The Chopra Wellbeing Index: Examination of Psychometric Properties

Abstract

Objective

Chopra Wellbeing Index (CWI) was developed as a multidimensional measure of wellbeing, integrating physical, emotional, social, and spiritual domains consistent with contemporary models of human flourishing. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the psychometric properties of this measure.

Methods

The psychometric properties of the CWI were assessed in 1637 participants (ages 18-83) who completed the CWI alongside established comparator measures of wellbeing, mental health, and quality of life. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to test the dimensionality of the instrument. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega. Criterion validity was assessed via correlations with validated scales. Measurement invariance testing was conducted with respect to several demographic dimensions to assess generalizability of the scale’s underlying factor structure.

Results

The 24-item CWI demonstrated strong internal consistency across subscales. Factor analyses supported a multidimensional structure with four correlated subscales: physical, psychological, social, and spiritual wellbeing. Evidence of criterion validity was found via positive correlations with wellbeing and life satisfaction measures along with negative correlations with measures of depression, anxiety, and negative emotions. Partial measurement invariance was supported with respect to gender, education, marital status, employment status, income, race/ethnicity, and country.

Conclusions

The Chopra Wellbeing Index is a reliable and valid tool for assessing multidimensional wellbeing in adults. Its integration of spiritual and existential domains alongside traditional health indicators distinguishes it from existing instruments, making it suitable for use in holistic health research, clinical practice, and population wellbeing monitoring.

Keywords

well-being psychometric validation measurement measurement invariance

Introduction

In recent years, there has been growing recognition that traditional models of health, anchored primarily in assessing symptom reduction and absence of disease, are insufficient frameworks for understanding complexity of human flourishing. Rather, contemporary flourishing frameworks conceptualize wellbeing as a positive, multidimensional state encompassing psychological, social, physical, and existential aspects of human life, consistent with the World Health Organization’s foundational definition of health being more than simply the absence of disease.^1-3

Wellbeing has thus become increasingly understood as a multidimensional construct that cannot be reduced to the absence of detrimental psychiatric or physiological symptoms. While wellbeing and flourishing have traditionally been conceptualized in terms of positive feelings and positive functioning, recent work suggests that the measurement of these constructs remains conceptually diverse, with no single framework dominating the field.^2-8

One such framework put forth by the Chopra foundation advances a consciousness-centered approach rooted in both empirical research and contemplative science that encompasses four interdependent domains, namely, Physical, Mental, Social, and Spiritual wellbeing, reflecting distinct yet interconnected dimensions of human flourishing.⁹ This framework aligns with emerging evidence that psychological resilience, relational health, and existential meaning are biologically embodied and socially mediated.^10-12 While broadly aligned with much of the extant literature on wellbeing and human flourishing, which consistently recognizes several aspects of physical, mental, and social health as crucial components of human wellbeing, this framework offers a novel perspective on explicitly recognizing spirituality as a distinct dimension of wellbeing.^3,6,8

This recognition of spirituality as a distinct component of wellbeing offers a meaningful extension to the ways in which flourishing has been traditionally conceptualized due to extensive theoretical considerations and empirical evidence linking spirituality with healthy living. Recent reviews on the literature of spirituality and wellbeing indicate that spirituality has been linked to a wide variety of wellbeing indicators including enhanced coping behaviors and psychological wellbeing, as well as reduced incidence of depression, anxiety, suicidality, and substance use.^13-18 Meta-analytic and prospective evidence also suggests that involvement in spiritual practice is associated with lower depressive symptoms and better psychosocial functioning over time, particularly where spirituality is embedded in community, meaning making processes, and coping behaviors.^19-23

Despite the benefits of spirituality, an important limitation underlying its study across fields related to health and wellbeing is a lack of consensus surrounding its conceptualization.^24,25 Contemporary scholarship on spirituality typically emphasizes elements related to meaning, purpose, connectedness, and transcendence, along with related beliefs, experiences, and practices.²⁵

Existing measurement tools only partially address this conceptual space. For instance, widely used measures of wellbeing and flourishing typically emphasize dimensions related to physical, psychological, and social wellbeing, along with some minor conceptual overlap with spirituality via measures of meaning and purpose, without explicitly representing spirituality as a distinct domain in and of itself.^6-8,26,27 Conversely, measures designed to assess spirituality in clinical settings typically do so in isolation, lacking sufficient integration with other elements of wellbeing to adequately capture the distinct role of spirituality in impacting clinical.^28-33 As such, the development of measurement tools that integrate traditional conceptualizations of flourishing with more explicit spiritual elements represent an important step forward in supporting the study of health and wellbeing.

Given these considerations, the present study aims to develop and validate the Chopra Wellbeing Index (CWI) as a brief multidimensional measure of wellbeing. The CWI will comprise numerous indicators designed to assess four distinct but interrelated dimensions of Physical, Mental, Social, and Spiritual wellbeing. The present study aims to examine various characteristics of the CWI, including its factorial structure, internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and generalizability of measurement structure, through a series of psychometric testing procedures. We expected the instrument to reflect related but distinguishable wellbeing domains while operating in a similar manner across various demographic groups in a large international sample.

Methods

Participants

1761 participants of at least 18 years of age spanning 46 countries were recruited through Prolific. The sample included individuals from various age groups (18 and up), ethnic backgrounds, and socio-economic statuses, contributing to the generalizability of the CWI across different global populations (See Appendix A for a summary of demographic descriptive statistics in the current sample). Recruitment was also aimed at representing individuals with varying levels of health and wellbeing to assess the tool’s ability to differentiate among states of wellbeing. Participants who failed attention checks or provided implausible responses (e.g., responding with patterns such as choosing the same answer for all questions) were excluded from the analysis. 1637 responses were retained for subsequent analysis.

Participants were provided with an introductory text explaining the purpose of the study and instructions on completing the CWI. All participants were compensated for their time, with the compensation rate aligned with Prolific’s standard practices to ensure fairness and ethical treatment of participants. The survey included the full set of items from the CWI, several additional scales employed in criterion-related validation of the CWI, and demographic questions aimed at capturing data on participants’ Gender, Country, Race/Ethnicity (Only for participants in the United States (n = 232)), Age, and several markers of socio-economic status including Education, Level of Income Employment Status, and Marital Status. In total, the survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

While Prolific is an excellent tool for recruiting participants, there are some inherent limitations to using the platform. One limitation is that the platform primarily attracts individuals who are already familiar with online surveys and research, which may slightly limit the diversity of the sample in terms of general population representation. Additionally, the platform does not guarantee the representation of individuals who may be less engaged in online platforms, such as older adults or individuals from rural areas with limited internet access. Despite these limitations, the platform’s rigorous quality control, diverse participant pool, and cost-effectiveness make it an ideal tool for psychometric validation studies.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at a Southern California-based, WASC-accredited university on October 9^th, 2024. Ethical guidelines for the study were strictly followed, in accordance with the standards of the university’s IRB on human research ethics research. This approval ensured that the research adhered to ethical guidelines for the protection of participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and they were given the option to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Privacy and confidentiality of participant data were maintained throughout the process, with all personal information anonymized before analysis. Compensation was provided only after participants completed the survey in full, ensuring that there were no incentives that could biased responses.

Measures

PERMA+4 Scale³⁴: Multidimensional scale designed to measure broad range “building blocks” of Wellbeing. Subscales include Positive Emotion, Engagement, Positive Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment, Physical Health, Positive Mindset, Environmental Quality, and Economic Security.

Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale³⁵: Two-item scale designed to measure current and prospective Life Satisfaction as grounded in hedonic conceptions of Wellbeing and the corresponding literature on Subjective Wellbeing.

Satisfaction with Life Scale³⁶: Unidimensional scale designed to measure Life Satisfaction as grounded in hedonic conceptions of Wellbeing and the corresponding literature on Subjective Wellbeing.

Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE)³⁷: Bi-dimensional scale designed to measure propensities for experiencing discrete positive and negative emotions.

The Flourishing Scale³⁸: Unidimensional scale designed to measure Flourishing, which describes state of high psychological functioning as grounded in eudaimonic conceptions of Wellbeing and the corresponding literature on Psychological Wellbeing (in contrast to Subjective Wellbeing).

Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7)³⁹: Unidimensional scale designed to measure Anxiety in adults.

PROMIS Emotional Distress— Depression— Short Form⁴⁰: Unidimensional scale designed to measure Depression in adults.

Procedures

Item Generation and Content Validity

The initial item pool for the CWI was developed based on a thorough review of existing wellbeing models, particularly those informed by Chopra’s mind-body-spirit framework. 80 preliminary Likert-type items were crafted to assess key domains of wellbeing such as emotional health, social engagement, life satisfaction, spiritual connection, and physical vitality. Content validity was ensured through expert review by a panel of professionals in the fields of psychology, public health, and spirituality. The experts reviewed the items for clarity, relevance, and alignment with theoretical constructs of wellbeing. Feedback from this panel led to the refinement of the item pool, ensuring that each item was appropriate for the intended measurement goals. This iterative process resulted in a robust set of items that comprehensively covered the construct of wellbeing.

Data Cleaning

With respect to valid responses (n = 1637), several contained a small number of missing items. With respect to the CWI scale, 738 out of 130,960 (1637 responses x 80 items) were missing (0.6%), but listwise deletion resulted in removal of 285 cases with at least one missing value, so missing values were instead imputed for retention of statistical power. With respect to the PERMA4 scale, 2 out of 54,021 (1637 responses x 33 items) were missing (0.004%), similarly treated via imputation. Little’s mcar test indicated that data were missing completely at random for both the CWI (160 unique missingness patterns, X2 = 840.0626, df = 12149, P = 1) and PERMA4 (3 unique missingness patterns, X2 = 63.5, df = 64, P = 0.49) scales, so mean imputation was employed to treat missingness across both. There were no other missing items across any scales included in the study (This is likely due to scale-wise blocking during survey administration. While scale and item order was randomized, participants were presented with each scale in chunks, so it is likely that longer scales presented participants with higher cognitive load, leading to higher relative completion rates for shorter scales).

Structural Validity

Structural validity was assessed via a two-stage factor analytic approach as outlined by Koenig¹³ (2021). In stage one, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to evaluate the CWI’s dimensionality and subsequently refine the scale. In stage two, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to evaluate several psychometric qualities of the refined scale. Prior to running these analyses, data were split into exploratory (N = 803) and confirmatory (N = 834) subsets to mitigate the risk of data leakage in exploratory and confirmatory validation procedures. All factor analyses were conducted using the lavaan package⁴¹ in R.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability testing was conducted to evaluate the degree to which CWI scores were self-consistent. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s Omega were calculated for each dimension of the CWI to assess the internal consistency of the items within each subscale.^42,43 The first of these metrics is reported as per standard practice⁴⁴ but is limited in assuming equal factor loadings (tau equivalence), or statistical correspondence between indicator and construct, across all items in each subscale. McDonald’s Omega accounts for variability in factor loadings, giving a more accurate measure of internal consistency in cases where items exhibit variable loadings.⁴³

Criterion Validity

The CWI was administered alongside other established wellbeing and psychological health measures, detailed above in the Measures section. Criterion-related validity was assessed by examining the relationship between CWI scores and scores on several validated scales for measuring constructs related to Wellbeing. Moderate to strong (but not so high as to signal statistical redundancy) positive correlations between the CWI and established tools for measuring constructs related to mental wellness like life satisfaction, flourishing, and positive emotion observed in tandem with negative correlations involving established tools for measuring elements of mental distress like negative emotion, depression, and anxiety signal that the CWI may serve as a valid tool for Wellbeing measurement.

Measurement Invariance

Given the diverse population that the CWI aims to serve, measurement invariance testing was undertaken to assess the scale’s generalizability via the degree to which its factor structure held across different groups of respondents. Traditional Measurement invariance testing involves the iterative estimation and comparison of Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) Models with increasingly stringent cross-group equality constraints on different model parameters.

The first of these models assumes a single factor structure form with model parameters allowed to vary across groups (configural invariance). The next model imposes a cross-group equality constraint on factor loadings (metric invariance). Cross-group equality is then imposed on item intercepts (expected item scores for individuals exhibiting average levels of an underlying factor) is then imposed (scalar invariance). Finally, cross-group equality is imposed on item residuals (the amount of unique variance in each item not explained by its corresponding factor) in a strict invariance model.

Similarity of these models’ statistical fit to the underlying data, despite their reduced capacity to capture group-wise differences in item functioning, is taken as evidence that a given factor structure holds across distinct groups of people. Similarity is typically assessed via Likelihood Ratio Testing (LRT) at the 0.05 significance level, with P < 0.05 indicating non-invariance, or an inability to conclude higher standards of measurement invariance for a given scale. Because LRT has been shown to be overly sensitive to sample size in measurement invariance testing contexts, changes in alternative fit indices (ΔAFI) < 0.002 has also been proposed as a valid standard of evidence.⁴⁵

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Six rounds of EFA model estimation were employed before simple structure was identified, with one additional round employed to ensure conceptual alignment with all indicators of each specified factor. Rather than employing parallel analysis to identify the optimal number of factors during model estimation rounds, all models specified four factors in alignment with theoretical considerations. Due to violations of multivariate normality across the initial item set, all models were estimated using principal axis factoring rather than traditional maximum likelihood estimation. Factors were rotated via direct oblimin rotation during to allow for estimation of between-factor correlations. Sampling adequacy was high across all rounds, with both item-wise and overall Keyser-Meyer-Olkin metrics exceeding 0.9. Joint analysis of Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and correlation matrix determinants suggested that the pattern of correlation across the items retained during each round of EFA estimation was appropriate for examination via EFA. Items exhibiting salient cross-loadings or failing to exhibit salient primary loadings, with cutoffs set to 0.3 and 0.4 respectively, were dropped at each round. The number of items dropped at each round were 34, 8, 2, 7, and 4, leaving 25 items as indicators of four factors for round six.

Round six yielded simple structure with no cross loadings and all items saliently loading onto one factor. However, one item, “In the last month, how often have you set boundaries with others to protect your wellbeing?” exhibited a high degree of conceptual misalignment with other corresponding indicators of the same factor. One model was thus specified without this item, which exhibited both a simple structure and conceptual alignment within factors, ultimately resulting in a final scale consisting of 24 items serving as indicators of Physical, Psychological, Social, and Spiritual Wellbeing.

With respect to the final round of EFA conducted in the current study, overall model fit was adequate according to multiple indices (BIC = −730.59, TLI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.046). Inter-factor correlations ranged from 0.4 to 0.71, with the lowest observed correlation being between the Social and Physical Wellbeing domains, and the highest being between the Physical and Psychological domains. See Table 1 for a summary of item-level statistics associated with this exploratory factor model. See Table 2 for the refined CWI item set aligned to the factor structure of this final exploratory factor model.

Table 1.

EFA Factor Loading Matrix (N = 803)

Item	Factor 1 (Physical)	Factor 2 (Psychological)	Factor 3 (Social)	Factor 4 (Spiritual)	Communality (h2)	Uniqueness (u2)	Complexity
phy1	0.66				0.50	0.50	1.06
phy2	0.68				0.71	0.29	1.19
phy3	0.65				0.60	0.40	1.13
phy4	0.53				0.46	0.54	1.16
phy5	0.78				0.54	0.46	1.05
phy6	0.62				0.47	0.53	1.20
phy7	0.72				0.45	0.55	1.10
phy8	0.75				0.57	0.43	1.04
phy9	0.67				0.56	0.44	1.14
psy1		0.4			0.54	0.46	2.23
psy2		0.79			0.61	0.39	1.01
psy3		0.72			0.67	0.33	1.04
soc1			0.76		0.66	0.34	1.05
soc2			0.62		0.47	0.53	1.07
psy4		0.49			0.37	0.63	1.12
psy5		0.62			0.44	0.56	1.01
soc3			0.76		0.53	0.47	1.04
soc4			0.65		0.46	0.54	1.06
soc5			0.6		0.48	0.52	1.31
spi1				0.49	0.37	0.63	1.39
spi2				0.6	0.57	0.43	1.19
spi3				0.7	0.55	0.45	1.01
spi4				0.81	0.66	0.34	1.01
psy6		0.44			0.45	0.55	1.70

Note. Non-salient loadings omitted to ease identification of the underlying factor structure retained for subsequent testing. phy = Physical wellbeing; psy = Psychological wellbeing, soc = Social wellbeing; spi = Spiritual wellbeing.

Table 2.

Chopra Well-being Index: Final Version

Item	Domain	In the last month, how often…
phy1	Physical welbeing	Have you felt that you like the way your body looks?
phy2	Physical welbeing	Has your body felt joyful?
phy3	Physical welbeing	Has your body been energetic?
phy4	Physical welbeing	Have you taken care of your body (e.g., by providing yourself with healthy food, exercise, rest, etc.) ?
phy5	Physical welbeing	Have you felt comfortable moving your body?
phy6	Physical welbeing	Have you been able to trust your body to function well?
phy7	Physical welbeing	Have you provided your body with opportunities for play?
phy8	Physical welbeing	Have you used your body to do things that made you happy?
phy9	Physical welbeing	Have you felt at home in your body?
psy1	Psychological wellbeing	Have you felt compassionate towards yourself?
psy2	Psychological wellbeing	Have you felt calm?
psy3	Psychological wellbeing	Have you felt peaceful?
psy4	Psychological wellbeing	Were you able to focus on what you’re doing without getting distracted?
psy5	Psychological wellbeing	Did your thoughts come and go easily, without getting stuck?
psy6	Psychological wellbeing	Were you able to forgive yourself easily?
soc1	Social wellbeing	Were you able to be kind to others?
soc2	Social wellbeing	Were you able to be understanding of others?
soc3	Social wellbeing	Have you treated others with respect?
soc4	Social wellbeing	Have you accepted others for who they are, even if they are different from you?
soc5	Social wellbeing	Have you offered support to other people?
spi1	Spiritual wellbeing	Have you reflected on how your actions affect the world?
spi2	Spiritual wellbeing	Have you felt like you are part of something bigger than yourself that includes everyone else?
spi3	Spiritual wellbeing	Have you felt like you are more than just your body and mind?
spi4	Spiritual wellbeing	Have you felt connected to something larger than yourself, however you understand it?

Note. phy = Physical wellbeing; psy = Psychological wellbeing, soc = Social wellbeing; spi = Spiritual wellbeing.

In some cases, indicators did not align with the domains under which they were originally classified, but sufficient conceptual alignment with new classifications was deemed across all such items. As such, this final factor structure was retained for subsequent testing. Content Analysis of the indicators underlying each of the four CWI subdimensions suggested the following descriptions for each facet of Wellbeing.

Physical Wellbeing: Marked by a sense of joy, satisfaction, and care towards the body, alongside a sense that the body is functioning well and capable of doing what one wants it to do.

Psychological Wellbeing: Marked primarily by tranquility, self-compassion, focus, and an absence of rumination primarily characterized by the capacity to allow thoughts to come and go without any unnecessary lingering.

Social Wellbeing: Marked primarily by a positive treatment of others and active efforts to foster community and social relationships.

Spiritual Wellbeing: Marked primarily by a sense of connection to and responsibility towards some greater power beyond the self, reflected to a large degree in other people and the world as a whole.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To evaluate the factor structure identified via EFA, several confirmatory factor models were specified and compared on balance of both LRT and AFIs.^46-49 First, a correlated four factor model aligned with the structure retained during EFA was compared to a simpler model in which all items loaded onto a single factor. The four-factor model exhibited a significantly better statistical fit with the data than the single factor model, demonstrating that the CWI adequately distinguishes between its four subdimensions of wellbeing based on the underlying sets of items it employs as indicators of each.

Furthermore, the absolute statistical fit of the correlated four-factor model was adequate across several measures (See Table 3), and the corresponding factor structure of the model accounted for a high degree of variance across all items (See Table 4). These results indicate a high degree of convergent validity with respect to the individual indicator items underlying each of the four factors specified in the model. Inter-factor correlations ranged from 0.51- 0.84 (with the lowest observed correlation being between the Social and Physical Wellbeing domains, and the highest being between the Physical and Psychological domains), further indicating an adequate balance between convergent and discriminant validity with respect to the four subdimensions of Wellbeing measured by the CWI.

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Model Comparison

Model	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA	df	AIC	BIC	χ2	Δχ2	Δdf	P-value
Single factor	0.746	722	0.088	0.111	252	56124	56351	2863
4 Factor	0.934	0.93	0.045	0.056	246	54201	54456	928	1359	6	<0.0001
Higher-order	0.931	0.92	0.052	0.058	248	54239	54485	970	42	2	<0.0001

Table 4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Revised Reduced Item set (N = 834)

Domain	Item	Loading	SE	Standardized loading	Variance explained	Residual variance
Physical	phy1	1*		0.694	0.481	0.519
	phy2	1.061	0.045	0.817	0.667	0.333
	phy3	0.997	0.043	0.797	0.634	0.366
	phy4	0.834	0.042	0.645	0.416	0.584
	phy5	0.919	0.045	0.71	0.504	0.496
	phy6	0.886	0.047	0.691	0.477	0.523
	phy7	0.826	0.048	0.635	0.403	0.597
	phy8	0.919	0.046	0.717	0.514	0.486
	phy9	0.986	0.05	0.683	0.467	0.533
Psychological	psy2	1*		0.796	0.634	0.366
	psy3	1.115	0.036	0.819	0.672	0.328
	psy5	0.77	0.044	0.625	0.39	0.61
	psy4	0.813	0.04	0.645	0.417	0.583
	psy6	1.025	0.051	0.719	0.517	0.483
	psy1	1.027	0.052	0.746	0.557	0.443
Social	soc1	1*		0.79	0.624	0.376
	soc3	0.739	0.037	0.651	0.424	0.576
	soc4	0.865	0.053	0.618	0.382	0.618
	soc2	0.839	0.044	0.677	0.458	0.542
	soc5	0.976	0.055	0.649	0.421	0.579
Spiritual	spi4	1*		0.848	0.719	0.281
	spi3	0.886	0.036	0.728	0.53	0.47
	spi2	0.91	0.038	0.78	0.609	0.391
	spi1	0.52	0.046	0.499	0.249	0.751

Note. *Factor loading fixed for identification. All model parameters are significant at the 0.001 level. Model fit indices: $χ 2 (246) = 780.73, p < 0.0001; A I C = 54201; B I C = 54456; C F I = 0.93, T L I = 0.93; S R M R = 0.05, R M S E A = 0.06 (90 % C I [0.05, 0.06])$

A higher order factor model, in which the pattern of correlation among these four lower order factors was accounted four via there loadings onto a higher order generalized Wellbeing factor, was also tested. Despite demonstrating significantly worse statistical fit when compared to the correlated four-factor model, the higher order factor model still exhibited adequate statistical fit with the data (See Table 3), further supporting the CWI’s convergent validity with respect to its four measured subdimensions of Wellbeing. Both Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega were above 0.8 across all CWI subscales, as well as across the scale as a whole (Total Score α = 0.93, ω = 0.94; Physical α = 0.90, ω = 0.87; Psychological α = 0.81, ω = 0.87; Spiritual α = 0.81, ω = 0.83), indicating that the CWI and all subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability.

Criterion Validity

All four subdimensions of the CWI, as well as the scale’s overall composite score, exhibited moderate to strong positive correlations with Positive Mindset, Social Relationships and Personal Environments, Engagement, Meaning, Accomplishment, Physical Health, Economic Security, Overall Wellbeing, Life Satisfaction, Flourishing, and Positive Emotions. The CWI also exhibited moderate to strong negative correlations with Negative Emotion, Depression, and Anxiety. These results jointly indicate a strong conceptual alignment between the construct of Wellbeing and those measured by the CWI. See Table 5 for a summary of composite correlations between the CWI dimensions and other scales employed during criterion validation procedures.

Table 5.

Composite Score Correlations in CFA Sample

Comparison constructs	CWI Subscale Score
Comparison constructs	Physical	Psychological	Social	Spiritual	Overall
Physical	—
Psychological	0.72	—
Social	0.46	0.57	—
Spiritual	0.55	0.63	0.58	—
Overall	0.89	0.89	0.73	0.77	—
Positive emotion (PERMA4)	0.66	0.68	0.49	0.61	0.74
Engagement (PERMA4)	0.14	0.16	0.19	0.18	0.19
Relationship quality (PERMA4)	0.47	0.53	0.43	0.42	0.56
Meaning (PERMA4)	0.54	0.58	0.54	0.68	0.68
Accomplishment (PERMA4)	0.56	0.56	0.49	0.56	0.65
Physical health (PERMA4)	0.64	0.53	0.30	0.42	0.61
Mindset (PERMA4)	0.56	0.54	0.52	0.57	0.65
Environmental quality (PERMA4)	0.59	0.62	0.47	0.47	0.66
Economic security (PERMA4)	0.38	0.35	0.17	0.18	0.35
Overall wellbeing (PERMA4)	0.70	0.70	0.54	0.61	0.78
Life satisfaction (CSAS)	0.50	0.46	0.38	0.46	0.55
Life satisfaction (SWLS)	0.53	0.53	0.39	0.47	0.58
Flourishing (TFS)	0.62	0.66	0.55	0.61	0.73
Positive emotions (SPANE)	0.65	0.68	0.48	0.56	0.73
Negative emotions (SPANE)	−0.51	−0.57	−0.22	−0.34	−0.53
Depression (PROMIS)	−0.55	−0.57	−0.22	−0.38	−0.55
Anxiety (GAD-7)	−0.45	−0.51	−0.08	−0.27	−0.43

Note. All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level. Correlations were estimated based on mean composite scoring in the subset of items and observations used fod Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Criterion-based validation procedures (n = 834). PERMA4 = PERMA+4 Scale³⁴; CSAS = Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale³⁵; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale³⁶; TFS = The Flourishing Scale³⁸; SPANE = Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE)³⁷; PROMIS = PROMIS Emotional Distress— Depression— Short Form⁴⁰; GAD-7 = Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7)³⁹.

Measurement Invariance

Results are generally supportive of measurement invariance across demographic factors, with a moderate amount of heterogeneity in the degree to which invariance is supported depending on the characteristic in question. Moderate to strong evidence of measurement invariance at all levels was observed with respect to Gender, Marital Status, Education, Employment Status, level of Income, and Race/Ethnicity (See Appendix B for summary statistics related to this testing). Demographic characteristics with fewer groups (and hence larger group sizes), while tending to demonstrate a higher propensity towards suggesting measurement non-invariance at higher levels (i.e. metric and above) according to LRT-based metrics, still typically suggested full invariance according to most ΔAFI-based metrics (at a cutoff level of 0.002).

With respect to Country however, only moderate evidence of configural invariance was observed, with both LRT and ΔAFI-based metrics only offering strong support for up to metric invariance while strongly suggesting violation of scalar invariance. These results suggest that, although the pattern of item-construct relationships is stable across countries, participants from different countries may vary in expected item-level scores when constructs are held constant. As such, CWI benchmarking efforts may need to account for systematically higher or lower scale scores among respondents from different countries.

Discussion

This study provides the first systematic psychometric validation of the Chopra Wellbeing Index (CWI), confirming it as a reliable and valid instrument for assessing multidimensional wellbeing in diverse populations. The analyses demonstrated that the CWI captures four distinct but interrelated domains, physical, psychological, social, and spiritual wellbeing in a similar fashion across various demographic groups, consistent with its conceptual framework and with contemporary models of flourishing.

The Index’s four domains, Physical, Mental, Social, and Spiritual, embody a systems-based understanding of health consistent with allostatic and ecological models of adaptation.^50,51 Physical wellbeing reflects vitality and physiological balance; mental wellbeing represents cognitive clarity and emotional regulation; social wellbeing encompasses belonging and relational trust; and spiritual wellbeing captures purpose, transcendence, and alignment with a higher order of meaning. This integration acknowledges that disruptions in one domain inevitably influence the others, producing fragmentation that manifests as disease, distress, or alienation. The CWI thus seeks to restore coherence across these interdependent dimensions, a process akin to what Chopra describes as “awakening to the flow of existence.”

Interpretation of Findings

The strong internal consistency reliability coefficients across all domains support the scale’s measurement robustness. Factor analytic results further validated the multidimensional structure, with the four-factor model showing significantly better fit than a unidimensional alternative. Importantly, moderate to strong inter-factor correlations indicate that while the domains share conceptual overlap, each represents a distinct aspect of wellbeing. This supports the theoretical assertion that flourishing is best conceptualized as a multidimensional construct rather than a singular outcome. Measurement Invariance testing further supported the generalizability of this factor structure with respect to several demographic characteristics.

Evidence of convergent validity was provided by positive correlations between the CWI and established measures of life satisfaction, flourishing, and positive affect. At the same time, negative correlations with measures of depression, anxiety, and negative emotion demonstrated discriminant validity, reinforcing the scale’s ability to capture wellbeing rather than simply the absence of distress. These findings align with prior work highlighting the interdependence of positive psychological resources and reduced mental health risk.^2,38

Notably, the inclusion of spiritual wellbeing as a core domain distinguishes the CWI from many existing instruments. Spirituality and existential meaning have increasingly been recognized as critical components of human health and resilience,¹³ yet remain underrepresented in mainstream wellbeing measures. By integrating this domain alongside physical, psychological, and social dimensions, the CWI advances a more comprehensive multidimensional framework for understanding and assessing wellbeing.

Contribution to the Literature

The findings support the CWI as a multidimensional measure of wellbeing that integrates spirituality with elements of physical, mental, and social flourishing more typically assessed across the wellbeing measurement literature. The CWI’s inclusion of spirituality as a measurable domain of wellbeing is supported by an increasing body of empirical research tying spiritual connection and practice with several aspects of flourishing and mental health such as meaning-making, coping, and social integration.^{12,13,15,24,25,52} One note of caution surrounding this study’s contributions is that spirituality, when framed as a measurable domain of wellbeing, should be interpreted broadly as reflecting a sense of connection to and responsibility towards something larger than the self, rather than as affiliation with or connection to any specific religious tradition or set of spiritual practices.

Given these considerations, the CWI’s integration of spirituality within a multidimension measure of wellbeing represents a meaningful contribution to the expanding field of wellbeing science because existing measures of wellbeing typically emphasize hedonic or psychological aspects of wellbeing without representing spirituality as an explicit domain.^4,26,53 Conversely, measures designed to assess spiritual wellness in clinical settings typically do so in isolation, lacking sufficient integration with other elements of wellbeing to adequately capture the distinct role of spirituality in supporting flourishing among clinical populations.^28-33

By positioning spiritual wellbeing as an explicit subdomain of wellbeing related to but ultimately distinct from physical, mental, and social wellbeing, the CWI offers a meaningful extension of existing wellbeing frameworks that can be used to better differentiate the impacts of spirituality from other wellbeing domains across a wide variety of clinical settings. Such framing aligns with longstanding calls for integrative frameworks that can bridge psychological science, public health, and spirituality by capturing the full spectrum of human flourishing through comprehensive multidimensional measurement of wellbeing.⁵⁴

Practical Implications

The international and demographically diverse sample enhances the generalizability of the findings, and evidence of measurement invariance with respect to multiple demographic characteristics suggest that the CWI can be applied across varied contexts and populations. As such, the present results provide a strong foundation for its use in global health monitoring, intervention evaluation, and community-based research.

The brevity and accessibility of the CWI further support the notion that it is well-suited for widespread use in research, clinical practice, and community wellbeing initiatives. Its multidimensional design provides clinicians, researchers, and policymakers with a tool to assess strengths and deficits across specific domains, thereby informing more targeted interventions. The integration of spiritual wellbeing also makes the instrument particularly useful in healthcare, pastoral, and integrative medicine settings where existential concerns are central to patient care.

From a public health perspective, the CWI offers a valuable tool for addressing the intersecting epidemics of loneliness, chronic disease, and existential despair. By integrating subjective, behavioral, and physiological indicators, it enables researchers and practitioners to quantify how interventions, ranging from meditation and social engagement to purpose cultivation, affect overall flourishing. Moreover, the CWI’s focus on spiritual, conscience and social determinants aligns with emerging frameworks for whole-person care, moral resilience, and ecological sustainability.¹² It reframes wellbeing as a moral, relational, and planetary imperative rather than an individual pursuit.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations should be noted. First, reliance on an online data collection platform may limit representativeness of individuals with limited digital access. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about sensitivity to change. Longitudinal research, including the explicit assessment of test-retest reliability, is needed to determine whether the CWI is responsive to interventions and life transitions.

Third, although Measurement Invariance was generally supported for the CWI with respect to most demographic characteristics tested in the current study, results did suggest a potential violation of scalar invariance with respect to country. Future studies may benefit from replication efforts with a focus on assessing which items in the CWI contribute most to scalar non-invariance, potentially via the use of methods like alignment optimization.⁵⁵

Such efforts may also benefit from the use of techniques like Moderated Nonlinear Factor analysis (MNLFA), which focus on assessment of partial measurement invariance by quantifying and explaining differential item functioning rather than making scale-wise invariance prescriptions.^56,57 MNLFA could be employed to, for example, assess how country-level characteristics like macroeconomic (e.g. GDP per capita, Gini Coefficients, etc.) or cultural (e.g. WEIRD classification, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, etc.) factors impact country-wise item intercepts.

Furthermore, beyond assessment of measurement invariance focused on assessing the impact of demographic factors on the statistical correspondence between latent constructs and their underlying indicators, future studies may benefit from efforts focused on known-groups validation. Such efforts would focus on assessing the degree to which demographic factors impact structural aspects of the latent constructs themselves. Such studies may, for example, focus on assessing the degree to which demographic factors predict the expected level of a latent construct, the variability of a latent construct, or the pattern of correlation amongst groups of latent constructs, lending towards the development of a deeper understanding surrounding the generalizability of the CWI.

Future research should further explore how CWI domains interact to predict long-term health, resilience, and flourishing, as well as their sensitivity to intervention-induced change. Expanding validation into non-Western cultural contexts and clinical populations will also be critical to establishing the scale’s global relevance.Future theorizing may also uncover avenues for substantive testing of antecedents and outcomes related to the dimensions of Wellbeing measured by the CWI. Such testing represents a fertile ground for future research and efforts to expand our understanding of human wellbeing.

Conclusion

The Chopra Well-Being Index (CWI) advances a transformative paradigm within positive psychology by re-centering consciousness as the organizing principle of human flourishing. Traditional models such as hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing have contributed valuable insights into subjective happiness, virtue, and meaning, yet they remain primarily anchored in individual psychological states. The consciousness-centered model proposed by the Chopra Foundation expands this framework, emphasizing that wellbeing arises in part from a dissolution of ego-boundaries stemming from realizations of interconnectedness with something larger than the self, often termed the sacred or transcendent in the broader empirical literature on spirituality.⁹ The CWI works to capture such realizations through the explicit integration of Spirituality as a distinct subdomain of wellbeing, offering a tool for assessing the relative clinical impacts of such realizations alongside those of more traditionally studied elements of wellbeing like physical health, psychological wellness, and social connectedness.

Psychometric validation of the Chopra Wellbeing Index confirms its reliability and validity as a comprehensive multidimensional measure of wellbeing. This study demonstrates the tool’s ability to accurately reflect the multifaceted nature of human health and flourishing, making it a valuable resource for research, clinical practice, and personal development. As such, the current study represents a systematic effort to bridge the empirical and the existential, addressing the “two cultures” divide between scientific materialism and spiritual understanding. In an era defined by fragmentation, of body from mind, self from community, and science from spirit, the Chopra Well-Being Index offers a framework of human flourishing instead centered around integration of these various facets. By situating consciousness as the axis of integration amongst more traditional facets of wellbeing in physical, mental, and social health, the CWI advances the science of wellbeing by acknowledging the integral role of unity with the transcendent in allowing humans to flourish around the world.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Chopra Wellbeing Index: Examination of Psychometric Properties

Supplemental Material for Community The Chopra Wellbeing Index: Examination of Psychometric Properties by Jennifer S. Wortham, Daniel Martin, Stewart I. Donaldson, Caroline G. Howley in The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Daniel Martin

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Claremont Graduate University (Protocol # 4810, Approved October 9^th, 2024). This approval ensured that the research adhered to ethical guidelines for the protection of participants.

Author Contribution

All listed co-authors have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND the drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND give their final approval of the version to be published; AND agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Please see individual Author contributions enumerated below:

Jennifer S. Wortham: Writing, Editing, Supervision, Funding Procurement

Daniel Martin: Writing, Analysis, Editing,

Caroline G. Howley: Writing, Editing

Stewart I. Donaldson: Writing, Editing, Supervision

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Spiritual Care Partners, a Solace Institute Initiative. Chopra Foundation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

World Health Organization . Constitution of the World Health Organization. World Health Organization, 1948.

Keyes

CLM

. The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2002;43(2):207-222. doi:10.2307/3090197.

VanderWeele

. On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114(31):8148-8156. doi:10.1073/pnas.1702996114.

Butler

Kern

. Wellbeing and happiness: conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Positive Psychology. 2016;11(2):126-136.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

, et al. New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research. 2010;97:143-156. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y.

Seligman

. PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2018;13(4):333-335.

Węziak-Białowolska

Białowolski

McNeely

VanderWeele

McNeely

. Psychometric properties of flourishing scales from a comprehensive well-being assessment. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:652209. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652209.

Zhang

Balloo

Hosein

Medland

. A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being. BMC Psychology. 2024;12:585. doi:10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0.

Chopra

Castle

. Non-duality and mental health. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2024;10:100934.

10.

Davidson

McEwen

. Social influences on neuroplasticity: stress and interventions to promote wellbeing. Nature Neuroscience. 2012;15(5):689-695.

11.

McEwen

Stellar

. Stress and the individual: mechanisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1993;153(18):2093-2101.

12.

Puchalski

Blatt

Kogan

Butler

. Spirituality and health: the development of a field. Academic Medicine. 2014;89(1):10-16. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000083.

13.

Koenig

. Research on religion, spirituality, and mental health: a review. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):283-291. doi:10.1177/070674370905400502.

14.

Koenig

. Religion, spirituality, and health: the research and clinical implications. ISRN Psychiatry. 2012;2012:278730. doi:10.5402/2012/278730.

15.

Lucchetti

Koenig

Lucchetti

ALG

. Spirituality, religiousness, and mental health: a review of the current scientific evidence. World Journal of Clinical Cases. 2021;9(26):7620-7631. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v9.i26.7620.

16.

Moreira-Almeida

Koenig

Lucchetti

. Clinical implications of spirituality to mental health: review of evidence and practical guidelines. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry. 2014;36(2):176-182. doi:10.1590/1516-4446-2013-1255.

17.

Ryff

. Spirituality and well-being: theory, science, and the nature connection. Religions. 2021;12(11):914.

18.

Koburtay

Jamali

Aljafari

. Religion, spirituality, and well‐being: a systematic literature review and futuristic agenda. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility. 2023;32(1):341-357.

19.

Ano

Vasconcelles

. Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2005;61(4):461-480. doi:10.1002/jclp.20049.

20.

Braam

Koenig

. Religion, spirituality and depression in prospective studies: a systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2019;257:428-438. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.063.

21.

Chen

Kim

VanderWeele

. Religious-service attendance and subsequent health and well-being throughout adulthood: evidence from three prospective cohorts. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2020;49(6):2030-2040. doi:10.1093/ije/dyaa120.

22.

Park

. Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress. Journal of Social Issues. 2005;61(4):707-729. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x.

23.

Smith

McCullough

Poll

. Religiousness and depression: evidence for a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin. 2003;129(4):614-636.

24.

Hill

Pargament

. Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist. 2003;58(1):64-74. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.64.

25.

de Brito Sena

Damiano

Lucchetti

Peres

MFP

. Defining spirituality in healthcare: a systematic review and conceptual framework. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:756080. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.756080.

26.

Butler

Kern

. The PERMA-Profiler: a brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2016;6(3):1-48. doi:10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526.

27.

Cabrera

Donaldson

. PERMA to PERMA+ 4 building blocks of well-being: a systematic review of the empirical literature. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2024;19(3):510-529.

28.

Austin

Macdonald

MacLeod

. Measuring spirituality and religiosity in clinical settings: a scoping review of available instruments. Religions. 2018;9(3):70. doi:10.3390/rel9030070.

29.

de Jager Meezenbroek

Garssen

van den Berg

van Dierendonck

Visser

Schaufeli

. Measuring spirituality as a universal human experience: a review of spirituality questionnaires. Journal of Religion and Health. 2012;51(2):336-354. doi:10.1007/s10943-010-9376-1.

30.

Hammer

Wade

Cragun

. Valid assessment of spiritual quality of life with the WHOQOL-SRPB BREF across religious, spiritual, and secular persons: a psychometric study. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2020;12:440-450. doi:10.1037/rel0000266.

31.

Monod

Brennan

Rochat

Martin

Rochat

Bula

. Instruments measuring spirituality in clinical research: a systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2011;26(11):1345-1357. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1769-7.

32.

Peterman

Fitchett

Brady

Hernandez

Cella

. Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy—spiritual well-being scale (FACIT-Sp). Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2002;24(1):49-58. doi:10.1207/S15324796ABM2401_06.

33.

Skevington

Gunson

O’Connell

. Introducing the WHOQOL-SRPB BREF: developing a short-form instrument for assessing spiritual, religious and personal beliefs within quality of life. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(5):1073-1083. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0237-0.

34.

Donaldson

. The positive functioning at work scale: psychometric assessment, validation, and measurement invariance. Journal of Wellbeing Assessment. 2020;4(2):181-215.

35.

Cantril

. The Pattern of Human Concerns. Rutgers University Press, 1965.

36.

Diener

Emmons

Larsen

Griffin

. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1985;49(1):71-75.

37.

Diener

Biswas-Diener

. Scale of positive and negative experience (SPANE). In: Diener

, ed, Assessing Wellbeing: The Collected Works of Ed Diener. Springer; 2009.

38.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

, et al. New measures of wellbeing: flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research. 2009;39:247-266.

39.

Spitzer

Kroenke

Williams

JBW

Löwe

. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092-1097.

40.

Cella

Riley

Stone

, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179-1194.

41.

Rosseel

. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012;48(2):1-36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

42.

Cronbach

. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.

43.

McDonald

. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. psychology press, 1999.

44.

Koenig

Al Zaben

. Psychometric validation and translation of religious and spiritual measures. Journal of Religion and Health. 2021;60(5):3467-3483.

45.

Meade

Johnson

Braddy

. Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(3):568-592.

46.

Bentler

. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112(3):400-404.

47.

Byrne

. Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing. 2001;1(1):55-86.

48.

Bentler

. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1-55.

49.

MacCallum

Browne

Sugawara

. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. 1996;1(2):130-149.

50.

McEwen

. Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain. Physiological Reviews. 2007;87(3):873-904.

51.

Remme

Frumkin

Guerry

, et al. An ecosystem service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and health. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118(22):e2018472118.

52.

Zeidan

Vago

. Mindfulness meditation–based pain relief: a mechanistic account. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2016;1373(1):114-127.

53.

Seligman

MEP

. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Wellbeing. Free Press, 2011.

54.

Fowers

Richardson

. Toward a cultural psychology of wellbeing. American Psychologist. 1996;51(9):610-623.

55.

Asparouhov

Muthen

. Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2014;21:495-508. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.919210.

56.

Bauer

. A more general model for testing measurement invariance and differential item functioning. Psychological Methods. 2017;22(3):507-526. doi:10.1037/met0000077.

57.

Kolbe

Molenaar

Jak

Jorgensen

. Assessing measurement invariance with moderated nonlinear factor analysis using the R package OpenMx. Psychological Methods. 2022;29:388-406. doi:10.1037/met0000501.

58.

Jorgensen

Kite

Chen

Short

. Permutation randomization methods for testing measurement equivalence and detecting differential item functioning in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 2018;23(4):708-728.

59.

Yuan

Bentler

. 5. Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology. 2000;30(1):165-200.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.34 MB