinz et al., 2018; n = 9,711; Mean Age (SD) = 56.7 (12.4) years; age range = 18–80 years; German translation of SWLS)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Caregivers: (Athay, 2012)

  • Poor negative correlation with caregiver strain (r = -0.28, p < 0.01).
  • Poor negative correlation with youth externalizing symptom severity (r = -0.30, p < 0.01).
  • Poor negative correlation with youth internalizing symptom severity (r = -0.18, p < 0.01)

 

Construct Validity

University Students: (Ali et al., 2025)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (CFI = 0.994; TLI = 0.985; RMSEA = 0.060; SRMR = 0.017)
  • Adequate positive correlation with positive affect (r = 0.541).
  • Adequate negative correlation with negative affect (r = -0.385).
  • Adequate negative correlation with somatic complaints (r = -0.332)
  • Postgraduate students demonstrated significantly higher life satisfaction than undergraduate students (all p < 0.01).
  • Older students demonstrated significantly higher life satisfaction than younger students on the SWLS and SWLS-3 (p = 0.043 and p = 0.019, respectively)

 

University Students: (de Almeida Cardoso et al., 2023) 

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (χ?/df = 6.53 (p = .258); TLI = 0.991; CFI = 0.996; RMSEA = 0.040; SRMR = 0.026)

 

University Students: (López-Guerra et al., 2025)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (χ?/df = 3.79; CFI = 0.998; TLI = 0.996; SRMR = 0.023; RMSEA = 0.030)
  • Adequate negative correlation with depression measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (r = -0.505, p < 0.001).
  • Adequate negative correlation with perceived stress measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) (r = -0.525, p < 0.001).

 

University Students: (Diaz-Milanes et al., 2024; n = 857; Mean Age (SD) = 20.65 (2.15) years; Spanish university students; 74.45% female)

  • Strength centrality stability coefficient (CS) = 0.750.
  • Closeness centrality stability coefficient (CS) = 0.750.
  • Betweenness centrality stability coefficient (CS) = 0.517.

 

University Students: (Norambuena-Paredes et al., 2025) 

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure in Mexican university students (χ?(5) = 22.937, p < .01; RMSEA = 0.073; CFI = 0.972; TLI = 0.945; SRMR = 0.024)
  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure in Colombian university students (χ?(5) = 13.211, p < .01; RMSEA = 0.070; CFI = 0.975; TLI = 0.954; SRMR = 0.030)

 

University Students: (Barki et al., 2020)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.07; TLI = 0.97; IFI = 0.98)
  • Measurement invariance was supported across gender.

 

University Students: (Valenti & Faraci, 2024)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure for both versions (χ? = 9.815, df = 5, CFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.977, SRMR = 0.027, RMSEA = 0.076 [90% CI 0.000–0.146] for the English version and (χ? = 9.235, df = 5, CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.979, SRMR = 0.028, RMSEA = 0.070 [90% CI 0.000–0.141])

     

Caregivers: (Athay, 2012)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (CFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.02)

 

Caregivers: (García-Castro et al., 2022)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (X2 = 137.28, df = 5, CFI = 0.996; NNFI = 0.993; RMSEA = 0.084 [90% CI = 0.072-0.096])
  • Excellent positive correlation with quality of life (r = 0.69).
  • Adequate positive correlation with control (r = 0.51).
  • Adequate positive correlation with autonomy (r = 0.47).
  • Excellent positive correlation with self-realization (r = 0.64).
  • Adequate positive correlation with pleasure (r = 0.57).
  • Adequate negative correlation with loneliness (r = -0.54).
  • Adequate negative correlation with depression (r = -0.48).
  • Adequate positive correlation with positive social support (r = 0.43).
  • Poor negative correlation with negative social support (r = -0.18).
  • Adequate positive correlation with self-reported health (r = 0.33).
  • Poor negative correlation with difficulties in activities of daily living (r = -0.21).
  • Poor negative correlation with difficulties in instrumental activities of daily living (r = -0.21).
  • Poor negative correlation with number of health conditions (r = -0.17)

 

Adolescents: (Jovanovi?, 2016)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (SBχ?(5) = 15.58; RMSEA = 0.066; SRMR = 0.025; CFI = 0.985)
  • Excellent positive correlation between the SWLS and a single-item life satisfaction measure in Study 2 (r = 0.734) (Study 2: n = 283; Mean Age (SD) = 17.34 (0.49) years; Serbian high school students).
  • Excellent positive correlation between the SWLS and a single-item life satisfaction measure in Study 3 (r = .668) (Study 3: n = 220; Mean Age (SD) = 16.73 (0.72) years; female = 79.5%; Serbian high school students)
  • Adequate negative correlations with depression (r = -0.481 and r = -0.358 across studies 2 and 3).
  • Poor negative correlations with anxiety (r = -0.298 and r = -0.192 across studies 2 and 3).
  • Poor to Adequate negative correlations with stress (r = -0.336 and r = -0.247 across studies 2 and 3).
  • Adequate positive correlations with positive affect (r = 0.466 and r = 0.473 across studies 2 and 3).
  • Adequate negative correlations with negative affect (r = -0.359 and r = -0.357 across studies).
  • Adequate positive correlation with general well-being (r = 0.537) (Study 3)
  • Poor positive correlation with school success (r = 0.203) (Study3)

 

Adolescents: (Atienza González et al., 2016) 

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure in Spanish sample (RMSEA = 0.004; SRMSR = 0.012; NNFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00)
  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure in Portuguese sample (RMSEA = 0.035; SRMSR = 0.020; NNFI = 0.996; CFI = 0.998)

 

Healthy Adults: (Dirzyte et al., 2021)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (χ? = 15.157, df = 2, TLI = 0.988, NFI = 0.997, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.059 [95% CI .033–.088], SRMR = 0.0077).

 

Healthy Adults: (Hinz et al., 2018)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure (χ? = 242.4, df = 5, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.069 [90% CI = 0.062–0.076])
  • Adequate negative correlation with fatigue (MFI total score) (r = -0.49).
  • Adequate positive correlation with mental component summary of SF-8 (quality of life) (r = 0.45).
  • Adequate negative correlation with anxiety (GAD total score) (r = -0.42).
  • Adequate positive correlation with optimism (LOT-R) (r = 0.41).
  • Adequate negative correlation with physical complaints (PHQ-15 summary score) (r = -0.34).
  • Adequate negative correlation with pessimism (LOT-R) (r = -0.34).
  • Adequate negative correlation with sleep quality problems (PSQI score) (r = -0.32).
  • Poor negative correlation with daytime sleepiness (ESS total score) (r = -0.15).
  • Poor positive correlation with physical component summary of SF-8 (quality of life) (r = 0.27)

 

Content Validity

University Students: (Norambuena-Paredes et al., 2025)

Three expert judges from Mexico and Colombia concluded the items were understandable in both countries and no modifications were required.

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

University Students: (Diaz-Milanes et al., 2024)

  • Excellent: No floor or ceiling effects

 

Intellectual Disability

back to Populations

Internal Consistency

Intellectual Disability: (Lucas-Carrasco & Salvador-Carulla, 2012; n = 99; Mean Age (SD) = 38.84 (12.39) years; age range = 18-64 years; Spanish adults with mild intellectual disability; Spanish translation of SWLS)

  • Adequate: Cronbach's α = 0.79 

 

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

Intellectual Disability: (Lucas-Carrasco & Salvador-Carulla, 2012)

  • Excellent positive correlation with WHOQOL-BREF total score (r = 0.63, p < 0.001).
  • Adequate positive correlation with overall quality of life (r = 0.55, p < 0.001).
  • Adequate positive correlation with satisfaction with health (r = 0.53, p < 0.001).

 

Discriminant Validity:

Intellectual Disability: (Lucas-Carrasco & Salvador-Carulla, 2012)

  • Significant ability of SWLS scores to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy participants (t = -2.298, p = 0.024).

 

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Intellectual Disability: (Lucas-Carrasco & Salvador-Carulla, 2012)

  • Excellent: no floor or ceiling effects

 

Bibliography

Aishvarya, S., et al., (2014). Psychometric properties and validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in psychiatric and medical outpatients in Malaysia. Comprehensive psychiatry, 55 Suppl 1, S101–S106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.03.010 

Ali, A. M., et al., (2025). The Arabic Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and its three-item version: Factor structure and measurement invariance among university students. Acta psychologica, 255, 104867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104867 

Amtmann, D., et al., (2019). Psychometric Properties of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in People With Traumatic Brain, Spinal Cord, or Burn Injury: A National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation 嫩B研究院 Model System Study. Assessment, 26(4), 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117693921 

Atienza González, F. L., et. al.,  (2016). Factorial invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in adolescents from Spain and Portugal. Psicothema, 28(3), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.1 

Athay M. M.(2012). Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in caregivers of clinically-referred youth: psychometric properties and mediation analysis. Administration and policy in mental health, 39(1-2), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-011-0390-8 

Barki, N., Choudhry, F. R., & Munawar, K. (2020). The satisfaction with life scale: Psychometric properties in Pakistani population. Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 34, 159. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.34.159 

Cerezo, M. V.,et al., (2022). The Satisfaction with Life Scale in breast cancer patients: Psychometric properties. International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP, 22(1), 100274. 

Corrigan, J. D., Smith-Knapp, K., et al. (1998). "Outcomes in the first 5 years after traumatic brain injury." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79(3): 298-305. 

de Almeida Cardoso, A. G., et al., (2023). Psychometric properties of the online Satisfaction with Life Scale in university students from a low-income region. Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 36(1), 12. 

Diaz-Milanes, D., et al., (2024). A Network Analysis Study on the Structure and Gender Invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Spanish University Students. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 12(2), 237. 

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., et al. (1985). "The Satisfaction With Life Scale." J Pers Assess 49(1): 71-75. 

Dirzyte, A., Perminas, A., & Biliuniene, E. (2021). Psychometric Properties of Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24) in the Lithuanian Population. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(5), 2608. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052608 

Dominguez-Vergara, J., et al., (2024). New Psychometric Evidence of the Life Satisfaction Scale in Older Adults: An Exploratory Graph Analysis Approach. Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland), 9(5), 111. 

Durak, M., Senol-Durak, E., et al. (2010). "Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults." Social indicators research 99(3): 413-429.  

García-Castro, F. J., Bendayan, R., & Blanca, M. J. (2022). Measurement Invariance and Validity of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in Informal Caregivers. Psicothema, 34(2), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.313 

Garcia, D.,et al.,(2021). Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the satisfaction with life scale in a sample of individuals with mental illness. PeerJ, 9, e11432. 

Hanks, R. A., Millis, S. R., et al. (2008). "The predictive validity of a brief inpatient neuropsychologic battery for persons with traumatic brain injury." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(5): 950-957. 

Hill, M. R., Noonan, V. K., et al. (2010). "Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review." Spinal Cord 48(6): 438-450. 

Hinz, A., et al., (2018). Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), derived from a large German community sample. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 27(6), 1661–1670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1844-1 

Jovanovi? V. (2016). The validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in adolescents and a comparison with single-item life satisfaction measures: a preliminary study. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 25(12), 3173–3180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1331-5 

Jovanovi?, V., Lazi?, M., & Gavrilov-Jerkovi?, V. (2020). Measuring life satisfaction among psychiatric patients: Measurement invariance and validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 27(3), 378–383. 

Learmonth, Y. C., et al., (2014). Psychometric properties of quality of life and health-related quality of life assessments in people with multiple sclerosis. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 23(7), 2015–2023. 

López-Guerra, V. M.,et al., (2025). Psychometric properties and factor structure of the satisfaction with life scale in Ecuadorian university students. Frontiers in psychology, 16, 1536973. 

López-Ortega, M., et al., (2016). Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): secondary analysis of the Mexican Health and Aging Study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14:170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0573-9

Lorenzo-Seva, U., et al., (2019). Psychometric properties and factorial analysis of invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in cancer patients. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 28(5), 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02106-y 

Lucas-Carrasco, R., & Salvador-Carulla, L. (2012). Life satisfaction in persons with intellectual disabilities. 嫩B研究院 in developmental disabilities, 33(4), 1103–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.02.002 

Lucas-Carrasco, R., et al.,(2014). Preliminary validation study of the Spanish version of the satisfaction with life scale in persons with multiple sclerosis. Disability and rehabilitation, 36(12), 1001–1005. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.825650 

Maroufizadeh, S., et al., (2016). Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) in Iranian infertile women. International journal of reproductive biomedicine, 14(1), 57–62. 

Norambuena-Paredes, I., et al., (2025). Factorial Invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in Mexican and Colombian University Students. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 15(3), 277. 

Pavot, W. and Diener, E. (1993). "Review of the satisfaction with life scale." Psychological Assessment 5(2): 164. 

Pavot, W., Diener, E., et al. (1991). "Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures." J Pers Assess 57(1): 149-161. 

Post, M. W., et al., (2012). Validity of the Life Satisfaction questions, the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Satisfaction With Life Scale in persons with spinal cord injury. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 93(10), 1832–1837. 

Rosengren, L., et al., (2015). Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in Parkinson's disease. Acta neurologica Scandinavica, 132(3), 164–170. 

Valenti, G. D., & Faraci, P. (2024). Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the English Version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) for Non-Native English Speakers. European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 14(6), 1712–1721. 

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Jun 29, 2026

International Knee Documen...

read more

updated Jun 22, 2026

Coma Recovery Scale - Revi...

read more

updated Jun 22, 2026

Mann Assessment of Swallow...

read more