Psychological Well-being

Three measures of PWB were administered in order to obtain levels of both positive and negative aspects of well-being. These were the Child Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs & Beck, 1977), the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC; Spielberger, 1973) and the Child and Youth Physical Self-Perception Profile (PSPP-CY; Whitehead, 1995), which also included a physical worth subscale (Whitehead & Corbin, 1991) and a measure of global self-worth (Harter, 1985).

4.2.3.1. Child Depression Inventory (CDI)

The CDI (Kovacs & Beck, 1977; see appendix 3.1 p. 322), an adaption of the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock & Erbaugh, 1961) is a 27 item instrument designed to assess levels of depression in children. The instrument presents participants with a choice of three statements for each item;

children are then required to choose which statement most describes their thoughts and feelings during the previous two weeks. For example, item eight on the CDI asks children to choose from the following statements. ‘All bad things are my fault’, ‘Many bad things are my fault and ‘Bad things are usually not my fault’. Items are scored on a 0 – 2 scale, with total score ranging from 0 – 54, higher scores on this scale represent higher levels of depression. Many

121 items are reverse scored and therefore need to be transformed prior to analysis.

The questionnaire is phrased in an appropriate manner for children between the ages of eight and 13 years. One item pertaining to suicide was deemed unsuitable for children of this age and therefore removed, reducing the total score to 52.

The psychometric properties of the CDI were examined by Saylor, Finch, Spirito and Bennett (1984), reporting high internal consistency (α = .94) and high split-half correlations for odd/even split and first/second half split (r = .61 &

.73, respectively). Other studies have also reported high internal consistency (cronbach’s α ranging from .84 to .86; Smucker, Craighead, Craighead and Green, 1986; Parfitt & Eston, 2005) and test – retest reliability (ranging from .49 to .77; Smucker et al. 1986). Cronbach’s alpha score for the present study was .86.

4.2.3.2. State -Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC)

The STAIC (Spielberger, 1973) can be used to asses both state and trait levels of anxiety in children. For the present study, trait rather than state anxiety was assessed (see appendix 3.2 p.325) as the state subscale measures fluctuating, momentary anxiety (Finch, Montgomery & Deardorff, 1974) which can be affected by a number of variables, whereas trait anxiety is a more stable construct, which takes time to change. To remain consistent across all inventories, participants were asked to record their thoughts and feelings with regard to the past two weeks.

The trait anxiety scale of the STAIC consists of 20 items with participants asked to indicate the frequency that they experienced each item on a 3 point – likert scale. For example, item 7 on the instrument ‘I get upset at home’, is responded to as; ‘hardly ever’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’. The resultant score for the inventory ranges from 20 – 60, with higher scores relating to higher levels of trait anxiety.

High Cronbach’s alpha values for the STAIC-trait have previously been reported (α ranging from .76 to .89; Speilberger et al., 1973; Parfitt & Eston., 2005; Parfitt et al., 2009) when employed with child and adolescent populations.

122 Cronbach’s α reported for the STAIC in the present study was .77, demonstrating adequate internal consistency.

4.2.3.3. Child and youth physical self-perception profile (PSPP – CY)

The final measure used to assess children’s PWB was the child and youth physical self-perception profile (Whitehead, 1995). In addition to this, a physical worth subscale (Whitehead & Corbin, 1991) and Harter’s (1985) global self-worth subscale were administered. This resulted in a 36 item inventory (See appendix 3.3 p. 326). The questionnaire presents participants with two options for each item, known as a structured alternative format, in an attempt to reduce any social desirability and ensure that either choice is equally acceptable example above from left to right would be 4, 3, 2, 1. Due to counterbalancing of the questions, some items are scored 1, 2, 3, 4.

A combination of measures was used in order to enable assessment of each level of the self-worth hierarchical model. All sub-scales consisted of 6 items. At the apex of the model is one’s global self-worth, which assesses the extent to which a child is happy with themselves as a person (Harter, 1985). An example of the alternative statement states for this sub-scale is ‘Some kids like the kind of person they are’ BUT ‘Other kids often wish they were someone else’. At the domain level, the physical self-worth scale developed by Whitehead and Corbin Really

123 (1991) was used to assess participants overall feelings of their physical self, for example, ‘Some kids don’t feel very confident about themselves physically’ BUT

‘Other kids feel good about themselves physically’. The Whitehead (1995) scale measures children’s perceptions of the physical self-worth sub-domains;

perceptions of sport competence, perceptions of physical strength, perceptions of body attractiveness and perceptions of condition / stamina. Examples of the items included in these subscales are given below.

Sport competence: ‘Some kids do very well at all kinds of sport’ BUT ‘Other kids don’t feel that they are good when it comes to sports’.

Physical strength: ‘When strong muscles are needed, some kids are the first to step forward’ BUT ‘Other kids are the last to step forward when strong muscles are needed’.

Body Attractiveness: ‘Some kids are pleased with the appearance of their bodies’ BUT ‘Other kids wished that their bodies looked in better shape physically’.

Physical condition: ‘When it comes to activities like running, some kids are able to keep going’ BUT ‘other kids soon have to quit and take a rest’.

All subscales have previously demonstrated high reliability (Harter, 1985;

Whitehead, 1995; Parfitt et al., 2009); alpha values in the current studies ranged from .68 to .80.