View article

We question use of the term “well-being” to encompass notably distinct phenomena (objective indicators of socioeconomic status and health, subjective indicators of psychological experience) and dispute characterization of the field of well-being as relatively new. We also call for greater interplay between government surveys and multi-use cohort studies, both of which increasingly focus on well-being. The Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study is presented as an example of how to negotiate distinct disciplinary priorities in broad-based studies of well-being and health, including those that take context seriously. We conclude with explanations for why we do not endorse any of the measurement recommendations (single-item measures, 4-6 item measures, multi-item assessments) put forth in the preceding chapter, arguing that the ultra-short assessments ignore extensive prior science documenting the complex, multi-faceted nature of well-being, while the proposed longer assessment (Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving, CTI) suffers from multiple problems including a questionable conceptual foundation, inadequate evidence of validity and reliability, and highly redundant items.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the “Current Recommendations on the Selection of Measures for Well-Being”(Chapter 17) endorsed by many contributors to this volume. It is worthwhile to engage in scholarly debate and discussion about how to best advance growing interest in assessing human well-being. We have multiple concerns with the current recommendations and have organized our thoughts around four overarching issues. Building