Investigating the Factor Structure of the 84-Item Version Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for African American Women in the United States

Abstract

Introduction:

Psychological well-being is widely studied, yet existing measures often reflect Eurocentric ideals that may not generalize across cultural backgrounds. Social norms and historical experiences shape the meaning of well-being and influence measurement among groups historically underrepresented in research, such as African American women. This study examines the factor structure of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being (RSPWB) in this population.

Methods:

This cross-sectional survey study was conducted via an online platform. A convenience sample of 248 African American women completed the 84-item RSPWB. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the underlying structure.

Results:

Analysis revealed five distinct factors from the original six: (a) Environmental Mastery, Purpose in Life, Self-Acceptance (EPS); (b) Relational Satisfaction; (c) Autonomy; (d) Personal Growth; and (e) Helplessness.

Discussion:

This research supports the need for consideration of sociocultural perspectives and experiences in nursing research. Culturally congruent measurement of psychological well-being is needed to promote accurate assessment.

Keywords

exploratory factor analysis African American women psychometric validation psychological well-being

Psychological well-being is an essential component of health. The term “well-being” is a multidimensional construct that captures how individuals live positively and intentionally (World Health Organization, 2021). Well-being has generally been understood as an evaluation of one’s experiences, encompassing happiness, life satisfaction, positive affect, and quality of life (Diener, 1984). Psychological well-being is distinct in its concern with the optimal functioning and capacity of individuals from a psychosocial perspective. Psychological well-being incorporates more than the absence of mental illness and recognizes positive mental states, purposeful living, and the realization of one’s potential (Ryff, 1989).

Drawing from developmental approaches, humanistic roots, and eudaimonic traditions, Ryff’s (1989) six-factor model of psychological well-being has been seemingly foundational for understanding how we conceptualize psychological well-being. Ryff and Keyes (1995) proposed that the six distinct components of self-acceptance, environmental mastery, purpose in life, positive relations with others, personal growth, and autonomy converge to illustrate the multifaceted nature of wellness. It should be noted that the sample for the development of the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being (RSPWB) was relatively homogeneous, consisting of English-speaking, Caucasian (87%), married (70%), women (59%) over 25 years of age in the United States (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). The RSPWB is theoretically grounded in a six-factor model of psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989, 2013; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 1996). However, empirical research has documented variability in its factor structure across cultural groups, including fewer factors, alternative configurations of well-being, and the presence of wording-related method effects (Burns & Machin, 2009; Henn et al., 2016; Springer & Hauser, 2006; Zhou et al., 2025). Cultural values and experiences, such as individualism versus collectivism and exposure to racism and sexism, can shape how psychological well-being is expressed (Le et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2025), underscoring the need for reevaluating the scale with more representative samples, across cultures, and within marginalized groups, such as African American women.

African American women remain underrepresented in psychological research, contributing to microaggressive professional interactions (Johnson et al., 2021; Mills, 2020; Williams, 2020), elevated risk for chronic diseases (Albert, 2019; Simons et al., 2021), and rising suicide rates (Joseph et al., 2023; Shim & Rodriguez, 2023; Vance et al., 2023). Applying Western-centric norms as universal standards (Thalmayer et al., 2021) risks reinforcing disparities and adverse outcomes for African American women (Berger & Ribeiro Miller, 2024). The nursing profession strives to promote inclusion of all people and the provision of high-quality and equitable care. Notably, nurse scientists often utilize theoretical frameworks such as transcultural nursing theory, which provides a framework for delivering culturally sensitive care (Leininger, 1996). Culturally sensitive, accurate measurement of well-being across diverse constructs could be highly valuable for advancing cultural competence in nursing research and could inform health interventions that aim to reduce health disparities by improving well-being.

Floyd and Widaman (1995) emphasized the use of exploratory approaches to uncover the dimensions of measurement tools. Although Zhou et al. (2025) examined the 42-item RSPWB in African American women, the 84-item version remains unvalidated for this group. Given the theoretical six-factor model (Ryff, 1989, 2013; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 1996) and inconsistent findings across studies, there is a clear need to assess the 84-item RSPWB in this population. Building on Zhou et al.’s work, this study explores its factor structure to advance culturally grounded measures of psychological well-being among African American women.

Method

Ethical Considerations

The Marquette University Institutional Review Board deemed this study exempt (#3857). Because a signed form would have been the only identifying link and confidentiality was the primary risk, the IRB approved a waiver of written consent. Participants received study-informed consent but did not provide signatures.

Study Design and Sample

The study sample comprises 248 women recruited in February 2022 through the online participant recruitment platform Prolific (2025). Inclusion criteria included individuals who self-identified as women, aged 18 years and older, and African American, and who resided in the United States. Participants were asked to respond to a demographic questionnaire and the 84-item RSPWB (Ryff, 1989). Participants received US$5.00 for completing the online questionnaire. Fifty participants who completed the full study were invited to take the RSPWB at two weeks’ follow-up. Participants who completed the follow-up received an additional US$5.00 for completing the online questionnaire.

Measure

The RSPWB (Ryff, 1989) is a questionnaire used to measure psychological well-being. It consists of six scales: Autonomy (e.g., “Being happy with myself is more important to me than having others approve of me”), Environmental Mastery (e.g., “The demands of everyday life often get me down”), Personal Growth (e.g., “I am the kind of person who likes to give new things a try”), Positive Relations With Others (e.g., “Most people see me as loving and affectionate”), Purpose In Life (e.g., “I don’t have a good sense of what it is I’m trying to accomplish in life”), and Self-Acceptance (e.g., “I like most aspects of my personality”). Although condensed versions of the tool are also available (e.g., 54-item, 42-item, and 18-item versions), this study utilized the complete 84-item instrument. Each scale in the 84-item instrument consists of 14 items. Items use a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Of the 84 total items, 40 are reverse-scored (i.e., a response of 1 is translated to a score of 6). Once reverse-scored, scores are summed to get scale scores. Scale scores can range from 14 to 84. In general, higher scores indicate greater levels of psychological well-being. The internal reliability estimates for the RSPWB were good to excellent, with Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale for this study being $α$ = .98 and the Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales being: Autonomy $α$ = .88; Environmental Mastery $α$ = .92; Personal Growth $α$ = .83; Positive Relations with Others $α$ = .91; Purpose in Life $α$ = .92; Self-Acceptance $α$ = .94.

Data Analysis

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) procedure is a standard statistical analysis technique for exploring the underlying factors that represent psychological constructs measured by an instrument (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). While EFAs are typically conducted because there are no a priori expectations of factor structure (Floyd & Widaman, 1995), these authors asserted that the conflicting evidence of factor structure warranted such exploratory procedures. Thus, consistent with Zhou et al.’s (2025) study, we conducted an EFA of the 84-item version of RSPWB. We began with data cleaning, followed by item screening, then the EFA, concluding with refinement and sensitivity analysis. Consistent with prior exploratory analyses of the RSPWB (e.g., Zhou et al., 2025), we used Pearson correlations to assess two-week test–retest reliabilities.

The statistical software RStudio (2024; Version 2024.12.0+467) was used for all statistical analyses. We used the fa() function from the R package psych with factor retention guided by scree plot and parallel analysis. Promax rotation was applied, given the assumed correlation between factors. Data was cleaned, and all reverse-scored items were appropriately scored. Missing data only accounted for 0.7% of the total responses for RSPWB. One respondent was missing observations on 10 items of RSPWB. Given that this respondent had only 11.9% missing, this missingness was addressed using multiple imputation by chained equations (White et al., 2011). Using this method enabled a more comprehensive analysis of the data and reduced the potential bias introduced by missing values or listwise deletion of respondents with minimal missingness. However, two participants were excluded entirely due to missing data on more than 50% of the RSPWB items. The final sample size was 248. Of the 248 who completed RSPWB at time one, 50 completed the 2-week follow-up. One of the 50 entered a Prolific identification number that had not appeared in the original sample, and, thus, a total of 49 observations were included in the test–retest reliability analyses. There was no missingness in the retest data. To address concerns regarding item removal, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. Namely, we ran a five-factor EFA on the full item set prior to correlation-based screening.

Results

Sociodemographic and General Characteristics of Participants

As shown in Table 1, African American women (N = 248) had the following characteristics: average age was about 36 years (ranging from 18 to 77 years), about 85% (n = 211) had at least some college education or beyond, nearly 65% (n = 160) were never married followed by nearly a quarter (n = 58) were married or living with a partner, 65% (n = 160) were in the paid workforce either full-time or part-time, about 51% (n = 127) reported a household income less than US$50,000, and about 79% (n = 196) reported being in good to excellent health.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 248), 2022.

Variable	Count	Percent
Education
Middle School or less	1	0.4
Some High School	1	0.4
High School or GED	35	14.11
Some College	82	33.06
Completed College	80	32.26
Graduate School or Advanced Degree	45	18.15
Technical School, such as automotive repair school	4	1.61
Marital status
Never married	160	64.52
Married/Living with partner	58	23.39
Separated/Divorced	24	9.68
Widowed	2	0.81
Other	4	1.61
Employment
Working full-time for pay	105	42.34
Working part-time for pay (less than 30 hr per week	55	22.18
Temporarily out of work (for less than 6 months)	14	5.65
Unemployed (out of work for 6 months or more)	30	12.10
Retired	11	4.44
Full-time homemaker	12	4.84
Permanently disabled	8	3.23
Other	9	3.63
I choose not to answer	4	1.61
Income
Less than US$25,000	61	24.60
US$25,000 through US$34,999	31	12.50
US$35,000 through US$49,999	35	14.11
US$50,000 through US$74,999	58	23.39
US$75,000 through US$99,999	22	8.87
US$100,000 and greater	30	12.10
I choose not to answer	5	2.02
Self-rated Health
Excellent	21	8.47
Very good	82	33.06
Good	93	37.50
Fair	41	16.53
Poor	11	4.44
	Mean	SD^a
Age	35.46	12.64
Number of people in household	2.86	1.98

Standard deviation.

Item Characteristics

Item-level floor and ceiling effects were examined prior to the EFA. Several items demonstrated moderate ceiling effects, particularly among positively worded items, with some items exceeding the 20% threshold (see Supplemental Table 1). In contrast, a subset of reverse-worded items demonstrated modest floor effects. This pattern is consistent with prior research on the RSPWB and similar well-being measures and may reflect both generally positive levels of psychological functioning and wording effects (Abbott et al., 2006, 2010). Importantly, variability across items remained sufficient to support EFA, which is robust to departures from normality, and no items were excluded based on floor or ceiling effects alone.

Construct Validity – EFA

We conducted an EFA to examine the underlying factor structure and provide initial evidence of construct validity. Given the exploratory nature of the analysis, no assumptions were made regarding the preservation of the original RSPWB factor structure. Floyd and Widaman (1995) provided guidance on the need to assess the correlations between items, asserting that items that were intended to measure a familiar construct should be at least moderately correlated with each other when conducting factor analytic procedures. Consistent with procedures performed by Zhou et al. (2025), items were removed due to low correlations (<.30) with over 50% of other items in the scale and with at least one other scale. After performing initial bivariate correlation testing, 13 items were removed (item numbers 3, 7, 11, 15, 21, 25, 27, 28, 37, 39, 57, 65, and 81; see Supplemental Table 2 for a detailed description of these items and their content). After these items were removed from the dataset, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were conducted to determine sampling adequacy and the appropriateness of EFA procedures. The KMO test indicated that sampling adequacy was achieved, with an overall measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) value of .95 and most item-level MSAs above .90. There were only six items with MSA values between 0.82 and 0.90, which are still considered acceptable (Kaiser & Rice, 1974). The Barlett test of sphericity results (χ² = 13,241.8, df = 2,485, p < .001) also suggested the appropriateness of performing EFA (Bartlett, 1937). Together, results from the KMO and Bartlett’s test indicate the appropriateness of performing EFA procedures (Bartlett, 1937). Finally, both Cattell’s Scree test (Cattell, 1966) and the parallel analysis (Hayton et al., 2004) suggested a five-factor structure of the measurement tool. The first five observed eigenvalues from the unrotated factor analysis were 26.87, 3.23, 2.91, 2.22, and 1.33, each exceeding the corresponding eigenvalues generated from random data. Thus, a five-factor structure was subjected to oblique rotation (i.e., Promax) and estimated with the maximum likelihood estimate method (MLE).

To refine the model, highly cross-loaded items (factor loadings > .40) on more than one factor and too low factor loadings (<.40) on all factors were removed (Hair et al., 2019). Ultimately, from the 71 items used in the EFA, the final five-factor model consisted of 48 items. This model provided evidence of non-replication of the original structure and accounted for 53% of the total variance of RSPWB (Ryff, 1989) scores. The factors that emerged in this model were named Factor 1 – EPS (combination of Environmental Mastery, Purpose in Life, and Self-Acceptance), Factor 2 – Relational Satisfaction, Factor 3 – Autonomy, Factor 4 – Personal Growth, and Factor 5 – Helplessness, after a thorough review of item content. See Table 2 for the factor loadings, communality (h²), uniqueness (u²), and complexity (com) for each item.

Table 2.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being (N = 248).

Item	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	h ²	u ²	com
5. I feel good when I think of what I’ve done in the past and what I hope to do in the future.	.72	.03	−.18	.18	.08	.67	.33	1.3
6. When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out.	.96	−.03	−.12	−.09	−.01	.71	.29	1.1
12. In general, I feel confident and positive about myself.	.61	.12	.07	.04	.09	.67	.33	1.2
18. *I feel like many of the people I know have gotten more out of life than I have.	.50	.25	.11	−.23	.14	.57	.43	2.3
23. I have a sense of direction and purpose in life.	.60	−.02	−.01	.02	.27	.63	.37	1.4
30. I like most aspects of my personality.	.47	.01	.08	.32	−.01	.54	.46	1.8
36. I made some mistakes in the past, but I feel that all in all, everything has worked out for the best.	.75	−.01	.00	.08	−.05	.57	.43	1.0
38. I generally do a good job of taking care of my personal finances and affairs.	.40	−.09	.09	−.01	.21	.31	.69	1.8
48. For the most part, I am proud of who I am and the life I lead.	.84	−.06	−.11	.09	.13	.80	.20	1.1
50. I am good at juggling my time so that I can fit everything in that needs to get done.	.62	.01	.05	−.03	.08	.48	.52	1.1
56. My daily life is busy, but I derive a sense of satisfaction from keeping up with everything.	.47	−.07	−.04	.23	.04	.36	.64	1.6
59. Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them.	.61	−.03	.01	−.05	.26	.59	.41	1.4
60. *My attitude about myself is probably not as positive as most people feel about themselves.	.42	.25	.21	−.11	.10	.56	.44	2.5
71. My aims in life have been more a source of satisfaction than frustration to me.	.58	.11	.01	.08	.08	.57	.43	1.1
72. The past had its ups and downs, but in general, I wouldn’t want to change it.	.99	.00	−.14	−.10	−.23	.58	.42	1.2
77. I find it satisfying to think about what I have accomplished in life.	.68	−.06	.01	.12	.11	.64	.36	1.1
78. When I compare myself to friends and acquaintances, it makes me feel good about who I am.	.62	.12	.09	.06	−.18	.46	.54	1.3
80. I have been able to build a home and a lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking.	.88	.05	.11	−.17	−.16	.63	.37	1.2
10. *Maintaining close relationships has been difficult and frustrating for me.	.05	.71	.16	.07	−.12	.61	.39	1.2
14. *I do not fit very well with the people and the community around me.	−.10	.69	−.10	.08	.17	.52	.48	1.2
16. *I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns.	.11	.71	.05	−.03	−.08	.57	.43	1.1
34. *I don’t have many people who want to listen when I need to talk.	.04	.71	−.17	.16	.07	.60	.40	1.2
40. I feel like I get a lot out of my friendships.	.26	.50	−.12	.28	−.15	.52	.48	2.5
46. *It seems to me that most other people have more friends than I do.	.07	.64	.01	−.02	−.03	.45	.55	1.0
58. *I have not experienced many warm and trusting relationships with others.	−.09	.69	−.15	.15	.18	.56	.44	1.4
64. *I often feel like I’m on the outside looking in when it comes to friendships.	−.11	.80	.16	−.01	.06	.69	.31	1.1
76. *I find it difficult to really open up when I talk with others.	.02	.57	.00	−.01	.14	.44	.56	1.1
1. *Sometimes I change the way I act or think to be more like those around me.	.02	.07	.67	−.16	−.03	.42	.58	1.1
13. My decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing.	.05	−.08	.63	.27	−.21	.45	.55	1.7
19. *I tend to worry about what other people think of me.	.15	.16	.72	−.03	−.12	.64	.36	1.3
61. *I often change my mind about decisions if my friends or family disagree.	−.20	.07	.56	−.03	.25	.42	.58	1.7
67. I am not the kind of person who gives in to social pressures to think or act in certain ways.	−.06	−.24	.60	.10	.06	.36	.64	1.4
73. *I am concerned about how other people evaluate the choices I have made in my life.	−.09	.09	.54	−.02	.20	.42	.58	1.4
79. I judge myself by what I think is important, not by the values of what others think is important.	.04	−.04	.43	.35	−.08	.38	.62	2.0
4. Most people see me as loving and affectionate.	−.25	.37	.00	.65	−.06	.44	.56	1.9
9. In general, I feel that I continue to learn more about myself as time goes by.	−.11	−.16	.02	.58	.27	.39	.61	1.7
45. With time, I have gained a lot of insight about life that has made me a stronger, more capable person.	.30	−.12	−.03	.50	.25	.64	.36	2.3
51. I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time.	.35	−.01	.05	.45	.11	.64	.36	2.1
52. People would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others.	.08	.20	−.08	.65	−.23	.45	.55	1.5
63. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth.	.23	−.04	.01	.45	.17	.48	.52	1.8
69. I enjoy seeing how my views have changed and matured over the years.	.07	−.01	.13	.52	.07	.44	.56	1.2
17. *I tend to focus on the present, because the future nearly always brings me problems.	.12	.17	−.03	−.22	.44	.31	.69	2.0
29. *My daily activities often seem trivial and unimportant to me.	−.12	.18	.14	.06	.50	.40	.60	1.6
35. *I don’t have a good sense of what it is I’m trying to accomplish in life.	.10	.06	.07	.17	.52	.56	.44	1.3
41. *I used to set goals for myself, but that now seems like a waste of time.	.10	−.09	−.04	.05	.76	.61	.39	1.1
62. *I get frustrated when trying to plan my daily activities because I never accomplish the things I set out to do.	.05	.08	.12	−.03	.54	.47	.53	1.2
74. *I have difficulty arranging my life in a way that is satisfying to me.	.21	.25	−.02	−.11	.59	.73	.27	1.7
75. *I gave up trying to make big improvements or changes in my life a long time ago.	−.14	.02	−.08	.22	.74	.53	.47	1.3

Note. F1 = EPS; F2 = Relational Satisfaction; F3 = Autonomy; F4 = Personal Growth; F5 = Helplessness

The bold-faced values indicate the items that load onto the corresponding factor.

Item reverse-scored.

Factor 1 – EPS

Factor 1 consisted of 18 items representing a composition of Environmental Mastery, Purpose in Life, and Self-Acceptance, or EPS (similar to interpretations from Burns & Machin, 2009), with sample items including “I feel like many of the people I know have gotten more out of life than I have”; “I have been able to build a home and a lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking”; and “Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them.” This factor accounted for 19.94% of the total variance. Factor loadings for this factor ranged from .40 to .96, indicating acceptable to high factor loadings across items. The Cronbach’s alpha was .95, indicating excellent internal consistency (>.9) of items within said factor.

Factor 2 – Relational Satisfaction

Factor 2 consisted of nine items representing Relational Satisfaction (coined by Zhou et al., 2025), with sample items including “Maintaining close relationships has been difficult and frustrating for me” and “I do not fit very well with the people and the community around me.” This factor accounted for 11.08% of the total variance. Factor loadings for this factor ranged from .50 to .80, indicating moderate to high factor loadings across items. The Cronbach’s alpha was .91, indicating excellent internal consistency (>.9) of items within said factor.

Factor 3 – Autonomy

Factor 3 consisted of seven items representing Autonomy, with sample items including “Sometimes I change the way I act or think to be more like those around me” and “I am concerned about how other people evaluate the choices I have made in my life.” This factor accounted for 6.20% of the total variance. Factor loadings for this factor ranged from .43 to .72, indicating acceptable to high factor loadings across items. The Cronbach’s alpha was .81, indicating good internal consistency (>.8) of items within said factor.

Factor 4 – Personal Growth

Factor 4 consisted of seven items representing Personal Growth, with sample items including “For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth,” and “In general, I feel that I continue to learn more about myself as time goes by.” This factor accounted for 7.29% of the total variance. Factor loadings for this factor ranged from .45 to .65, indicating acceptable to moderate factor loadings across items. The Cronbach’s alpha was .84, indicating good internal consistency (>.8) of items within said factor.

Factor 5 – Helplessness

Factor 5 consisted of seven items representing Helplessness, with sample items including “I gave up trying to make big improvements or changes in my life a long time ago” and “I used to set goals for myself, but that now seems like a waste of time.” This factor accounted for 8.57% of the total variance. Factor loadings for this factor ranged from .44 to .76, indicating acceptable to high factor loadings across items. The Cronbach’s alpha was .86, indicating good internal consistency (>.8) of items within said factor.

Reliability Tests

Internal Consistency Estimates

We assessed internal consistency reliability estimates for the factors identified by the EFA using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from good ( $α$ = .81) to excellent ( $α$ = .95). The total scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was excellent at $α$ = .96. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each factor and the total scale are found in Table 3. McDonald’s omega was also examined to address alpha inflation concerns that arise from multidimensionality and item redundancy. Omega total was high (ωt = .97), with omega hierarchical (ωₕ = .75) indicating a strong general factor alongside meaningful multidimensionality (Explained Common Variance [ECV] = .55). Subscales showed good reliability (ω = .80–.94), and the five-factor model demonstrated good fit (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = .048, Root Mean Square Residual [RMSR] = .03), supporting a multidimensional structure with a substantial shared core.

Table 3.

Reliability Ryff Psychological Well-Being Scale – African American Women (N = 248).

Scale	Cronbach’s alpha	Test-retest^a
Factors	Cronbach’s alpha	Pearson correlation coefficient
EPS	.952	.951
Relational Satisfaction	.908	.905
Autonomy	.812	.771
Personal Growth	.839	.896
Helplessness	.863	.807
Uni-dimensional
Total Ryff	.963	.944

N = 49.

Test–Retest Reliability Estimates

Two-week test–retest reliabilities were assessed. The total score for RSPWB had a Pearson correlation coefficient of r = .94 across the two time points, indicating excellent test–retest reliability. Pearson correlation coefficients for each subscale ranged from good (r = .77) to excellent (r = .95), with the complete estimates found in Table 3.

Sensitivity Analysis

The five-factor structure was evident in both the full and reduced datasets. Model fit was comparable across solutions (full: RMSEA = .049; reduced: RMSEA = .048), and the substantive factor pattern remained consistent. Removal of low-correlation items reduced cross-loadings and item complexity (mean complexity reduced from 1.8 to 1.5) and improved incremental fit indices (Tucker–Lewis Index [TLI] =.82 to .90). However, the underlying five-factor structure was present in both before the item removal, suggesting that the screening procedure refined rather than artificially induced the factor structure.

Discussion

This exploratory study adds to the growing recognition in research and clinical practice that constructs such as well-being vary across cultures (Shambley-Ebron & Boyle, 2004). Importantly, the goal of EFA is not to preserve or test the original factor structure, but rather to identify latent factors that best characterize patterns of covariation within the present sample. This work supports the importance of applying a transcultural lens to measurement in health research, as the EFA revealed evidence of non-replication of the original structure; five distinct factors emerged, encompassing 48 of the original items. These factors exhibited good to excellent psychometric properties, and the reliability across time points indicated good stability and consistency of the subscales. The evidence of non-replication of the original RSPWB structure (Ryff, 1989) is consistent with findings from other studies that have explored its factor structure (Burns & Machin, 2009; Kafka & Kozma, 2002; Zhou et al., 2025). While exploratory, our findings suggest that as initially developed, the RSPWB 84-item may not adequately measure the latent construct of psychological well-being among African American women. These findings highlight the need for psychometric evaluation and subsequent cultural adaptations of instruments across diverse cultural contexts using rigorous, mixed-methods approaches.

The five factors identified in this study largely split into either positively or negatively worded items (F1 = 16/18 positive; F2 = 8/9 negative; F3 = 7/7 negative; F4 = 7/7 positive; F5 = 7/7 negative). Prior research has questioned mixing positive and negative wording within psychological scales, noting that exclusively positive wording can improve internal consistency and factor structure (Dodeen, 2023; Winefield et al., 2012) and that negatively worded items may add little value (Sliter & Zickar, 2014). This issue is relevant to the RSPWB. For example, Henn et al. (2016) proposed a five-factor structure for the 84-item RSPWB in South Africa in which one factor, named general psychological well-being, comprised primarily positively worded items, while the remaining four captured negative aspects of well-being (e.g., interpersonal dependence, obstinate, sense of loneliness, and low motivation) and consisted of exclusively negatively worded items. Other psychometric evaluations of the RSPWB (Abbott et al., 2006; Springer & Hauser, 2006) similarly found that the mixture of item valences benefited from method factors (i.e., a single latent variable that accounts for variance due to the method of measurement itself rather than the actual constructs of interest) to achieve acceptable model fit. Taken together with the present findings, these studies underscore the need for dedicated research evaluating whether combining positively and negatively worded items is appropriate when measuring psychological well-being.

In their work, Zhou et al. (2025) recommended the inclusion of culturally congruent items in subsequent versions of the RSPWB to ensure the accurate measurement of latent constructs within psychological well-being. Similarly, in this study, there appear to be items that may not be salient for this population, as evidenced by the low correlation (<.40) and subsequent removal of such items from the EFA. For example, the wording for Item 81 is as follows: “There is truth to the saying you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.” This saying may not have resonated with the participants in this sample and thus may need to be reconsidered. Method factor modeling was beyond the scope of this study; we recommend that future work evaluate the utility of exclusively positively worded items, or a bifactor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with wording/method factors as a next-step analysis. Consideration should also be given to the extent to which socially acceptable responses impact participants’ answers.

This study was an exploratory psychometric evaluation; as such, the following interpretations of the identified factor composition are exploratory and should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence. Our first factor, EPS, was comprised of items from Environmental Mastery, Purpose in Life, and Self-Acceptance and may suggest a higher-order factor reflecting general psychological well-being. While this merger is purely hypothesis-generating and not a definitive cultural restructuring, it is consistent with prior exploratory research using the RSPWB (Abbott et al., 2006; Burns & Machin, 2009; Henn et al., 2016). Springer and Hauser (2006) further noted that Environmental Mastery, Purpose in Life, and Self-Acceptance (and, in some cases, Personal Growth) consistently show high intercorrelations and frequently consolidate into a single factor in exploratory analyses. The conceptual coherence of EPS is particularly salient for African American women, for whom psychological well-being has long been theorized as an integrated self-concept shaped by resilience, collective identity, and empowerment. Prior literature emphasizes the centrality of community engagement, activism, and self-definition in fostering environmental mastery and purpose in life, alongside self-acceptance in the face of structural adversity (Shodiya-Zeumault et al., 2022; Woods-Giscombe et al., 2023). From this perspective, EPS may suggest a culturally and contextually grounded manifestation of psychological well-being, rather than a simple aggregation of original RSPWB subscales.

The second factor identified, Relational Satisfaction, may reflect the perceived quality and satisfaction African American women experience in their relationships and aligns with factors identified in prior research (Zhou et al., 2025). Relational Satisfaction is relevant to this group, as social support has been shown to play a critical role in coping with stressors (Holt-Lunstad, 2024). The third factor, Autonomy, may reflect a construct complicated by the intersection of race and gender. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines autonomy as “the quality of being independent, free, and self-directing” (Merriam-Webster, n.d., Definition 1). For African American women, the pursuit of autonomy is impeded by systems of oppression that have sought to control their bodies and economic activities (King, 1988). As policies and practices continue to challenge African American women’s ability to be self-directing (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 2022; Goldman Sachs, 2021), research tools measuring autonomy with attention to sociocultural experiences will be essential.

The fourth factor, Personal Growth, encompassed feelings of continued self-development and relational expansion. For African American women, personal growth holds a unique significance given the intersecting experiences of racism and sexism, or “double jeopardy” (Beal, 2008; Okoro et al., 2020). Claiming personal growth may therefore function as an act of resistance and affirmation, allowing African American women to define success and development on their own terms (Collins, 2022). The fifth factor, Helplessness, aligns with Wallston’s (2015) definition of helplessness as the belief that outcomes are uncontrollable. Prior research suggests that African American women may be particularly vulnerable to internalized hopelessness due to persistent exposure to systemic oppression and social marginalization (González-Prendes & Thomas, 2011; Lewis et al., 2016; Okoro et al., 2020; Thomas & González-Prendes, 2009). The construct of helplessness offers insight into the cumulative psychological burden faced by this population.

Given that this was an exploratory psychometric validation study, our goal was to assess how the RSPWB (Ryff, 1989) captures psychological well-being among African American women. Further refinement of this scale is needed to accurately document experiences of psychological well-being among different populations. African American women are at greater risk for poorer psychological well-being due to a myriad of factors, including the social climate and societal inequities in America (Elhabashy et al., 2025). The intersection of race and gender offers African American women distinct psychological stressors, such as greater vulnerability to economic hardship (Goldman Sachs, 2021), adult victimization (Erving et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2020), and harassment (Lewis et al., 2016) in comparison to their White and male counterparts. Omission of these unique risk factors and other markers of racial and sexual oppression from standard measures may limit their ability to comprehensively assess the construct of psychological well-being among African American women.

Just as the call for Black feminism emerged to address the failure of the broader feminist movement to address the intersectional needs of women of color (King, 1988; Oliphant et al., 2022; Woods-Giscombé & Lobel, 2008), so too must psychometric assessments address the specific needs and realities of African American women. Future studies should consider using supporting theoretical frameworks, such as Black feminist thought or Africana womanism (Shambley-Ebron & Boyle, 2004), to guide and shape revisions of the RSPWB.

Limitations

This exploratory study offers insight into the factor structure of the 84-item RSPWB, but several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size (N = 248) was insufficient to split for both EFA and CFA, limiting validation efforts (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). As a result, the present analyses are exploratory in nature, and the proposed factor structure cannot be formally evaluated for model fit or compared against alternative structural models, such as the original six-factor model, second-order models, or bifactor models. Because EFA solutions are sample-dependent and sensitive to item retention decisions, the stability and replicability of the resulting structure in other samples remain uncertain. Future studies should employ CFA to test competing structural models, examine method effects, and evaluate measurement invariance across groups. Relatedly, although we examined internal consistency and composite reliability, convergent and divergent validity were not examined. Second, the sample was highly educated, which may limit generalizability. Third, the use of a Prolific convenience sample may have influenced who elected to participate. Fourth, participants could review study details (including compensation) before opting in, potentially creating self-selection bias based on familiarity with psychological well-being or differing incentive-related motives. Fifth, this is a stand-alone, exploratory psychometric validation study, not a validated cultural adaptation of the RSPWB. Future work should employ qualitative validation, cognitive interviews, and measurement invariance testing to guide cultural adaptation of this measure.

Sixth, although the sample size-to-item ratio was low, which may have affected item and factor loadings, the high KMO value (.95) supports the adequacy of the data for factor analysis. Regardless, replication with larger samples is recommended. In addition, several methodological decisions may have influenced the extracted factor structure. Items were screened using Pearson correlations prior to factor extraction, which does not account for the multivariate structure underlying latent factors and may have affected the emergence of the factor solution. Similarly, MLE with Pearson correlations assumes continuous and normally distributed indicators, whereas the RSPWB uses ordinal Likert-type items that demonstrated skewness and ceiling effects. Future studies may consider ordinal appropriate estimators such as Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted (WLSMV) with polychoric correlations and conduct factor retention and item evaluation procedures within the factor analytic framework rather than relying on pre-EFA bivariate thresholds. In addition, although a total RSPWB score was reported with high internal consistency (α = .96), the present study did not test a higher-order or bifactor structure to justify the interpretation of a general well-being factor. Without such analyses, the validity of a composite total score remains uncertain, and the high alpha may reflect item redundancy or wording-related variance rather than true general factor saturation. Future research should explicitly test higher-order and bifactor models to determine whether a total score is psychometrically supported. Finally, race was operationalized dichotomously as self-identified African American, which may not capture the full spectrum of racial identity within the Black population (Tamir, 2021). Future research should examine the scale’s psychometric properties among African American women and explore the construct of psychological well-being in other marginalized groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the EFA provided evidence of non-replication of the original RSPWB structure, encompassing 48 of the original items among African American women. Well-being has an important connection to downstream mental and physical health conditions. Eliminating health disparities and advancing health equity requires a continued focus on the well-being of marginalized groups, including African American women. The holistic nature of the RSPWB scale aligns well with nursing’s prioritization of holistic, patient-centered care; however, the study findings suggest the need for more research and further refinement of the tool may be necessary to fully assess the construct of psychological well-being among African American women.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tcn-10.1177_10436596261459427 – Supplemental material for Investigating the Factor Structure of the 84-Item Version Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for African American Women in the United States

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tcn-10.1177_10436596261459427 for Investigating the Factor Structure of the 84-Item Version Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for African American Women in the United States by Hannah Fry, Marcus Weathers, Kaiqi Zhou, ShaRhonda Stevenson, Jessica L. Zemlak, Roger L. Brown and Abiola Keller in Journal of Transcultural Nursing

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tcn-10.1177_10436596261459427 – Supplemental material for Investigating the Factor Structure of the 84-Item Version Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for African American Women in the United States

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tcn-10.1177_10436596261459427 for Investigating the Factor Structure of the 84-Item Version Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for African American Women in the United States by Hannah Fry, Marcus Weathers, Kaiqi Zhou, ShaRhonda Stevenson, Jessica L. Zemlak, Roger L. Brown and Abiola Keller in Journal of Transcultural Nursing

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Hannah Fry

Marcus Weathers Jr

Kaiqi Zhou

Roger L. Brown

Ethical Considerations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The present study was determined to be exempt from review by Marquette University’s Institutional Review Board.

Consent to Participate

Before completing the surveys, informed consent was obtained to ensure participants’ understanding of the research study, including the purpose of the research, participants’ rights, benefits/risks of participation, compensation, confidentiality, and contact information of study PIs and researchers involved in the project.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Abiola Keller, Hannah Fry, Jessica Zemlak; Data curation: Hannah Fry, Roger Brown, Kaiqi Zhou; Formal analysis and investigation: Hannah Fry, Kaiqi Zhou; Funding acquisition: Abiola Keller; Methodology: Hannah Fry; Project administration: Abiola Keller, Hannah Fry; Supervision: Abiola Keller; Writing–original draft: Marcus Weathers Jr., Hannah Fry, Roger Brown; Writing–review and editing: Marcus Weathers Jr., Hannah Fry, Abiola Keller, ShaRhonda Stevenson, Roger Brown, Jessica Zemlak, Kaiqi Zhou.

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 the Marquette University Summer Faculty Fellowship and Regular Research Grant programs, as well as the Marquette University College of Nursing Regnar Research Award. These funding sources had no involvement in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abbott

R. A.

Ploubidis

G. B.

Huppert

F. A.

Kuh

Croudace

T. J.

(2010). An evaluation of the precision of measurement of Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scales in a population sample. Social Indicators Research, 97, 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9506-x

Abbott

R. A.

Ploubidis

G. B.

Huppert

F. A.

Kuh

Wadsworth

M. E.

Croudace

T. J.

(2006). Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-76

Albert

M. A.

(2019). Ignored in plain sight: Giving a voice to the weight of stress on cardiovascular disease risk in black women. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 12(4), Article e005647. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005647

Bartlett

M. S.

(1937). Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 160(901), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1937.0109

Beal

F. M.

(2008). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. Meridians, 8(2), 166–176. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40338758

Berger

J. T.

Ribeiro Miller

(2024). Ethnocentrism, racism, and the misuse of culture in US medical professional organizations: The case of hospice and palliative care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 39(5), 847–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-08721-x

Burns

R. A.

Machin

M. A.

(2009). Investigating the structural validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales across two samples. Social Indicators Research, 93(2), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9329-1

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

Collins

P. H.

(2022). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

10.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542.

11.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

12.

Dodeen

(2023). The effects of changing negatively worded items to positively worded items on the reliability and the factor structure of psychological scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 41(3), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221141934

13.

Elhabashy

Adzrago

Williams

(2025). Psychological distress among US-born and non–US-born Black or African American adults in the US. JAMA Network Open, 8(4), Article e256558. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.6558

14.

Erving

C. L.

Satcher

L. A.

Chen

(2021). Psychologically resilient, but physically vulnerable? Exploring the psychosocial determinants of African American women’s mental and physical health. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 7(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/233264921990028

15.

Floyd

F. J.

Widaman

K. F.

(1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286

16.

Goldman Sachs. (2021). Black womenomics: Equalizing entrepreneurship. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/black-womenomics-f/black-womenomics-report.pdf

17.

González-Prendes

A. A.

Thomas

S. A.

(2011). Powerlessness and anger in African American women: The intersection of race and gender. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(7), 1–8.

18.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

19.

Hayton

J. C.

Allen

D. G.

Scarpello

(2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organization Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675

20.

Henn

C. M.

Hill

Jorgensen

L. I.

(2016). An investigation into the factor structure of the Ryff Scales of psychological well-being. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1), a1275. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1275

21.

Holt-Lunstad

(2024). Social connection as a critical factor for mental and physical health: Evidence, trends, challenges, and future implications. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 23(3), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21224

22.

Johnson

V. E.

Nadal

K. L.

Sissoko

D. R. G.

King

(2021). “It’s not in your head”: Gaslighting, ‘splaining, victim blaming, and other harmful reactions to microaggressions. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 16(5), 1024–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211011963

23.

Jones

S. C.

Anderson

R. E.

Gaskin-Wasson

A. L.

Sawyer

B. A.

Applewhite

Metzger

I. W.

(2020). From “crib to coffin”: Navigating coping from racism-related stress throughout the lifespan of Black Americans. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000430

24.

Joseph

V. A.

Martínez-Alés

Olfson

Shaman

Gould

M. S.

Gimbrone

Keyes

K. M.

(2023). Trends in suicide among Black women in the United States, 1999–2020. American Journal of Psychiatry, 180(12), 914–917. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20230254

25.

Kafka

G. J.

Kozma

(2002). The construct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB) and their relationship to measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014451725204

26.

Kaiser

H. F.

Rice

(1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115

27.

King

D. K.

(1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a Black feminist ideology. Signs, 14(1), 42–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174661

28.

T. P.

Iwamoto

D. K.

Burke

L. A.

(2020). A longitudinal investigation of racial discrimination, distress intolerance, and psychological well-being in African American college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23054

29.

Leininger

(1996). Culture care theory, research, and practice. Nursing Science Quarterly, 9(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/089431849600900208

30.

Lewis

J. A.

Mendenhall

Harwood

S. A.

Browne Huntt

(2016). “Ain’t I a woman?” Perceived gendered racial microaggressions experienced by Black women. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(5), 758–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016641193

31.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Autonomy [Merriam-Webster.com dictionary]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy

32.

Mills

K. J.

(2020). “It’s systemic”: Environmental racial microaggressions experienced by Black undergraduates at a predominantly White institution. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000121

33.

Okoro

O. N.

Hillman

L. A.

Cernasev

(2020). “We get double slammed!”: Healthcare experiences of perceived discrimination among low-income African-American women. Women’s Health, 16, 1745506520953348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745506520953348

34.

Oliphant

V. N.

Broyles

Clement

D. N.

Wingate

L. R.

(2022). Mental health strategies informed by Black feminist thought. Open Cultural Studies, 6(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2022-0151

35.

Prolific. (2025). Prolific. https://www.prolific.com

36.

RStudio. (2024). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 2024.12.0+467) [Computer software]. RStudio, PBC. https://www.rstudio.com/

37.

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, 1069–1081. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

38.

Ryff

C. D.

(2013). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263

39.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

40.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

(1996). Psychological well-being: Meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000289026

41.

Shambley-Ebron

D. Z.

Boyle

J. S.

(2004). New paradigms for transcultural nursing: Frameworks for studying African American women. Journal of Transcultural Nursing: Official Journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society, 15(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659603260033

42.

Shim

R. S.

Rodriguez

C. I.

(2023). A mental health crisis and call to action: Increasing trends in suicide among black women in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry, 180(12), 871–873. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20230819

43.

Shodiya-Zeumault

Aiello

Hinger

C. L.

DeBlaere

(2022). “We were loving warriors!”: A content analysis of Black women’s resistance within psychological science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 46(2), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211064181

44.

Simons

R. L.

Lei

M. K.

Klopack

Zhang

Gibbons

F. X.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2021). Racial discrimination, inflammation, and chronic illness among African American women at midlife: Support for the weathering perspective. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 8(2), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00786-8

45.

Sliter

K. A.

Zickar

M. J.

(2014). An IRT examination of the psychometric functioning of negatively worded personality items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413504584

46.

Springer

K. W.

Hauser

R. M.

(2006). An assessment of the construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being: Method, mode, and measurement effects. Social Science Research, 35(4), 1080–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.07.004

47.

Tamir

(2021). The growing diversity of Black America (pp. 1–23). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/03/25/the-growing-diversity-of-black-america/

48.

Thalmayer

A. G.

Toscanelli

Arnett

J. J.

(2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? The American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622

49.

Thomas

S. A.

González-Prendes

A. A.

(2009). Powerlessness, anger, and stress in African American women: Implications for physical and emotional health. Health Care for Women International, 30(1-2), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330802523709

50.

Vance

M. M.

Wade

J. M.

Brandy

Jr. Webster

A. R.

(2023). Contextualizing Black women’s mental health in the twenty-first century: Gendered racism and suicide-related behavior. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 10(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01198-y

51.

Wallston

K. A.

(2015). Control beliefs: Health perspectives. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 819–821). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.14070-X

52.

White

I. R.

Royston

Wood

A. M.

(2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067

53.

Williams

M. T.

(2020). Psychology cannot afford to ignore the many harms caused by microaggressions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619893362

54.

Winefield

H. R.

Gill

T. K.

Taylor

A. W.

Pilkington

R. M.

(2012). Psychological well-being and psychological distress: Is it necessary to measure both? Psychology of Well-being: Theory, Research and Practice, 2(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-2-3

55.

Woods-Giscombé

C. L.

Lobel

(2008). Race and gender matter: A multidimensional approach to conceptualizing and measuring stress in African American women. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.3.173

56.

Woods-Giscombe

C. L.

Williams

K. P.

Conklin

Dodd

Bravo

Anderson

A. M.

Frazier

Bey

Robinson

M. N.

Warren

B. J.

Wight

K. D.

Felix

A. S.

Anderson

C. M.

Hood

D. B.

(2023). A scoping review of the concept of resilience among African American women. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 46, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2023.04.008

57.

World Health Organization. (2021, January 1). Promoting well-being. https://www.who.int/activities/promoting-well-being

58.

Zhou

Carmona

R. K.

Nwosisi

Waldron

E. M.

Burnett-Zeigler

(2025). Analysis of factor structure of the 42-item Ryff psychological well-being scale in a sample of African American women in a community health center. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 35(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2024.2304576

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.

0.01 MB

0.00 MB

0.02 MB