Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 18;14(1):149.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02897-x.

Psychometric properties of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: a systematic review

B P R Perera #  1   2 , A R Wickremasinghe #  3 , T A P De Za  2
Affiliations

Psychometric properties of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: a systematic review

B P R Perera et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Patient reported outcomes are increasingly being assessed in many studies due to the demand for reliable and valid measures that enable assessment of such outcomes and comparison of scores between different populations. The Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and its shorter version (SWEMWBS) are widely used questionnaires that assess subjective mental well-being at the population level. The scales have been translated into many languages and are being used in a variety of settings to assess well-being. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the available versions of the scale.

Methods: The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020149849) reports the psychometric properties reported by validation studies published until 31 December 2023. A search for 'WEMWBS' and/or 'Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale', used in combination with 'validation', was used to search PubMed, Semantic Scholar, OpenGrey, and the first 10 pages of Google Scholar. One author screened all titles after duplicates and unrelated items were removed. The abstracts of the remaining studies (n = 142) were screened and suitable articles were selected for data extraction. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two investigators against the CONSensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) risk of bias assessment checklist. The articles were evaluated and compared based on the reported translation process, internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness to change, and discriminatory power.

Results: Fifty-six full-text articles were included in the study and were assessed for adherence to the accepted translation protocol and reporting of reliability and validity criteria. Many studies that have translated the instrument have focused on forward and backward translation without paying much attention to the appraisal of the translation. Most reports of internal consistency were within acceptable limits. However, test-retest reliability was not often assessed. The instrument has been administered online and in person. The instrument was well received by many populations; the instrument was able to capture changes in well-being scores between subgroups and post intervention.

Conclusion: The WEMWBS can be used to assess mental well-being in populations; it provides reliable assessments and is responsive to change. Cognitive assessments and pretesting of the scale prior to data collection are strongly advised.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020149849.

Keywords: Psychometric properties; Reliability; SWEMWBS; Validity; WEMWBS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow chart of the database search
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean (± sd) well-being scores reported in different validations of the WEMWBS
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Mean (± sd) well-being scores reported in validation studies of the SWEMWBS
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Frost MH, Reeve BB, Liepa AM, Stauffer JW, Hays RD. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health. 2007;10:S94–105. - PubMed
    1. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:63. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bech P, Gudex C, Johansen S. The WHO (Ten) Weil-Being Index: Validation in Diabetes. Psychother Psychosom. 1996;65:183–90. - PubMed
    1. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49:71–5. - PubMed
    1. Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, Platt S, Parkinson J, Weich S. Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:15. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources