1. Habib Tiliouine, Gwyther Rees & Mekadem Sahil
Stability and change in child well-being two years later: A follow up study in Algeria
Habib Tiliouine, Gwyther Rees & Mekadem Sahil
Parallel session 4: TUESDAY, 7th June 2016 at 15,30–17,00, Publicum RESEARCHING CHILDREN’S SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

2. This presentation
Stability and change in Child SWB: Review of cross-sectional and follow up research
Research questions
Methods (Sample, Instruments, Alnalyses)
Results
Discussion

3. Stability and change in Child SWB: State of the Art
-Meulners & Lee (2005) in Australia: No diferences between younger and older children in aged between 10 to 18 years old in their subjective assessments of life.
Dew& Huebner (1994): Individual differences in global life satisfaction in 222 students, aged 8 to 12 years not associated with age, grade, or gender, only with with socioeconomic status.
Petito and Cummins (2000) different result: Younger adolescents have higher subjective quality of life than older ones.
Uusitalo-Malmivaara (2014) indicated the same trend of decreasing well-being with children’s age and explained that this decline results from increasing school challenges, peer problems, stress at school and school dissatisfaction as children grow older.
Goldbeck et al. (2007) in ‘Life satisfaction decreases during adolescence’ found in a German sample that in both genders and across nearly all life domains, a significant decrease in general and health-related life satisfaction between the age of 11 and 16 years. But, satisfaction with friends remained on a high level, whereas satisfaction with family relations decreased. Only satisfaction with partnership/sexuality increased slightly. Goldbeck et al., this effect cannot compensate the general loss of satisfaction. They concluded that ‘decreasing life satisfaction has to be considered as a developmental phenomenon’ (p. 969).

4. .../…Stability and change in Child SWB
Tomyn & Cummins (2011) using the Personal Wellbeing Index with 351 Australian students found with 12 and 20 years olds that girls have higher SWB but show an age-related decline in SWB from early to mid adolescence in both genders.
Casas et al. (2007), used two large samples from Spain studied at different times using different response intervals and confirmed the existence of a decreasing-with age tendency in the two samples.
Casas, Tiliouine & Figuer (2013) in a comparative analysis using different versions of the 11-point multi-item PWI with samples of adolescents aged 13 to 20 in Algeria (N=1,156) and Spain (N=2,304) and observed a significant decrease with age of the PWI scores in the two countries, although much more abrupt decrease in Algeria.
-ISCWEB, conducted in 15 countries noticed an overall decline in life satisfaction between the 10 and the 12-years-old surveys is not a universal empirical regularity in all countries. While there was a sharp drop in mean satisfaction (using an 11-point scale) in South Korea (from 8.7 in the 10-year-olds survey to 7.6 in the 12-year-old survey), in Poland (9.2 to 8.4) and in Turkey (9.6 to 8.9); as well as smaller drops in a number of other (European) countries, no change was found between the two age groups in life satisfaction in Israel and Ethiopia and only a very small (and statistically non-significant) difference in three other countries – South Africa, Romania and Algeria (Rees & Main, 2015).

5. .../…Stability and change in Child SWB
longitudinal studies
Suldo & Huebner (2004) found after one year with 816 students (mean age: 15.2 (SD = 1.8) that ‘adolescent life satisfaction reports show moderate stability across a one-year time frame’.
A series of published works by Spanish colleagues: González-Carrasco et al. (2016a) found in a sample of 940 students, aged 9 to 16, at a one year interval a significant decrease in SWB as measured with two multi-item instruments (the Personal Well-being Index, PWI and a version of the Brief Multidimensional Scale of Satisfaction with Life, BMSLSS). González-Carrasco et al. (2016a): Although the decreasing tendency of the SWB start earlier among some children, the significance of the decrease-with-age is more observable among children whose age is mostly 11 and 12.
González-Carrasco et al. (2016b) observed that the decrease of SWB in a one year period was shared by 40.2% of the children in the sample (41.5% of the boys and 39.2% of the girls); however, 38.3% remained with the same scores and 21.5% increased their SWB over the same time period. These estimations are based on the single item of overall satisfaction with life (OLS).

6. Research Questions
Do ratings of well-being demonstrate significant stability across time?
Does this apply regardless of the type of measure used: single vs multiple items?
Are there any differential patters in these rating of well-being due to gender?
To what extent does satisfaction with individual life domains at age 12 years (Time 1), predict equally SWB and flourishing two years later (Time 2).

7. Sample
-445 children completed the questionnaires in both rounds during their normal class teaching. -Around 49% of the samples were girls and 51 % were boys.
-Age ranged from 10 (18.7%) to 15 (.9%) years.
-They belong to 13 Middle Schools.

8. Instruments
The Arabic version of the questionnaires used in both research rounds were those of ISCWeB.
Three psychometric scales were used:
-The modified Student Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS, Huebner, 1991.
-Core affect (six items) is based on Russell (2003), a short version of 6 items Core Affect assessments were used. These are: satisfied, happy, relaxed, active, calm, full of energy. An 11-point scale, from ‘Not at all’ to ‘Extremely’ is used. This version has solid psychometric properties, with reliability coefficients greater than .80.
Eudaimonic well-being: This is a 6-item measure aiming to assess psychological well-being as construed by Ryff (1989)
Twelve individual item variables assessing satisfaction with a variety of life domains: Family life, Things, Friends, School experience, Life student, Time use, Local area, Health, Appearance, Safety, Freedom, and Future.

9. Analysis
Analysis of each indicator across the two waves, testing for: a) differences between the two time points b) variations by gender Within wave comparisons used a t-test and Mann-Whitney test. Cross-wave comparisons used a paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.
Linear regression models of three overall SWB variables at Time 2 onto satisfaction with different aspects of life at Time 1, controlling for overall SWB at Time 1.

10. Results: Overall well-being (1)
Gender differences: Survey 1 = No significant difference. Survey 2 = No significant difference
Time differences: All = Lower at Survey 2**. Female = Lower at Survey 2**.Male = Lower at Survey 2**
Gender differences: Survey 1 = No significant difference.Survey 2 = No significant difference
Time differences: All = Lower at Survey 2**.Female = Lower at Survey 2**. Male = Lower at Survey 2**

11. Results: Overall well-being (1)
Gender differences: Survey 1 = No significant difference. Survey 2 = No significant difference
Time differences: All = Lower at Survey 2**.Female = Lower at Survey 2**.Male = Lower at Survey 2**

12. Summary
Initial analyses of this follow-up study have been highly revealing. The results are summarised in next Table. The following aspects should be underlined:
1. None of the studied aspects have shown an increase with age.
2. Satisfaction with health domain has been consistently stable across surveys and in both genders. Satisfaction with friendship followed this same trend.
3. There were no significant differences between genders in the multiple item measures of overall well-being, but both gender groups have their ratings significantly decreasing with time in this respect.
4. Individual domain items show that satisfaction with school decreases more for males than for females, but there are patterns in the other direction for satisfaction with family, time use and material possessions. 

13. Summary table Trends between waves Gender differences All Female Male
Time 1
Time 2
Multi item measures
SLSS
91%
92% -
Core affect
Eudaimonic
93%
Single item measures
Family life
95%
98%
M>F*
Things
96%
95%
96%
Friends
97%
99%
School exp
86%
81%
F>M**
Life student
88%
90%
Time use
92%
Local area
94%
95%
Health
Appearance
97%
Safety
Freedom
Future
94%
* p<0.05; **p<0.01;  p<0.05 and p<0.01, F= Female, M= Male
-The percentages are based on the mean at wave 2 divided by the mean at wave 1 to give an indication of the size of the difference.

14. Results: School experience
Gender differences: Survey 1 = No significant difference. Survey 2 = Females > Males**
Time differences: All = Lower at Survey 2**.Female = Lower at Survey 2**.Male = Lower at Survey 2**

15. Results: Family life
Gender differences: Survey 1 = No significant difference. Survey 2 = Male > Female*
Time differences: All = Lower at Survey 2**.Female = Lower at Survey 2**.Male = No significant difference

16. Results: Time use
Gender differences: Survey 1 = No significant difference. Survey 2 = Males>Females*
Time differences: All = Lower at Survey 2*.Female = Lower at Survey 2*.Male = No significant difference

17. Predicting Time2 Satisfaction with life
Predicting Time2 Satisfaction with life. Core affect and Eudaimonic WB from Time1 ratings of individual items in both genders (N= 433).
SLSS
Core Affect
Eudaimonia B β
Family life
.600
.036
1.099
.070
1.508
.106
Things
1.748**
.166
1.532**
.168
.880
.099
Friends
-.479
-.041
.527
.054
1.313*
.133
School exp
1.035
.074
-1.229
-.104
-1.107
-.091
Life student
-1.318
-.087
1.865*
.140
1.794*
.139
Time use
-.399
-.040
.561
.064
.049
.006
Local area
.346
.041
.427
.062
.277
.039
Health
-.790
-.053
-.315
-.025
-.823
-.064
Appearance
.461
.031
-.804
-1.057
-.084
Safety
.085
.005
.203
.116
-.072
-.006
Freedom
.050
-.296
-.035
-.919
-.111
Future
-1.263*
-.116
-1.465*
.158
-1.172*
-.123
.483***
.318
.231*
.378***
.262 R=
.408
.378
.369
Adj. R2=
.107
.101
***p<.001; **p<.005; *p<.05

18. Discussion
Adds to the relatively small body of longitudinal analysis of children’s SWB, and includes eudaimonic measure
Consistent evidence of age-related decreases in satisfaction with overall life and most aspects of life (but not friends or health)
The largest decreases relate to school – note the high ratings of school by children in developing countries, and also the context of children moving from primary to middle schools
The finding that girls cope better with school life than boys may link to rising expectations of education and issues of bullying
Gender differences in relation to family life can be considered in relation to family socialisation patterns in Algeria
The relationship between satisfaction with the future and later SWB is noteworthy
Different patterns for aspects of life confirm the importance of considering of a multi-dimensional approach to SWB

19. References
-Children Society.The. (2015). The Good Childhood Report. The subjective well-being of children in the UK). UK: The Children’s Society and the University of York.
-Cummins.R.A..Eckersley.R..van Pallant.J..Vugt. J. &Misajon. R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective well-being: The Australian unity well-being index.Social Indicators Research.64 (2).159–190.
-Casas.F.. Figuer.C..González.M.& Malo. S. (2007). The values adolescents aspire to.their well-being and the values parents aspire to for their children. Social Indicators Research
-Casas.F. (2011).Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being.Child Indicators Research.4(4). 555–575
-Casas.F..& Rees.G. (2015). Measures of children’s subjective well-being: Analysis of the potential for cross-national comparisons. Child Indicators Research. 8(1)
Dew.T..&Huebner. E. S. (1994). Adolescents' perceived quality of life: An exploratory investigation. Journal of School psychology. 32(2)
Goldbeck.L..Schmitz. T. G..Besier.T..Herschbach.P..&Henrich.G. (2007). Life satisfaction decreases during adolescence. Quality of Life Research. 16(6)
Rees, G., & Main, G. (2015). Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 15 countries: A report on the Children’s Worlds survey, York: Children’s Worlds Project (ISCWeB).Petito, F. & Cummins. R. A. (2000). Quality of life in adolescence: The role of perceived control.parenting style.and social support. Behaviour Change. 17(03)
Ryff.C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything.or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57(6).1069–1081.
Ryff.C.D..& Singer. B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A Eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies. 9(1). 13–39.
Suldo. S. M..& Huebner. E. S. (2004). Does life satisfaction moderate the effects of stressful life events on psychopathological behavior during adolescence? School Psychology Quarterly, 19(2):
Tomyn. A. J..& Cummins. R. A. (2011). The subjective wellbeing of high-school students: Validating the personal wellbeing index—school children. Social Indicators Research. 101(3)

20. Habib, Gwyther and Mokaddem
THANK YOU
Habib, Gwyther and Mokaddem