Measuring Subjective Vitality and Depletion in Older People from a Self-Determination

Theory Perspective: A Dual Country Study

James Dawe1, Elisa Cavicchiolo2, Tommaso Palombi1, Christina M. Frederick3, Andrea Chirico1,
Fabio Lucidi1, & Fabio Alivernini1

1
Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Rome, Italy

2
University of Rome Tor Vergata, Department of Systems Medicine, Rome, Italy

3
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Daytona
Beach, Florida, USA

Authors note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James Dawe, Sapienza University of
Rome, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Rome, Italy. E-mail: james.dawe@uniroma1.it

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

This study was co-funded by Next Generation EU, in the context of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan,
Investment PE8 – Project Age-It: “Ageing Well in an Ageing Society”. This resource was co-financed by the Next
Generation EU [DM 1557 11.10.2022]. The views and opinions expressed are only those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the
European Commission can be held responsible for them.

Abstract
As the global older population grows research increasingly focuses on their well-being and quality of life, aspects that are
often impacted by a perceived loss of energy and fatigue. To describe individuals' energy dynamics, Self-Determination
Theory (SDT) recently proposed a dual-process model based on two constructs: Subjective Vitality and Depletion. The
present study aims to validate the Subjective Vitality/Depletion Scale (SVDS), an SDT instrument based on this model.
A sample of 726 older adults (over 65) from two countries USA and Italy (343 USA and 383 Italy; 51.1% females; age
range = 65 - 95 years; Mage = 72.57, SDage = 6.49) completed the SVDS, the Big Five Inventory 2 – Extra Short Form
(BFI-2-XS), and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Confirmatory factor analyses of the SVDS support the
SDT hypothesis that Subjective Vitality and Depletion are two distinct, yet related constructs. Full measurement
invariance for the scale was achieved across gender and age subgroups, while partial scalar invariance was established
across different countries, suggesting some specific influence of cultural factors. Correlations with BFI-2-XS and SF-12
support the SVDS convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. In conclusion, we provided evidence that the SVDS
based on SDT is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing Subjective Vitality and Depletion among older individuals.

1
Vitality and Depletion appear to be constructs that are conceptualized and interpreted consistently across older adults with
diverse characteristics and cultures.

Keywords: SDT; Subjective Vitality; Subjective Depletion; Older adults; Cross-cultural; Subjective Vitality/Depletion
Scale; Validation.

1 Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2022), the global older adult population is projected to reach 1.4
billion by 2030 and 2.1 billion by 2050. Such a significant increase will pose challenges for developed societies in the
coming decades, and there has been a surge in research focusing on the well-being and health of older adults. Aging is a
multifaceted process, marked by a range of psychological and physiological changes (Hertzog et al., 2008; Murman,
2015; Valdes et al., 2013). Among them, perceived loss of energy and fatigue are a frequently reported complaint among
older people and increases with age (Avlund, 2010; Hardy & Studenski, 2008; Valentine et al., 2011).
Indeed, loss of energy and fatigue represent a natural part of this transition into old age, particularly notable when
compared with the earlier life stages. Such a perception of a gradual reduction of available energy can have an important
impact on older adults lives, limiting their daily activities, and affecting life satisfaction, social participation, and quality
of life (Avlund, 2010; Ehrenkranz et al., 2020; Valentine et al., 2011). Moreover, it can lead to a more sedentary lifestyle
and poorer health outcomes (Hardy & Studenski, 2008). Therefore, to implement meaningful preventive interventions it
is critical to accurately assess and understand perceived energy levels in older adults.
2 Literature review
2.1 The concepts of Subjective Vitality and Depletion
To further understand the energy dynamics experienced by individuals, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has recently
proposed a dual-process approach (Frederick & Ryan, 2023) based on two constructs: Subjective Vitality and Subjective
Depletion. The former has been defined as “a positive feeling of aliveness and energy available to the self” (Ryan &
Frederick, 1997, p. 529). Subjective Vitality has been shown to play a crucial role in maintaining adequate physical,
social, and mental functioning (Chang & Kao, 2019; Ryan et al., 2008; Baumeister & Vohs, 2016; Lavrusheva, 2020).
Research has revealed several positive effects of Subjective Vitality in older adults, including protective factors against
physical decline (Avlund, 2010; Benyamini et al., 2000; Penninx et al., 1998), reduced risk of new diseases and mortality
(Penninx et al., 2000), enhanced emotional functioning (Penninx et al., 1998), improved life satisfaction (Michalos et al.,
2000), better quality of sleep, and reduced body ache and pain (Myers et al., 1999). Additionally, it has been associated
with high levels of Extraversion (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Conversely, a loss of Subjective Vitality can lead to adverse
health outcomes, decreased happiness, and ill-being (Frederick & Ryan; 2023; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Moreover, it has
been associated with high levels of Neuroticism (Ryan & Frederick, 1997), as well as negative affects (e.g., irritability or
nervousness), anxiety, depression, fatigue, and general somatic symptoms (e.g., headache and back pain) (Buchner et al.,
2022; Goldbeck et al., 2019).
Alongside Subjective Vitality, Subjective Depletion, as posited by SDT, is the second key construct within the
dual-process model of energy dynamics. It has been defined by Frederick & Ryan (2023) as an individual’s experience of
exhaustion in energy and aliveness. This construct has been hypothesized to be associated with negative outcomes and
ill-being (Frederick & Ryan, 2023). However, while Subjective Vitality has received considerable attention in past
decades, Subjective Depletion was recently introduced by the SDT framework. Therefore, due to its novelty, and the lack

2
of a valid measurement tool, there is a gap in the literature regarding its possible association with physical and
psychological outcomes.
2.2 Development of the Subjective Vitality/Depletion Scale (SVDS)
The introduction of the new construct of Subjective Depletion brings a shift of perspective, from a unidimensional model
(high/low vitality) to a bidimensional model (high/low vitality and high/low depletion) of energy. Indeed, Subjective
Vitality and Depletion are hypothesized to be interconnected within the same dual-process model, yet they embody
relatively independent experiences, each driven by distinct dynamics (Martela et al. 2016). To further study this new
model, Frederick and Ryan (2023) have developed a novel instrument: the Subjective Vitality/Depletion Scale (SVDS).
However, the psychometric properties of this new scale are still unknown. Therefore, the main aim of the current study is
to validate this scale in a sample of older adults. Assessing Subjective Vitality and Depletion is particularly crucial within
the context of the older population, given the significant influence these constructs exert on their health and overall well-
being. Hence, accurate assessment could help to identify older adults whose health is most at risk, facilitating the
development of targeted preventive interventions.
2.3 SVDS’s measurement invariance and cultural differences
A fundamental part of the validation process is to ensure measurement invariance across groups with different
characteristics such as gender, age, and culture. Cultural factors, in particular, might play an important role in the way a
construct is conceptualized or how its indicators are interpreted (Putnik & Bornstein, 2016). For example, let us consider
the potential effects of cultural differences between North American and European older adults on the measurement of
Subjective Vitality. Previous research has highlighted how achievement, independence (Sandal et al., 2014), feeling young
(Westerhof et al., 2012), and physical activity (Carlson et al., 2020; Reich et al., 2020) represent important values within
the North American older population and may contribute to their self-representation of being active and energetic (Reich
et al., 2020). In contrast, in European culture, those values seem to be less relevant (Karlin et al., 2014; Principi et al.,
2016; Westerhof et al., 2012). On the other hand, Europeans place a higher emphasis on intergenerational connections
and familial ties (Glaser & Tomassini, 2000) than North Americans (Reich et al., 2020), which are recognized to be a
more individualistic society (Dmello & Hussain, 2023). Consequently, those differences might be reflected in the
importance that people in the two cultures give to the items regarding Subjective Vitality. For example, North American
older people may place greater importance to items related to feeling full of energy and active, reflecting their need to
match cultural values (Fung, 2013). In contrast, older individuals in Europe may place great importance to time spent in
activities shared with their family as an indicator of Subjective Vitality.
Therefore, despite the concept of Subjective Vitality and Depletion being recognized across various cultures
(Frederick & Ryan, 2023), the assumption that older individuals with different characteristics conceptualize those
constructs and interpret their indicators consistently needs to be proven. To mitigate potential sources of bias,
measurement invariance needs to be established and typically involves a three-step procedure (Putnik & Bornstein, 2016).
The initial step (configural invariance) in establishing measurement invariance involves assessing whether older
people with different characteristics conceptualize Subjective Vitality and Depletion as two distinct, yet related,
constructs, with three indicators for each latent variable (Steinmetz, 2018). Problems in this first step imply that one or
more items are not associated with the corresponding construct in one of the groups, suggesting variations in how
Subjective Vitality and/or Depletion are conceptualized.
Once configural invariance is established, the second step is to ensure that all items are interpreted similarly
across older people with different characteristics (Metric invariance). Problems in the second step suggest that one or
more items are a stronger indicator of a latent construct in one of the groups. If this level of invariance is established,
3
factor scores can be interpreted as representing the same underlying construct in each group allowing correlations with
other variables (Davidov et al., 2018).
Once configural and metric invariance are established, the third step is to ensure that regardless of group
membership, older individuals with the same level of Subjective Vitality and Depletion respond similarly to the
corresponding items. Problems in this step could indicate that due to differences in older people’ characteristics, a score
on one indicator does not affect the latent variable similarly across groups. Even if not preferable, biased items can provide
useful information regarding cultural differences (Davidov et al., 2018). Nevertheless, this step is necessary for any
unbiased cross-group comparisons (Steinmetz, 2018). If scalar invariance is not established, it is common practice to test
for partial scalar invariance by freeing item intercepts to be variant across groups. This additional procedure allows us to
analyze group differences and to use factor scores in correlational analyses since partial scalar invariance should have
little influence (Milfont & Fischer, 2010; Schmitt & Kuljanin, 2008; Scholderer et al., 2005).
2.4 The present study
Considering the significant role that Subjective Vitality and Depletion play in the older population, due to their substantial
implications for health and well-being (Frederick & Ryan, 2023), the general aim of this study is to validate and establish
the psychometric properties of the Subjective Vitality-Depletion Scale (SVDS) in a sample of older adults, filling a gap
in current literature.
More specifically, the first aim of the present study is to provide the factor structure underlying the scale. In line
with the SDT proposal, we hypothesize a model with two distinct, but negatively related, factors.
The second aim of the study is to establish measurement invariance across cultural contexts (i.e., USA vs Italy),
gender, and age groups (i.e., 65-75 years old vs over 75). This passage is fundamental for any group comparison and the
use of factor scores in correlational analyses. Existing literature leads us to expect scalar measurement invariance to be
established for gender and age groups (Jankowsky et al., 2020; Liu & Chung, 2018), but not necessarily between USA
and Italy, where cultural factors might play some role (Jankowsky et al., 2020). The content of the original items and their
Italian translations are presented in Appendix A.
The third aim is to analyze the convergent and discriminant validity of Subjective Vitality and Depletion through
the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio, details of which will be explained in
the Data analyses section. Moreover, those aspects of validity will be studied through the relation with the Big Five
Inventory-2-Extra Short Form (Sato & John, 2017). According to previous SDT literature (Buchner et al., 2022; Goldbeck
et al., 2019; Ryan & Frederick, 1997), where Subjective Vitality was found to be positively associated with the Big Five
factor Extraversion and negatively with Neuroticism and Negative Affect, we would expect Subjective Vitality to show a
positive correlation with Extraversion and a negative correlation with Negative Emotionality. Conversely, we would
expect Subjective Depletion to show a positive correlation with Negative Emotionality and a negative correlation with
Extraversion.
Lastly, the fourth aim is to analyze the nomological validity of the two constructs in relation to a measure of
Mental and Physical Health (12-item Short Form Health Survey; Ware et al., 1996). Since Subjective Vitality and
Depletion have been theorized to be associated with physical and mental health (Frederick & Ryan, 2023), we would
expect that the former will show a positive correlation with Mental and Physical Health, while Depletion will show a
negative correlation with these health measures.
3 Method
3.1 Sample and Data Collection

4
The present study employs a cross-sectional design, and the data were collected from individuals over 65 years old who
live in two countries: the United States of America (USA) and Italy (ITA). A group of Italian researchers coordinated the
study, which consisted of a questionnaire on health, personality traits, and Subjective Vitality and Depletion in older
people. Data was collected through an online survey for both samples. The questionnaires had an average completion
time of 12 minutes. All participants provided informed consent to participate, wherein they were informed about the
overall aim of the study and their rights to anonymity and confidentiality. The study protocol received approval from the
institutional review board of the first author’s institution. The dataset analyzed during this study is not publicly availabl e
but can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The exclusion criteria were as follows: current
or past neurological disorder or major medical illness (e.g., dementia, traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, epilepsy,
active nausea, vomiting), current psychiatric disorder (e.g., major depression), or a severe sensory or motor deficit that
would preclude physical activity or exercise. The overall sample consisted of 726 older adults (343 USA, 383 Italy) over
65 years old. Descriptive statistics (see Supplementary Information 1 for further details) show that 51.1% of the sample
consists of females. The age ranged from 65 to 95 years old with a mean of 72.57 and a standard deviation of 6.489, with
60.5% being 65-75 years and 39.5% being above 75 years. Similar results were obtained when we considered the single
countries. Indeed, 48.7% of the USA sample and 51.4% of the Italian sample consisted of females. The age ranged from
65 to 94 in the USA sample and from 65 to 95 in the Italian sample. The mean ages (and standard deviation) were
respectively 73.21 (7.233) for the USA and 71.86 (5.464) for the Italian sample.
3.2 Measures
The Subjective Vitality/Depletion Scale (SVDS; Frederick & Ryan, 2023) is a self-report questionnaire composed of six
items for the assessment of Subjective Vitality (e.g. “I have a lot of positive energy and initiative”) and Depletion (e.g. “I
feel drained”). Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Not at all true” to 7 = “Very true”). These scales
reflect the dual-process model of energy proposed by Frederick and Ryan (2023), which theorize two distinct, yet related
constructs. The items of the SVDS were initially translated from English into Italian by the authors and then back-
translated by a person fluent in both languages. Subsequently, a team of independent judges evaluated the consistency of
the original and the back-translated versions of the scales until accordance was reached.
Along with the Subjective Vitality/Depletion Scale (SVDS; Frederick & Ryan, 2023), the present research used
other two self-report questionnaires: the Italian version of the Big Five Inventory 2 Extra Short (BFI-2-XS; Soto & John,
2017) and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12; Ware et al., 1996). The BFI-2-XS is composed of 15 items rated
on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Disagree strongly” to 5 = “Agree strongly”). It consists of 5 scales and 15 subscales:
Extraversion (Sociability, Assertiveness, and Energy level), Agreeableness (Compassion, Respectfulness, and Trust),
Conscientiousness (Organization, Productiveness, and Responsibility), Negative Emotionality (Anxiety, Depression, and
Emotional Volatility), and Open-Mindedness (Aesthetic Sensitivity, Intellectual Curiosity, and Creative Imagination). All
15 items were administrated, however, in order to test convergent and discriminant validity of the SVDS scales, and based
on past studies' results (Buchner et al., 2022; Goldbeck et al., 2019; Ryan & Frederick, 1997), only two of the five scales
(Extraversion and Negative Emotionality) are used in the present study. Previous research showed adequate alpha
reliability (0.66 for Extraversion and 0.69 for Negative Emotionality) and a high part-whole correlation of 0.92 for both
scales (Soto & John, 2017). Moreover, Soto and John's (2017) study supported the five-factor structure and provided
evidence of good external validity.
The SF-12 (Apolone & Mosconi, 1998; Ware et al., 1996) is a widely used questionnaire for the assessment of
general mental and physical health, translated into many languages and practical to use. It comprises 12-item covering
different topics: Physical Functioning (PF), Role-Physical (RP), Bodily Pain (BP), General Health (GH), Vitality (VT),
5
Social Functioning (SF), Role-Emotional (RE), Mental Health (MH), and Change in Health (HT). Each of those subscales
is used to compute the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score (obtained from GH, PF, RP, and BP), and the Mental
Component Summary (MCS) score (obtained from SF, RE, MH, and VT). Ware et al. (1996) provided the algorithms for
computing the subscale scores and for standardizing PCS and MCS into T scores, which are used in the present study.
Past research on the SF-12 has shown good reliability (range 0.73-0.86), and acceptable convergent and discriminant
validity among older people (Jakobsson, 2007; Shou et al., 2016).
3.3 Data Analysis
To analyze the factor structure of the SVDS (Figure 1) proposed by Frederick and Ryan (2023), a Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) was conducted on the total sample of older subjects. In line with our hypothesis, we tested a model with
two distinct (but correlated) factors. To exclude the possibility that a more parsimonious model could explain the data
better than the two-factor model, we tested a model with just one factor. From a theoretical standpoint, this would also
help to determine if subjective vitality and depletion are two distinct constructs or if they represent opposite ends of a
continuum. Once the factor structure was established, it was used in a Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(MGCFA). The MGCFA was implemented to test measurement invariance (Configural, Metric, and Scalar) across older
people with different characteristics such as living in the USA or Italy, being male or female, or falling in the age group
65-75 or over 75. Following Davidov et al. (2018) indication, this procedure implies sequential steps testing increasingly
restrictive models by imposing equality constraints on parameters (patterns of factor loadings, item factor loadings, and
item intercepts). For parameter estimation, Maximum Likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was used
for all analyses.
Model fit was assessed using the Chi-squared test, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Widely
accepted rules of thumb for model evaluation are: for a good fit, less than 0.05 for RMSEA and SRMR, and higher than
0.95 for CFI and TLI; for an acceptable fit, values should be between 0.05 and 0.08 for RMSEA, between 0.90 and 0.95
for CFI and TLI, and between 0.05 and 0.10 for SRMR (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Concerning
measurement invariance, the loss of goodness of fit was tested by comparing the more restricted model with the less
restricted model using the ΔCFI and ΔRMSEA, as they are sensitive to all types of invariance tests (Chen, 2007). A change
greater than 0.01 in ΔCFI and of 0.015 for ΔRMSEA is indicative of noninvariance (Chen, 2007). If the measurement
invariance was not supported at one of the different steps, modification indices (MI) were used to identify the cause of
the misfit and whether the partial invariance could be achieved by modifying the model.
Internal consistency reliability was analyzed through Cronbach’s Alpha and the Composite Reliability (CR). The
difference between the two indicators is that the first is based on interitem correlations and is sensitive to the number of
items and tends to underestimate internal consistency, while the second is based on the standardized factor loadings and
overcomes Cronbach’s Alpha limitations (Hair et al., 2017). They both use the same rule of thumb: values between 0.60
and 0.70 are acceptable, between 0.70 and 0.90 are satisfactory, and values above 0.90 are indicative of redundancy of
the items, and therefore are not desirable (Hair et al., 2017; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).
To analyze convergent and discriminant validity, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct and
the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio between the two constructs were computed. Using the information from the CFA,
the AVE represents the proportion of an item’s variance explained by the construct and serve as an index of their
convergence (Hair et al., 2014). The higher the value, the more the variance explained by the construct and, the better the
convergent validity. Instead, based on the correlation matrix of all the items of the SVDS, the HTMT represents the ratio
of all the correlations between the items measuring different constructs (Heterotrait) and all the correlations between items
6
measuring the same constructs (Monotrait). To prove discriminant validity, we expect the value of the Heterotrait to be
smaller than the Monotrait’s, which would mean that the average correlation between the items measuring Subjective
Vitality and the items measuring Subjective Depletion is smaller than the average correlation among the items measuring
the same constructs. As a rule of thumb, the AVE is expected to be higher than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2014), and the HTMT to
be smaller than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015). Moreover, two more criteria can be used to assess discriminant validity. The
first one is the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) in which the AVE should be higher than the square of
the correlation between the constructs, meaning that one construct shares more variance with its indicator than with all
other constructs (Hair et al., 2017). The second criterion is to use a bootstrapping procedure to derive a confidence interval
for the HTMT and, if contains the value 1, is considered indicative of a lack of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017).
To further analyze the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale, factor scores for Subjective Vitality and
Depletion were used in a series of Pearson correlations with Extroversion and Negative Emotionality. Concerning
nomological validity, Pearson correlations were computed with MCS and PCS. A correlation coefficient of 0.10 is thought
to represent a small effect size; a coefficient of 0.30 is considered moderate; and a coefficient equal to or greater than 0.50
is thought to represent a large effect size (Cohen, 1988). The use of the factor score of the two scales, instead of the sum
or mean of the observed indicators, helps to reduce the impact of measurement error on the correlations.
Several programs were used to conduct the analysis. The CFA and MGCFA were carried out using MPlus 8
(Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Pearson correlation and Cronbach’s Alpha were computed with SPSS 27. The HTMT and its
confidence intervals were computed using RStudio (version 2023.12.1+402). Finally, the AVE and the CR were computed
using an Excel spreadsheet (Supplementary Information 2).
4 Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the items of the SVDS. Their values for Skewness and Kurtosis are within
the tolerable range of ±2, supporting the assumption of normality (Tabachnick et al., 2018). Descriptive statistics for
Extraversion, Negative Emotionality, the MCS12, the PCS12, and their corresponding items are reported in
Supplementary Information 1.
Table 1 Mean, standard deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of SVDS items

Scales Items Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

I feel alive and vital 4.99 1.54 -0.422 -0.442

Subjective
I have a lot of positive energy and initiative 4.90 1.57 -0.446 -0.408
Vitality

I feel a sense of liveliness and spark 4.90 1.60 -0.398 -0.630

Subjective
Depletion I seem to have lost my “get up and go” 2.86 1.84 0.716 -0.617

I feel drained 2.57 1.69 0.907 -0.143

I feel lifeless and unenthused 2.30 1.56 1.018 0.100

7
 The results of the CFA (Fig. 1) for the two-factor model showed a good fit. Indeed, all indices except the chi-
squared test, probably due to its sensitivity to sample size (Wang & Wang, 2019), suggest that the model fits the empirical
data well: χ2(8) = 27.339, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.058 (90% confidence interval [CI] = [0.035, 0.082]), p = 0.263; CFI =
0.986; TLI = 0.973; SRMR = 0.017. Fig. 1 shows that the standardized factor loadings range from 0.79 to 0.89 and that
the two factors correlate at -0.76. To exclude the possibility that a more parsimonious model would fit the data equally
well or better, we tested a single-factor model. The result showed poor fit: χ2(9) = 208.174, p < 0.000; RMSEA = 0.175
(90% confidence interval [CI] = [0.154, 0.196]), p = 0.000; CFI = 0.851; TLI = 0.752; SRMR = 0.067.

Fig. 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis results. Note: all the values are standardized, and the measurement errors,
which were not displayed, are not allowed to correlate

4.1 Measurement invariance across older individuals with different characteristics

Table 2 reports fit indices and fit differences for all multigroup CFAs across older people with different characteristics.
The results showed that all the configural models have good fit indices, suggesting that the model has the same pattern of
factor loadings (or the same underlying structure) in the different groups. Model testing for metric invariance showed
minimal loss of fit with respect to the configural model (for country, ΔRMSEA = 0.010, ΔCFI = -0.008; for gender,
ΔRMSEA = -0.003, ΔCFI = -0.001; for age, ΔRMSEA = -0.001, ΔCFI = -0.002). This result suggests that, despite the
imposition of parameter restriction on the factor loadings to be equal across groups, the model still reproduces the data
well, meaning that all items loaded on the latent construct similarly across groups. Concerning full scalar invariance, only
for gender (ΔRMSEA = -0.003, ΔCFI = -0.001) and age (ΔRMSEA = -0.005, ΔCFI = 0.000) we observed minimal loss
of fit with respect to the metric model when items intercepts are set to be equal across groups. This would allow
meaningful comparisons between factor means across gender and age. However, results did not support full scalar
invariance when we compared USA and Italian older adults. Based on MI we tested partial scalar invariance through
different models releasing each time one of the items intercepts. This procedure led to the release of the intercept of item
6 (“I feel lifeless and unenthused”) first, followed by item 3 (“I feel a sense of liveliness and spark”). According to Byrne
et al. (1989), partial invariance is supported when at least two intercepts are shown to be invariant or at least more than
half (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).

8
Table 2 Goodness-of-fit indices for invariance of the SVDS across older individuals with different characteristics
χ2 df χ2/df RMSEA ΔRMSEA CFI ΔCFI TLI SRMR
USA/Italian older individuals
Configural model 16.343 16 1.021 0.053 0.99 0.981 0.019
Metric model 48.680 20 2.434 0.063 0.010 0.982 -0.008 0.972 0.045
Scalar model 157.121 24 6.547 0.124 0.061 0.915 -0.067 0.893 0.064
Partial scalar model a
95.289 23 4.143 0.093 0.037 0.954 -0.040 0.939 0.060
Partial scalar modelb
78.692 22 3.577 0.068 0.005 0.976 -0.006 0.968 0.053
Female/Male older individuals
Configural model 31.350 16 1.959 0.051 0.989 0.979 0.018
Metric model 36.793 20 1.840 0.048 -0.003 0.988 -0.001 0.981 0.028
Scalar model 41.294 24 1.721 0.045 -0.003 0.987 -0.001 0.984 0.029
65-75 years old/over75 older individuals
Configural model 32.916 16 2.057 0.054 0.988 0.977 0.017
Metric model 40.242 20 2.012 0.053 -0.001 0.986 -0.002 0.978 0.029
Scalar model 43.974 24 1.832 0.048 -0.005 0.986 0.000 0.982 0.028
Note: χ2, chi-squared; df, degree of freedom; χ2/df, normative chi-squared; RMSEA, Root Mean Squared Error of
Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual. aIntercept of item 6 was freed. bIntercepts of item 6 and item 3 were freed. Loss of goodness of fit was tested
by comparing the more restricted model with the less restricted model.

4.2 Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity

Table 3 shows that Cronbach’s Alpha and the CR are both higher than the threshold of 0.70 suggesting that the SVDS
would be a reliable measure of Subjective Vitality and Depletion.
Concerning convergent validity, Table 3 shows that the AVEs for the two constructs exceed the threshold of
0.50 (Hair et al., 2014). Specifically, the AVE of 0.761 for Subjective Vitality implies that this factor explains 76.1% of
the variance in its associated items (1, 2, and 3). Similarly, the AVE of 0.699 for Subjective Depletion indicates that
69.9% of the variance in items 4, 5, and 6 is accounted for by this construct. Moreover, Table 5 shows that Subjective
Vitality has a moderate positive correlation with Extraversion (0.456), while Subjective Depletion has a moderate positive
correlation with Negative Emotionality (0.455). The results (AVE and correlations) support the convergent validity of the
SVDS scales.

Table 3 Reliability and convergent, and discriminant validity of the SVDS

Subjective Subjective
α CR AVE Vitality Depletion
Subjective 0.904 0.883 0.761 (0.585)
Vitality
Subjective 0.870 0.874 0.699 -0.765*
Depletion

9
 Note: α, Cronbach Alpha; CR, Composite Reliability; AVE, Average
Variance Extracted. The square of the correlation is shown in parentheses
above the diagonal. *Correlation is significant at the 0.000 level (2-tailed).

Concerning discriminant validity, Table 3 shows that the AVEs of both constructs are higher than the squared
correlation between them (Fornell-Larcker criterion). Moreover, the HTMT (Table 4) is -0.771, which is less than the
recommended threshold of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015), and its 95% confidence interval (-0.725-0.816) does not contain
the value 1.
Table 4 Heterotrait and Monotrait correlation among SVDS items
Heterotrait correlations Monotrait correlations HTMT ratio
Subjective Vitality – -0.561 Subjective Vitality 0.759 -0.771
Subjective Depletion Subjective Depletion 0.697

Moreover, Table 5 shows that Subjective Vitality has a moderate negative correlation with Negative
Emotionality (-0.440), while Subjective Depletion has a moderate negative correlation with Extraversion (-0.432).
Overall, these results demonstrate that the two constructs have a sufficient level of discriminant validity.
Table 5 Correlation of Subjective Vitality and Depletion factor scores with BFI-2-XS and SF-12 scales
Variables Subjective Vitality Subjective Depletion
Extraversion 0.456** -0.432**
Negative Emotionality -0.440** 0.455**
PCS 0.427** -0.441**
MCS 0.594** -0.601**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

4.3 Nomological validity

As reported in Table 5, Subjective Vitality shows a moderate to high positive correlation with PCS (0.427) and MCS
(0.594), suggesting that a higher level of feeling alive and full of positive energy is associated with the perception of
having good physical and mental health. Instead, Subjective Depletion shows a moderate to high negative correlation
with PCS (-0.441) and MCS (-0.601), suggesting that the more a person feels drained of energy and lifeless the worse
their perceived physical and mental health.
5 Discussion
Loss of energy and fatigue are particularly relevant issues for the older population. SDT has recently proposed a dual-
process model that could help gain further insight into older individuals’ energy dynamics which is based on two
independent, but related constructs: Subjective Vitality and Depletion (Frederick & Ryan, 2023). To measure these two
constructs according to SDT, the Subjective Vitality/Depletion Scale (SVDS; Frederick & Ryan, 2023) has been proposed,
however, the psychometric properties of the SVDS for the older population were so far unknown. On the basis of a cross-
cultural sample of USA and Italian older adults (over 65), the present study aimed to investigate the reliability and validity
of the SVDS.
5.1 Factor structure and measurement invariance

10
Firstly, we investigated the factor structure of the SVDS. Consistently with the dual-process model of energy dynamics
posited by SDT, which hypothesizes that Subjective Vitality and Depletion are two distinct yet related constructs, a
structure of two correlated factors fitted the data better than a one-factor solution.
Given the potential impact that group differences may have on the conceptualization of constructs and the
interpretation of items, testing measurement invariance has become a fundamental part of the validation process
(Cavicchiolo et al., 2022; Davidov et al., 2018; Putnik & Bornstein, 2016). Therefore, our second aim focused on assessing
the measurement invariance of the SVDS across gender, age subgroups (i.e., 65-75 years and over 75), and nations. The
results showed full configural and metric invariance across all groups, suggesting that older people with different
characteristics and cultures appear to conceptualize Subjective Vitality and Depletion similarly and interpret the scale’s
items consistently. As posited by SDT, these results provide some evidence for the cross-cultural nature of energy
experiences (Frederick & Ryan, 2023).
While the establishment of metric invariance indicates that a test is measuring the same construct to the same
degree across diverse groups, enabling the comparison of the strength of the relationships (e.g. covariances, correlations,
regression) between latent variables across groups (Davidov et al., 2018; Jankowsky et al., 2020), the study of mean group
differences also requires scalar invariance, or at least partial scalar invariance (Milfont & Fischer, 2010; Putnik &
Bornstein, 2016; Schmitt & Kuljanin, 2008; Scholderer et al., 2005). In the present study, scalar invariance was fully
established across gender and age subgroups, while partial scalar invariance was achieved across countries. Those results
suggested that item scores are indicative of similar levels of Subjective Vitality and Depletion for both gender and age
subgroups, but not across cultures. This aligned with Jankowsky et al.’s (2020) observation that lack of scalar invariance
among questionnaires is quite common, particularly between countries with different cultures. In the present study, items
3 (“I feel a sense of liveliness and spark”) and 6 (“I feel lifeless and unenthused”) of the SVDS (Frederick & Ryan, 2023)
showed variation across two cultural groups. Specifically, older individuals from the USA scored, on average, higher on
feeling a sense of liveliness and spark (item 3) and lower on feeling lifeless and unenthused (item 6) compared to their
Italian counterparts, suggesting the presence of potential cultural differences. When comparing individuals with similar
levels of Subjective Vitality and Depletion, it appears that USA older individuals tended to report higher levels of
enthusiasm, excitement, and feeling full of life, and lower levels of unenthusiasm, lack of interest, and/or energy, than
their Italian counterparts. This could be explained by the cultural tendency of USA older adults to represent themselves
as physically active, younger, full of energy, and in searching for new exciting experiences (Karline et al., 2014; Reich et
al., 2020; Schiffman & Sherman, 1991; Westerhof et al., 2012).
5.2 Convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity
The third aim of the present study was to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the SVDS through multiple
strategies. These results showed that a substantial amount of variance in the indicators of Subjective Vitality and
Subjective Depletion is explained by the constructs, suggesting that the scale’s items reflect these constructs well. To
further support the convergent validity, a positive correlation were found between Subjective Vitality and Extroversion,
and between Subjective Depletion and Negative Emotionality, aligning with previous literature (Bostic et al., 2000;
Frederick & Ryan, 2023; Goldbeck et al., 2019; Ryan & Frederick, 1997).
Concerning the discriminant validity of the scale, the SVDS should measure Subjective Vitality and Depletion
as two relatively independent constructs, as posited by SDT. The results of the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio, falling
below the threshold of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015), indicated that the items indeed measured two distinct constructs, thus
supporting the discriminant validity of the SVDS. Furthermore, Subjective Vitality is expected to be negatively related to
neuroticism, while Subjective Depletion to extraversion (Bostic et al., 2000; Frederick & Ryan, 2023; Goldbeck et al.,
11
2019; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). The present findings further support the discriminant validity of the SVDS, as evidenced
by a negative correlation of Subjective Vitality with Negative Emotionality, and Subjective Depletion with Extraversion.
The fourth aim of the present study was to assess the nomological validity of the SVDS. According to the dual-
process model proposed by Frederick and Ryan (2023), Subjective Vitality should be associated with good health and
well-being, while Subjective Depletion with poor health and ill-being. The present study aligns with this pattern.
Subjective Vitality showed a positive correlation with indicators of general physical and psychological health. Conversely,
Subjective Depletion was negatively correlated with these health measures, reinforcing the model's conceptualization of
these constructs and their impact on overall well-being.
6 Limitations
Nonetheless, the present study has some limitations. Firstly, although our study analyzes the psychometric characteristics
of the SVDS across two different countries, to further generalize the findings, new studies with a wider range of cultures
are needed. Secondly, to overcome the cross-sectional nature of our data, future researchers should employ longitudinal
designs. Such approaches would enable for example the analysis of measurement invariance across different time points,
a crucial preliminary step for further investigating how Subjective Vitality and Depletion, as measured by the SVDS,
relate to health and well-being during time in the older population.
7 Conclusions
Based on a cross-cultural sample of older individuals, the present study provided for the first time evidence that the SVDS
is a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of Subjective Vitality and Depletion in the older adult population. These
two components form the basis of the dual-process model of individuals’ energy dynamics, as posited by SDT. The results
of the present study not only supported the hypothesis that Subjective Vitality and Depletion are two distinct yet related
constructs but also linked them to older individuals’ well-being and health.
Moreover, our study established full measurement invariance of the SVDS across gender and age subgroups (i.e.,
65-75 years old and over 75) and partial scalar invariance across countries (i.e., USA and Italy), suggesting the presence
of some minimal cultural differences. This finding indicated that older people interpreted and conceptualized Subjective
Vitality and Depletion similarly, regardless of their personal characteristics or culture, opening possibilities for application
in cross-cultural studies.
The current perspective of the World Health Organization (2015) focuses on promoting healthy aging,
emphasizing not just extending life expectancy but also enhancing the quality of aging. This perspective is well
synthesized by the statement “adding life to your years: not just years to your life” (Vaillant, 2015, p. 596). Therefore,
gaining insights into the energy dynamics experienced by older people is key to developing preventive interventions.
These interventions should be aimed not only at promoting protective factors against future risks, such as functional
decline, disability, and low quality of life, but also at enhancing well-being, health, and life satisfaction. In this context,
the SVDS could have extensive future applications, given its reliability, validity, and measurement invariance across
various personal and cultural backgrounds in older individuals. For example, it could serve as a screening tool to identify
those most in need of preventive interventions, function as a scale for monitoring well-being in older populations, or be
utilized in studies investigating the role of Subjective Vitality and Depletion in the relationship between physical activity
and health outcomes.

Appendix A
Table 6 SVDS items in their original language (Frederick & Ryan, 2023) alongside their Italian translation

12
 Original item content Italian
Item 1 I feel alive and vital Mi sento pieno/a di vita
Subjective
Item 2 I have a lot of positive energy and initiative Ho molta energia positiva e iniziativa
Vitality
Item 3 I fell a sense of liveliness and spark Mi sento vivo/a e attivo/a
Item 4 I seem to have lost my “get up and go” Mi sento di aver perso la mia “voglia di fare”
Subjective
Item 5 I feel drained Mi sento svuotato/a
Depletion
Item 6 I feel lifeless and unenthused Mi sento spento/a e senza entusiasmo

References
Apolone, G., & Mosconi, P. (1998). The Italian sf-36 health survey: translation, validation and norming. Journal of
clinical epidemiology, 51(11), 1025–1036.
Avlund K. (2010). Fatigue in older adults: an early indicator of the aging process?. Aging clinical and experimental
research, 22(2), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324782
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Strength model of self-regulation as limited resource: Assessment, controversies,
update. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 67–127). Elsevier
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.04.001
Benyamini, Y., Idler, E. L., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2000). Positive affect and function as influences on self-
assessments of health: Expanding our view beyond illness and disability. The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(2), P107-P116.
Bostic, T. J., McGartland Rubio, D., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the Subjective Vitality scale using structural
equation modeling. Social indicators research, 52, 313-324.
Buchner, L., Amesberger, G., Finkenzeller, T., Moore, S. R., & Würth, S. (2022). The modified German Subjective Vitality
scale (SVS-GM): Psychometric properties and application in daily life. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 948906.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures:
the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 456.
Carlson S. A., Ussery E. N., Watson K. B., Cornett K. A., Fulton J. E. (2020). Perceived Importance of Physical Activity
and Walkable Neighborhoods Among US Adults, 2017. Prev Chronic Dis 17, 200262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200262external icon
Cavicchiolo, E., Sibilio, M., Lucidi, F., Cozzolino, M., Chirico, A., Girelli, L., Manganelli, S., Giancamilli, F., Galli, F. ,
Diotaiuti, P., Zelli, A., Mallia, L., Palombi, T., Fegatelli, D., Albarello, F., & Alivernini, F. (2022). The
Psychometric Properties of the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-3): Factorial Structure,
Invariance and Validity in the Italian Context. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19(4), 1937.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041937
Chang, L. C., & Kao, I. C. (2019). Enhancing social support and Subjective Vitality among older adults through leisure
education. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(12), 1839–1840. 10.1017/S1041610219000103
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling:
a multidisciplinary journal, 14(3), 464-504.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Billiet, J., & Meuleman, B. (Eds.). (2018). Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications.
Routledge.

13
Dmello, V., & Hussain, D. (2023). Cultural Differences in Factors that Influence the Well-Being of Older People: A
Narrative Review. Human Arenas, 1-22.
Ehrenkranz, R., Rosso, A., Sprague, B., Tian, Q., Simonsick, E., Glynn, N., ... & Gmelin, T. (2020). Functional Correlates
of Self-Reported Energy in the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study. Innovation in Aging,
4(Supplement_1), 172-173.
Frederick, C., & Ryan, R. M. (2023). 10 The Energy behind Human Flourishing: Theory and Research on Subjective
Vitality. The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory, 215.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3).
Fung, H. H. (2013). Aging in Culture. The Gerontologist, 53(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt024
Glaser, K., & Tomassini, C. (2000). Proximity of older women to their children: a comparison of Britain and Italy. The
Gerontologist, 40(6), 729-37. https://doi.org/10.1093/GERONT/40.6.729
Goldbeck, F., Hautzinger, M., & Wolkenstein, L. (2019). Validation of the German version of the Subjective Vitality scale-
a cross-sectional study and a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 3, 17-37.
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson.
Hair Jr, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Hardy, S., & Studenski, S. (2008). Fatigue and function over 3 years among older adults. The journals of gerontology
Series A: Biological sciences and medical sciences, 63(12), 1389-92.
https://doi.org/10.1093/GERONA/63.12.1389
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43, 115-135.
Hertzog, C., Kramer, A. F., Wilson, R. S., & Lindenberger, U. (2008). Enrichment effects on adult cognitive development:
can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved and enhanced?. Psychological science in the public
interest, 9(1), 1-65.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01034.x
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Jakobsson, U. (2007). Using the 12-item Short Form health survey (SF-12) to measure quality of life among older people.
Aging clinical and experimental research, 19, 457-464.
Jankowsky, K., Olaru, G., & Schroeders, U. (2020). Compiling Measurement Invariant Short Scales in Cross–Cultural
Personality Assessment Using Ant Colony Optimization. European Journal of Personality, 34, 470 - 485.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2260
Karlin, N. J., & Weil, J. (2017). Healthy aging in a global context: Comparing six countries. Ageing International, 42, 1-
22.
Karlin, N. J., & Weil, J. (2019). Exploring Cultural Similarity and Cultural Diversity: A Cross-National Study of Nine
Countries. J Aging Sci, 7(2), 1-9.
Karlin, N. J., Weil, J., Saratapun, N., Pupanead, S., & Kgosidialwa, K. (2014). Etic and emic perspectives on aging across
four countries: Italy, Thailand, Botswana, and the United States. Ageing International, 39, 348-368.
Lavrusheva, O. (2020). The concept of vitality. Review of the vitality-related research domain. New Ideas in Psychology,
56, 100752.

14
Liu, J., & Chung, P. (2018). Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Subjective Vitality Scale: evidence from
Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Quality of Life Research, 28, 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-
1990-5
Martela, F., DeHaan, C. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). On enhancing and diminishing energy through psychological means:
Research on vitality and depletion from self-determination theory. In Self-regulation and ego control (pp. 67-
85). Academic Press.
Michalos, A. C., Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. (2000). Health and the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 51, 245-
286.
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural
research. International Journal of psychological research, 3(1), 111-130.
Murman, D. (2015). The Impact of Age on Cognition. Seminars in Hearing, 36, 111 - 121. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-
1555115.
Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables User’s Guide; Muthén & Muthén: Los
Angeles, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–944.
Myers, A. M., Malott, O. W., Gray, E., Tudor-Locke, C., Ecclestone, N. A., Cousins, S. O. B., & Petrella, R. (1999).
Measuring accumulated health-related benefits of exercise participation for older adults: the Vitality Plus Scale.
Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 54(9), M456-M466.
Penninx, B. W., Guralnik, J. M., Bandeen‐Roche, K., Kasper, J. D., Simonsick, E. M., Ferrucci, L., & Fried, L. P. (2000).
The protective effect of emotional vitality on adverse health outcomes in disabled older women. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society, 48(11), 1359-1366.
Penninx, B. W., Guralnik, J. M., Simonsick, E. M., Kasper, J. D., Ferrucci, L., & Fried, L. P. (1998). Emotional vitality
among disabled older women: The Women's Health and Aging Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,
46(7), 807-815.
Principi, A., Santini, S., Socci, M., Smeaton, D., Cahill, K., Vegeris, S., & Barnes, H. (2016). Retirement plans and active
ageing: perspectives in three countries. Ageing and Society, 38, 56 - 82.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X16000866.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and
future directions for psychological research. Developmental review, 41, 71-90.
Reich, A. J., Claunch, K. D., Verdeja, M. A., Dungan, M. T., Anderson, S., Clayton, C. K., ... & Thacker, E. L. (2020).
What does “successful aging” mean to you?—systematic review and cross-cultural comparison of lay
perspectives of older adults in 13 countries, 2010–2020. Journal of cross-cultural gerontology, 35, 455-478.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective Vitality as a dynamic reflection of
well‐being. Journal of personality, 65(3), 529-565.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of
energy available to the self. Social and Personality psychology compass, 2(2), 702-717.
Sandal, G. M., van de Vijver, F., Bye, H. H., Sam, D. L., Amponsah, B., Cakar, N., Franke, G. H., Ismail, R., Kjellsen,
K., Kosic, A., Leontieva, A., Mortazavi, S., & Tien-Lun Sun, C. (2014). Intended self-presentation tactics in job
interviews: A 10-country study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(6), 939–958.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114532353
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of
significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
15
Schiffman, L., & Sherman, E. (1991). Value orientations of new-age elderly: The coming of an ageless market. Journal
of Business Research, 22, 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90052-Y.
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource
Management Review, 18, 210-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRMR.2008.03.003
Scholderer, J., Grunert, K. G., & Brunsø, K. (2005). A procedure for eliminating additive bias from cross-cultural survey
data. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 72-78.
Shou, J., Ren, L., Wang, H., Yan, F., Cao, X., Wang, H., ... & Liu, Y. (2016). Reliability and validity of 12 -item Short-
Form health survey (SF-12) for the health status of Chinese community elderly population in Xujiahui district
of Shanghai. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 28, 339-346.
Soto, C. J. & John, O. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-
XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90. 10.1086/209528
Steinmetz, H. (2018). Estimation and comparison of latent means across cultures. In Cross-cultural analysis (pp. 95-126).
Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6, pp. 497-516). Pearson.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.
Vaillant, G. E. (2015). Positive aging. Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health,
education, and everyday life, 595-612.
Valdes, A., Glass, D., & Spector, T. (2013). Omics technologies and the study of human ageing. Nature Reviews Genetics,
14, 601-607. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3553
Valentine, R., Woods, J., McAuley, E., Dantzer, R., & Evans, E. (2011). The associations of adiposity, physical activity
and inflammation with fatigue in older adults. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 25, 1482-1490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2011.06.002
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and
preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical care, 34(3), 220-233.
Westerhof, G. J., Whitbourne, S. K., & Freeman, G. P. (2012). The aging self in a cultural context: The relation of
conceptions of aging to identity processes and self-esteem in the United States and the Netherlands. Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(1), 52-60.
World Health Organization. Ageing and Health. 2022. Available from: www.who.int/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/ageing-and-health [Last accessed: February 16, 2023].
World Health Organization. (2015) World report on aging and health. Luxembourg. Available from
https://www.who.int/aging/healthy-aging/en/

16