KSOEM
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Ann Occup Environ Med > Volume 31; 2019 > Article
- Research Article Korean translation and validation of the Workplace Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA)-Profiler
-
Seong Pil Choi, Chunhui Suh
, Jae Won Yang, Byung Jin Ye, Chae Kwan Lee, Byung Chul Son, Maro Choi -
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2019;31:e17.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2019.31.e17
Published online: August 13, 2019
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine & Institute of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Pusan Paik Hospital, Inje University, Busan, Korea.
- Correspondence: Chunhui Suh. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine & Institute of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Pusan Paik Hospital, Inje University, 75 Bokji-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan 47392, Korea. chsuh@paik.ac.kr
• Received: April 30, 2019 • Accepted: July 12, 2019
Copyright © 2019 Korean Society of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This article has been corrected. See "Erratum: Korean translation and validation of the Workplace Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA)-Profiler" in Volume 36 on page e26.
Abstract
-
Background No tool is available for the multidimensional measurement of workplace well-being among Korean workers. In this study, the Workplace Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA)-Profiler, a multidimensional workplace well-being measure, was translated into Korean, and its validity and reliability were assessed.
-
Methods The Workplace PERMA-Profiler, including the positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment domains, was translated according to international guidelines. The questionnaires included the Workplace PERMA-Profiler, Mental Health Continuum-Short Form, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey, Psychosocial Well-being Index-Short Form, and Korean Occupational Stress Scale-Short Form. A total of 316 Korean workers completed a web-based survey with adequate response. Cronbach's alpha values were calculated to assess scale reliability, and correlational and confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess validity.
-
Results Cronbach's alpha values for the Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler ranged from 0.70 to 0.95. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the 5-factor model had a marginally acceptable fit [χ2(80) = 383.04, comparative fit index = 0.909, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.881, root mean square error of approximation = 0.110, and standardized root mean square residual = 0.054]. The 5-factor PERMA domains were correlated positively with work engagement and mental well-being in life, and negatively with burnout, occupational stressors, and stress responses. These results showed that the Workplace PERMA-Profiler has good convergent and divergent validity.
-
Conclusions The Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler had good reliability and validity. It might be used as an indicator or evaluation tool for positive mental health interventions in the workplace.
BACKGROUND
Well-being is defined broadly as “the quality and state of a person's life” [1]. Well-being is related to outcomes such as greater educational and occupational success, stronger friendships, and better physical health [2]. The role of well-being in the professional environment is important. There are 3 broad approaches to the understanding of well-being at work. The 3 approaches consider individual health of workers, mental illness of organizations and potential societal consequences. These eventually affect productivity as well [3,4,5,6,7]. Therefore, measurement of the abstract concept of well-being in the workplace is important for research and practice.
No single best model of well-being exists, but different conceptualizations can aid examination of the abstract construct of well-being and provide concrete domains that can be measured and developed. Several measurement instruments with positive approaches address mental health in general; most of these measures do not include the occupational arena [8]. Specifically, we focus on the 5 domains of the Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA) theory defined by Seligman [9]: positive emotion (P), engagement (E), relationships (R), meaning (M), and accomplishment (A). Kern developed the Workplace PERMA-Profiler based on PERMA theory. Application of the PERMA factors in the different contexts of life and work suggested that the concepts of the original PERMA-Profiler and Workplace PERMA-Profiler are distinct. The Workplace PERMA-Profiler is adjusted to the workplace context, enabling the multidimensional evaluation of workers' well-being. The PERMA-Profiler has shown acceptable psychometric properties in assessments conducted with several different international samples [10].
In Korea, the original PERMA-Profiler has been translated and used in some studies, but its validity has not been reported [11,12]. The Workplace PERMA-Profiler has not been translated into Korean or validated in Korean studies. In this study, the Workplace PERMA-Profiler was translated into Korean, and the Korean version was validated.
METHODS
The Workplace PERMA-Profiler was translated according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research task force guidelines [13,14], as follows. 1) Preparation; we obtained permission from the developer, Peggy Kern, to use and translate the Workplace PERMA-Profiler into Korean. 2) Forward translation; we had 2 independent translators translate the Workplace PERMA-Profiler into Korean; the translators were fully capable of translating the instrument with sufficient explanation. 3) Reconciliation; the translation panel compared and merged 2 versions of the newly translated the Workplace PERMA-Profiler and the original PERMA-Profiler as references [11,12], yielding a final single forward-translated Profiler. 4) Back translation; a professional translator translated the Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler back into the original language. 5) Back translation review; the developer compared the back-translated version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler with the original instrument to identify any discrepancies. 6) Cognitive debriefing; we tested the translated Workplace PERMA-Profiler with 34 respondents to evaluate its understandability and interpretation. 7) Proofreading; a Korean linguist reviewed the final Profiler and corrected minor errors, such as typographic and grammatical errors. The full version of the Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler was attached to Appendices 1 and 2.
The validation study was conducted as an online survey. The internal consistency, structural validity, and convergent and divergent validity of the Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler were investigated.
Participants were drawn from workers registered with an internet survey company, which had access to more than 1,300,000 potential participants in Korea, and recruited participants based on their gender, age and residential area. The survey company recruited Korean workers who lived in Korea and were aged ≥ 18 years from their pool of potential participants until the target number was reached. In general, it is recommended that at least 10 subjects per scale item be included for factor analysis [15], and more than 100 subjects for Cronbach's alpha values [16]. To ensure the acceptability of the statistical analysis, we decided to use a subjects-to-item ratio > 10. Eligible workers who agreed to participate in the online survey were given access to the self-report questionnaire. The instructions assured the protection of personal information and only those who wanted to participate in this study were asked to complete the questionnaire. Participating workers were awarded points for survey completion that could be cashed out and used for shopping. In total, 326 workers completed the web-based questionnaire; 3% of respondents with short response times were excluded because their responses were considered to be inadequate. The final sample consisted of 316 participants.
Participants completed an online self-reported survey that included the Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler and questions from the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), Korean Occupational Stress Scale-Short Form (KOSS-SF), Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), and Psychosocial Well-being Index-Short Form (PWI-SF). As questionnaires that measure concepts similar to those measured by the Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler, we used the MHC-SF, which measures three dimensions of mental well-being in life, and the UWES, which measures work engagement. To measure the opposite concept of work engagement, we used the MBI-GS, which measures burnout. To assess occupational stressors and stress responses, we used the KOSS-SF and PWI-SF. The final section of the survey consisted of basic demographic questions about participants' age, gender, level of education attained, residential area, job type, and employment status.
The Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler
The Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler was used to measure multidimensional well-being at work. It includes the 15 main PERMA items (3 items per domain) and 8 filler items that assess overall well-being (one item), physical health (3 items), negative emotion (3 items), and loneliness (one item). To allow for a broad range of responses with sufficient variation, responses are structured by a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating extremely low levels and 10 indicating extremely high levels. Composite scores for each domain were calculated by taking the mean of the 3 domain items [17].
MHC-SF
The MHC-SF measures positive mental health. It comprises 14 items on emotional (3 items), psychological (6 items), and social (5 items) well-being. Total scores range from 0 to 70, with higher scores reflecting greater mental well-being in life. Cronbach's alpha value for the K-MHC-SF in a previous study was 0.93 [18].
UWES
Work engagement was measured using the UWES-9 [19], which investigates experience using the constructs of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Responses to items are given on a frequency scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Cronbach's alpha value for the UWES-K in a previous study was 0.91[20].
KOSS-SF
Job stress was measured using 24 items of the KOSS-SF, a self-reported questionnaire for the estimation of unique and specific occupational stressors among Korean employees. Chang et al. [21] validated the reliability of the KOSS in a nationwide epidemiological study (the NSDSOS Project) conducted in Korea.
The KOSS-SF subscales used in this study were job demands (4 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.58), insufficient job control (4 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.67), inadequate social support (3 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.55), job insecurity (2 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.73), the organizational system (4 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.67), lack of rewards (3 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.72), and occupational climate (4 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.71). Each questionnaire item was rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much).
MBI-GS
Burnout was assessed with the Korean version of the MBI-GS [22]. The MBI-GS has three subscales: exhaustion (EX), cynicism (CY), and professional efficacy (PE). All items were scored on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). High EX and CY scores and low PE scores are indicative of burnout. Cronbach's alpha values for the EX, CY, and PE subscales in a previous study were 0.90, 0.81, and 0.86, respectively [23].
PWI-SF
Psychosocial stress responses were evaluated with the PWI-SF, which was developed based on the General Health Questionnaire-60 to determine levels of psychosocial stress responses in the general population. Its reliability and validity have been established for Korean workers. Respondents score each item on a 4-point Likert scale, and scores are summed to determine the levels of psychosocial stress responses, with higher scores indicating greater stress levels [24]. Cronbach's alpha value for the PWI-SF in a previous study was 0.88 [25].
To test reliability, the internal consistency of the Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha values for the total score and individual factor scores (i.e., P, E, R, M, and A) [10].
To confirm the 5-factor structural validity of the instrument, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for the 15 items using robust maximum-likelihood estimation. The original 5-factor model and a 1-factor model were tested using the following model fit indices: the χ2 test, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We considered CFI and TLI values > 0.95 and RMSEA and SRMR values < 0.06 to indicate good model fit [26]. Pearson's coefficients (r) of correlation between the PERMA factors and other questionnaires including MHC-SF, KOSS-SF, UWES, MBI-GS, and PWI-SF were calculated to examine convergent and divergent validity. We used IBM SPSS AMOS version 25 (IBM Corp., New York, USA) for the analyses.
The Institutional Review Board of Inje University Busan Paik Hospital exempted this study from review (no. 18-0236) because it did not involve the collection or recording of personal identifiable information and did not violate the rights of or harm of any study subject. All authors have seen and approved manuscript.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants. The majority of participants had graduated from university (65.5%) or had some college education (21.8%). Most participants were permanent workers contracted with company at least 1 years of employment (98.1%) and were engaged as office clerks (65.8%). The ages and regions of the participants were distributed evenly.
Table 1
Participant demographics (n = 316)
aAll employment is categorized depending on duration of his or her employment status; one or more than year as permanent, one month to a year as temporary, less than a month as daily employment; bWe asked the participants, ‘What is your highest level of education? Please indicate the total length of time that you have attended school.’ The years of schooling were written in parentheses.
Table 2 shows mean scores and Cronbach's alpha values for the PERMA factors. Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.70 to 0.95.
Table 2
Mean scores and internal reliability (n = 316)
Table 3 shows the results of the CFA. Standardized covariances ranged from 0.63 to 0.89 in the 5-factors model and 0.50 to 0.87 in the 1-factor model. The 5-factor model showed marginally acceptable fit [χ2 (80) = 383.05, CFI = 0.909, TLI = 0.881, RMSEA = 0.110, SRMR = 0.054]. The 5-factor model had a better fit than did the 1-factor model [∆χ2 (10) = 146.93, p < 0.05].
Table 3
Confirmatory factor analysis of the 15 items of the Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler
The robust maximum likelihood estimation method was used.
PERMA: Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment; P: positive emotion; E: engagement; R: relationships; M: meaning; A: accomplishment; df: degrees of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual.
ap < 0.05.
Table 4 shows the Pearson's coefficients (r) of correlation among the PERMA factors, MHC-SF, KOSS-SF, UWES, MBI-GS, and PWI-SF. The 5 PERMA factors showed a moderate to strong positive correlation with the mental well-being in life (0.39 ≤ r ≤ 0.67 in MHC-SF), work engagement (0.52 ≤ r ≤ 0.81 in UWES), and professional efficacy subscale (0.47 ≤ r ≤ 0.64) in burnout. Meanwhile the PERMA factors showed a moderate negative correlation with the exhaustion subscale (−0.50 ≤ r ≤ −0.19) and cynicism subscale (−0.51 ≤ r ≤ −0.37) in burnout, occupational stressors (−0.59 ≤ r ≤ −0.30 in total KOSS-SF), and stress responses (−0.62 ≤ r ≤ −0.30 in PWI-SF).
Table 4
Convergent and divergent validity; Pearson's correlations with other scales
PERMA: Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment; P: positive emotion; E: engagement; R: relationships; M: meaning; A: accomplishment; MHC-SF: Mental Health Continuum-Short Form; UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; KOSS-SF: Korean Occupational Stress Scale-Short Form; MBI-GS: Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey; PWI-SF: Psychosocial Well-being Index-Short Form.
ap < 0.01 by Pearson's correlation.
DISCUSSION
We translated the Workplace PERMA-Profiler into Korean and conducted a survey of Korean workers. In this study, the Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler demonstrated good reliability and convergent, divergent, and structural validity. Therefore, it can be used to assess multidimensional well-being in the workplace among Korean workers.
The measure showed strong internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha values for the internal consistency (reliability) of the factors ranged from 0.70 to 0.95, similar to those for the original PERMA-Profiler (0.69–0.95) [10]. The accomplishment (A) dimension had the lowest internal consistency. Among questions, the mean values of A1 and A3 responses differed the most. Korean workers are probably good at handling (A3) and achieving (A2) work-related matters, but might be less likely to feel that they are making progress towards accomplishing their work-related goals (A1).
The CFA indicated that the 5-factor PERMA model had a marginally acceptable fit [χ2 (80) = 383.04, CFI = 0.909, TLI = 0.881, RMSEA = 0.110, SRMR = 0.054], rather than completely supporting the 5-factor structure. However, the original PERMA-Profiler (CFI =0.894, TLI =0.864, RMSEA =0.107) and Japanese Workplace PERMA-Profiler (CFI = 0.892, TLI = 0.858, RMSEA = 0.105) had similar values [10,27]. This marginally acceptable fit suggests that the 5-factor PERMA model might not be the most appropriate model measuring workplace well-being or the items might not adequately separate the 5 factors in the Korean workplace context. For example, Korean workers might consider item E2 (“To what extent do you feel excited and interested in your work?”) closer to positive emotion than to engagement. Korean workers may also meet difficulties distinguishing between the concepts of meaning and accomplishment. Further research is needed to investigate how Korean workers understand each scale item using focus group interviews or other applicable methods.
Convergent validity was well supported. Work engagement showed the strongest positive correlations with this measure, especially with the PERMA-E dimension. In addition, the 3 dimensions of mental well-being in life had the strongest positive correlations with the PERMA-P dimension. These results support the postulate that mental well-being in life, work engagement, and occupational well-being are strongly correlated [28]. As engagement has been defined as the opposite experience of burnout, the burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and engagement (vigor and dedication) scales should be negatively related [29,30]. As expected, our results showed that the core dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) were correlated negatively with the PERMA-E dimension. In comparison, professional efficacy showed a moderate positive correlation with the PERMA-E dimension. The low degree of correlation (r = −0.19) between the PERMA-A dimension and exhaustion suggests that these 2 domains are not completely separated because workers might experience exhaustion in the process of work accomplishment.
The work-related psychosocial factors (insufficient job control, interpersonal conflict, and lack of reward) showed moderate negative correlations with the PERMA-P, R, and M dimensions. However, the relationships to job demands were weak. According to the job-demands resources model, well-being at work is not correlated strongly with job demands [31]. Stress responses (low social performance, depression, sleep disturbance, and low general well-being) also had moderate negative correlations with PERMA factors, except A. The PWI-SF is generally used to evaluate psychological well-being by measuring psychological distress [24], but it could also be partially applicable to occupational well-being, based on our findings.
This study has some limitations. First, the research sample came from a pooled online panel, and selection bias might exist. Second, social desirability bias, which is the tendency of respondents to answer questions to avoid embarrassment and project a favorable image to others, could also exist. Third, the Workplace PERMA-Profiler may not measure all aspects of occupational well-being in the Korean workplace. Since the PERMA theory has been developed and validated in other countries, it may not fully reflect the Korean workplace culture differences. Despite of these limitations, there is no doubt that the Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler is highly reliable in measuring well-being in workplace. This is the first reported set of norms for the workplace PERMA-Profiler in Korea. Since there is heterogeneity in how well-being can be defined and evaluated, well-being needs to be understood as a multidimensional construct and very different context. The Workplace PERMA-Profiler was developed in the context of occupational setting with 5 domains those help evaluate different aspects of well-being. Given the importance of occupational well-being to healthy living, we propose practical application of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler in evaluating the occupational well-being and a series of changes after psychological interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler showed good reliability and validity. It might be used as a tool to evaluate well-being in the workplace or as an indicator for positive mental health interventions at work.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Peggy Kern for reviewing the back-translated script and giving thoughtful opinion and Min Seok Oh, the Korean linguist for advice on Korean grammar and nuance differences after reviewing Korean Profile. Also, we sincerely thank 34 participants in cognitive debriefing session for their opinion.
-
Funding: This study was supported by research grant of the Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2018.
-
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
-
Author Contributions:
Abbreviations
PERMA
Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment
MHC-SF
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form
UWES
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
KOSS-SF
Korean Occupational Stress Scale-Short Form
MBI-GS
Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey
PWI-SF
Psychosocial Well-being Index-Short Form
CFA
confirmatory factor analysis
CFI
comparative fit index
TLI
Tucker-Lewis index
RMSEA
root mean square error of approximation
SRMR
standardized root mean square residual
EX
exhaustion
CY
cynicism
PE
professional efficacy
P
positive emotion
E
engagement
R
relationships
M
meaning
A
accomplishment
N
negative emotion
H
health
df
degrees of freedom
- 1. Maggino F. Assessing the subjective wellbeing of nations. In: Glatzer W, Camfield L, Møller V, Rojas M, editors. Global handbook of quality of life. New York: Springer; 2015, 803–822.
- 2. Diener E, Chan MY. Happy people live longer: subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Appl Psychol Health Well Being 2011;3(1):1–43.Article
- 3. Hassan E, Austin C, Celia C, Disley E, Hunt P, Marjanovic S, Shehabi A, van Dijk LV, van Stolk C. Health and wellbeing at work in the United Kingdom. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2009.
- 4. Kuoppala J, Lamminpää A, Husman P. Work health promotion, job well-being, and sickness absences--a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Occup Environ Med 2008;50(11):1216–1227. 19001948.ArticlePubMed
- 5. Schulte P, Vainio H. Well-being at work--overview and perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health 2010;36(5):422–429. 20686738.ArticlePubMed
- 6. Tompa E. The impact of health on productivity: empirical evidence and policy implications. In: Banting K, Sharpe A, St-Hilaire F, editors. The review of economic performance and social progress, 2002: towards a social understanding of productivity. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press; 2002, 181–202.
- 7. Amick BC III, Gimeno D. Measuring work outcomes with a focus on health-related work productivity loss. In: Wittink H, Carr D, editors. Pain management: evidence, outcomes and quality of life: a sourcebook. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007, 329–343.
- 8. Linton MJ, Dieppe P, Medina-Lara A. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open 2016;6(7):e010641.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 9. Kern ML, Waters LE, Adler A, White MA. A multidimensional approach to measuring well-being in students: application of the PERMA framework. J Posit Psychol 2015;10(3):262–271. 25745508.ArticlePubMed
- 10. Butler J, Kern ML. The PERMA-Profiler: a brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. Int J Wellbeing 2016;6(3):1–48.Article
- 11. Lee JY, Kim HY. The effects of emotional labor on burnout: the moderating and mediating effects of flourishing in child care teachers. Korean J Child Stud 2016;37(4):169–179.ArticlePDF
- 12. Kim HM. The relation between signature strengths and well-being and the effect of signature strengths use based intervention on well-being [master's thesis]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University; 2016.
- 13. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005;8(2):94–104. 15804318.ArticlePubMed
- 14. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17(2):268–274. 20874835.ArticlePubMed
- 15. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;12:176. 25492701.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 16. Yurdugül H. Minimum sample size for Cronbach's coefficient alpha: a Monte-Carlo study. Hacet U Egitim Fak 2008;35:397–405.
- 17. Kern ML. The Workplace PERMA Profiler. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania; 2014, Accessed 8 Aug 2019]. http://www.peggykern.org/uploads/5/6/6/7/56678211/workplace_perma_profiler_102014.pdf.
- 18. Lim YJ, Ko YG, Shin HC, Jo YR. Psychometric evaluation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) in South Koreans. Korean J Psychol Gen 2012;31(2):369–386.
- 19. Nerstad CG, Richardsen AM, Martinussen M. Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scand J Psychol 2010;51(4):326–333. 20015117.ArticlePubMed
- 20. Kim WH, Park JG, Kwon B. Work engagement in South Korea: validation of the Korean Version 9-Item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Psychol Rep 2017;120(3):561–578. 28558613.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 21. Chang SJ, Koh SB, Kang D, Kim SA, Kang MG, Lee CG, et al. Developing an occupational stress scale for Korean employees. Korean J Occup Environ Med 2005;17(4):297–317.
- 22. Schutte N, Toppinen S, Kalimo R, Schaufeli W. The factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) across occupational groups and nations. J Occup Organ Psychol 2000;73(1):53–66.Article
- 23. Sin KH. The Maslach Bunout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS): an application in South Korea. Korean J Ind Organ Psychol 2003;16(3):1–17.
- 24. Lee CY, Lee JY. Reliability and validity of PWI (Psychosocial Wellbeing Index). Korean J Prev Med 1996;29(2):255–264.
- 25. Chang SJ, Koh SB, Kang MG, Cha BS, Park JK, Hyun SJ, et al. Epidemiology of psychosocial distress in Korean employees. J Prev Med Public Health 2005;38(1):25–37. 16312907.PubMed
- 26. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2002;9(2):233–255.Article
- 27. Watanabe K, Kawakami N, Shiotani T, Adachi H, Matsumoto K, Imamura K, et al. The Japanese Workplace PERMA-Profiler: a validation study among Japanese workers. J Occup Health 2018;60(5):383–393. 30122730.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 28. Robertson IT, Cooper CL. Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadersh Organ Dev J 2010;31(4):324–336.Article
- 29. González-Romá V, Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Lloret S. Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? J Vocat Behav 2006;68(1):165–174.Article
- 30. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud 2002;3(1):71–92.
- 31. Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Ahola K. The Job Demands-Resources model: a three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work Stress 2008;22(3):224–241.Article
References
Figure & Data
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
- The validation of Chinese version of workplace PERMA-profiler and the association between workplace well-being and fatigue
Chen–Cheng Yang, Hsiang-Tai Chen, Kuei-Hau Luo, Kazuhiro Watanabe, Hung-Yi Chuang, Chih-Wei Wu, Chia–Yen Dai, Chao-Hung Kuo, Norito Kawakami
BMC Public Health.2024;[Epub] CrossRef - Psychometric validation of the PERMA-profiler for well-being in Chinese adults
Yi-Zi Nie, Xu Zhang, Ning-Wei Hong, Chao Zhou, Qian-Qian Huang, Shu-Yan Cao, Chen Wang
Acta Psychologica.2024; 246: 104248. CrossRef - PERMA to PERMA+4 building blocks of well-being: A systematic review of the empirical literature
Victoria Cabrera, Stewart I. Donaldson
The Journal of Positive Psychology.2024; 19(3): 510. CrossRef - Does Changing a Scale’s Context Impact Its Psychometric Properties? A Comparison Using the PERMA-Profiler and the Workplace PERMA-Profiler
Sean P. M. Rice
Merits.2024; 4(2): 109. CrossRef - Sources of Joy in Medical Educators as Described by the PERMA Model
Madeline Lagina, Cyril Grum, Gurjit Sandhu, Allison L. Ruff
Teaching and Learning in Medicine.2024; 36(1): 53. CrossRef - A study on the construction and validation of pathways to the sustainable well-being of Chinese vocational students in the post-epidemic era
Jian-Hong Ye, Yu-Tai Wu, Yu-Feng Wu, Mei-Yen Chen, Weiguaju Nong, Yi-Sang Lee
Current Psychology.2024; 43(8): 7511. CrossRef - The efficacy of employee strengths interventions on desirable workplace outcomes
Alexandra J. Bratty, Nicole C. Dennis
Current Psychology.2024; 43(18): 16514. CrossRef - Modifying the PERMA profiler to assess student well-being
Kah Loong Chue, Amelia Yeo, Youyan Nie, Lee Chin Chew
Current Psychology.2024; 43(4): 3749. CrossRef - Subjective Representations of the Health of Preschool Teachers
E.N. Volkova, N.A. Rudnova, A.M. Kalimullin
Social Psychology and Society.2023; 14(2): 103. CrossRef - Flourishing in the Brazilian context: Evidence of the validity of the PERMA-profiler scale
Thainá Ferraz de Carvalho, Sibele Dias de Aquino, Jean Carlos Natividade
Current Psychology.2023; 42(3): 1828. CrossRef - A magyar nyelvű PERMA Jóllét Profil kérdőív megbízhatóságának és érvényességének vizsgálata
Balázs András Varga, Attila Oláh, András Vargha
Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika.2022; 23(1): 33. CrossRef - The Associations Between Job Strain, Workplace PERMA Profiler, and Work Engagement
Chen-Cheng Yang, Kazuhiro Watanabe, Norito Kawakami
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.2022; 64(5): 409. CrossRef - Factors of Psychological Well-being in Russian Youth
O.M. Isaeva, A.Y. Akimova, E.N. Volkova
Psychological Science and Education.2022; 27(4): 24. CrossRef - An Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the PERMA Well-Being Scale for Adult Undergraduate Students in an Open and Distance Learning Context
Ishmael Magare, Marien Alet Graham, Irma Eloff
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(24): 16886. CrossRef - PERMA-Profiler: the Approbation of the Russian Version
O.M. Isaeva, A.Y. Akimova, E.N. Volkova
Social Psychology and Society.2022; 13(3): 116. CrossRef - Toward a More PERMA(nent) Conceptualization of Worker Well-Being?
William P. Jimenez, Xiaoxiao Hu, Rebecca Garden, Xiaofei Xie
Journal of Personnel Psychology.2022; 21(2): 94. CrossRef
PubReader
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadKorean translation and validation of the Workplace Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA)-Profiler
Korean translation and validation of the Workplace Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA)-Profiler
| Characteristics | No. (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Men | 155 (49.1) | |
| Women | 161 (50.9) | |
| Age | ||
| 20–29 | 69 (21.8) | |
| 30–39 | 79 (25.0) | |
| 40–49 | 85 (26.9) | |
| ≥ 50 | 83 (26.3) | |
| City/province | ||
| Seoul | 56 (17.7) | |
| Gyeonggi/Gangwon/Incheon | 54 (17.1) | |
| Chungbuk/Chungnam/Daejeon/Sejong | 54 (17.1) | |
| Jeonbuk/Jeonnam/Gwangju/Jeju | 52 (16.5) | |
| Gyeongbuk/Daegu | 50 (15.8) | |
| Gyeongnam/Busan/Ulsan | 50 (15.8) | |
| Job type | ||
| Managers | 24 (7.6) | |
| Professionals and related workers | 25 (7.9) | |
| Technical and paraprofessional | 25 (7.9) | |
| Office clerks | 208 (65.8) | |
| Service workers | 7 (2.2) | |
| Sales workers | 8 (2.5) | |
| Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers | 3 (0.9) | |
| Crafts and related workers | 5 (1.6) | |
| Machine operating and assembling workers | 8 (2.6) | |
| Elementary workers | 3 (0.9) | |
| Employment statusa | ||
| Permanent | 310 (98.1) | |
| Temporary/daily | 6 (1.9) | |
| Educational statusb | ||
| High school (12 or 13 years) | 40 (12.7) | |
| College (14 or 15 years) | 69 (21.8) | |
| University (16 years) | 177 (56.0) | |
| Graduate school (17 years) | 30 (9.5) | |
| Factor/questions | Mean (standard deviation) | Cronbach's alpha | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive emotion | 0.88 | ||
| P1: At work, how often do you feel joyful? | 5.17 (2.2) | ||
| P2: At work, how often do you feel positive? | 5.95 (2.0) | ||
| P3: At work, to what extent do you feel contented? | 5.64 (2.1) | ||
| Engagement | 0.78 | ||
| E1: At work, how often do you become absorbed in what you are doing? | 6.94 (1.7) | ||
| E2: To what extent do you feel excited and interested in your work? | 5.48 (2.2) | ||
| E3: At work, how often do you lose track of time while doing something you enjoy? | 5.84 (2.1) | ||
| Relationships | 0.83 | ||
| R1: To what extent do you receive help and support from coworkers when you need it? | 6.51 (1.8) | ||
| R2: To what extent do you feel appreciated by your coworkers? | 5.73 (1.8) | ||
| R3: How satisfied are you with your professional relationships? | 6.07 (1.9) | ||
| Meaning | 0.86 | ||
| M1: To what extent is your work purposeful and meaningful? | 6.02 (1.9) | ||
| M2: In general, to what extent do you feel that what you do at work is valuable and worthwhile? | 6.57 (2.0) | ||
| M3: To what extent do you generally feel that you have a sense of direction in your work? | 6.32 (1.8) | ||
| Accomplishment | 0.70 | ||
| A1: How often do you feel you are making progress towards accomplishing your work-related goals? | 5.81 (1.8) | ||
| A2: How often do you achieve the important work goals you have set for yourself? | 6.66 (1.6) | ||
| A3: How often are you able to handle your work-related responsibilities? | 7.16 (1.5) | ||
| Happiness, taking all things together, how happy would you say you are with your work? | 5.96 (2.0) | - | |
| Overall well-being (average of the above 16 items) | 6.12 (1.4) | 0.95 | |
| Negative emotion | 4.68 (1.8) | 0.75 | |
| N1: At work, how often do you feel anxious? | |||
| N2: At work, how often do you feel angry? | |||
| N3: At work, how often do you feel sad? | |||
| Health | 5.33 (1.9) | 0.94 | |
| H1: In general, how would you say your health is? | |||
| H2: How satisfied are you with your current physical health? | |||
| H3: Compared with others of your age and sex, how is your health? | |||
| Loneliness | 4.52 (2.5) | - | |
| How lonely do you feel at work? | |||
| Items | Factor loadings | Correlation coefficients in the 5-factor model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-factor model | 5-factor model | |||||||
| P1 | 0.82a | 0.85a | F1 (P) | F2 (E) | F3 (R) | F4 (M) | F5 (A) | |
| P2 | 0.79a | 0.81a | F1 (P) | 1.00 | ||||
| P3 | 0.85a | 0.89a | F2 (E) | 0.98a | 1.00 | |||
| E1 | 0.62a | 0.63a | F3 (R) | 0.88a | 0.86a | 1.00 | ||
| E2 | 0.87a | 0.87a | F4 (M) | 0.89a | 0.99a | 0.87a | 1.00 | |
| E3 | 0.70a | 0.70a | F5 (A) | 0.74a | 0.87a | 0.74a | 0.89a | 1.00 |
| R1 | 0.66a | 0.72a | Model fit | 1-factor | 5-factor | |||
| R2 | 0.69a | 0.77a | χ2 (df) | 529.98 (90)a | 383.05 (80)a | |||
| R3 | 0.79a | 0.86a | CFI | 0.868 | 0.909 | |||
| M1 | 0.79a | 0.79a | TLI | 0.846 | 0.881 | |||
| M2 | 0.82a | 0.84a | RMSEA | 0.125 | 0.110 | |||
| M3 | 0.79a | 0.83a | SRMR | 0.063 | 0.054 | |||
| A1 | 0.65a | 0.69a | 1-factor model vs. 5-factor model: 146.93 (10)a | |||||
| A2 | 0.50a | 0.65a | ||||||
| A3 | 0.52a | 0.64a | ||||||
| Scale/factors or constructs | Mean | P | E | R | M | A | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Korean Workplace PERMA-Profiler | ||||||||
| Positive emotion | 5.59 (1.87) | 1.00 | ||||||
| Engagement | 6.09 (1.67) | 0.80a | 1.00 | |||||
| Relationship | 6.10 (1.60) | 0.74a | 0.68a | 1.00 | ||||
| Meaning | 6.30 (1.69) | 0.78a | 0.82a | 0.74a | 1.00 | |||
| Accomplishment | 6.55 (1.29) | 0.59a | 0.68a | 0.56a | 0.69a | 1.00 | ||
| Overall well-being | 6.12 (1.44) | 0.91a | 0.91a | 0.85a | 0.92a | 0.78a | 1.00 | |
| Negative emotion | 4.68 (1.80) | −0.34a | −0.09 | −0.19a | −0.16a | −0.06 | −0.21a | |
| Physical health | 5.32 (1.88) | 0.55a | 0.45a | 0.53a | 0.53a | 0.40a | 0.57a | |
| Loneliness | 4.51 (2.52) | −0.16 | −0.01 | −0.16 | 0.00 | −0.02 | −0.09 | |
| MHC-SF | 2.02 (0.85) | 0.65a | 0.57a | 0.58a | 0.60a | 0.48a | 0.67a | |
| Emotional well-being | 2.23 (1.04) | 0.58a | 0.50a | 0.46a | 0.46a | 0.39a | 0.56a | |
| Psychological well-being | 2.12 (0.92) | 0.60a | 0.53a | 0.54a | 0.58a | 0.47a | 0.63a | |
| Social well-being | 1.79 (0.92) | 0.58a | 0.51a | 0.54a | 0.54a | 0.42a | 0.60a | |
| UWES | 3.01 (1.19) | 0.75a | 0.78a | 0.63a | 0.75a | 0.60a | 0.81a | |
| Vigor | 2.79 (1.30) | 0.75a | 0.72a | 0.61a | 0.69a | 0.52a | 0.77a | |
| Dedication | 3.10 (1.25) | 0.70a | 0.74a | 0.59a | 0.74a | 0.58a | 0.77a | |
| Absorption | 3.16 (1.27) | 0.66a | 0.73a | 0.58a | 0.69a | 0.59a | 0.74a | |
| KOSS-SF | 2.47 (0.34) | −0.59a | −0.37a | −0.47a | −0.42a | −0.30a | −0.50a | |
| Job demand | 2.55 (0.58) | −0.19a | 0.03 | −0.10 | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.07 | |
| Insufficient job control | 2.42 (0.51) | −0.38a | −0.39a | −0.38a | −0.44a | −0.43a | −0.45a | |
| Interpersonal conflict | 2.33 (0.53) | −0.46a | −0.33a | −0.48a | −0.36a | −0.21a | −0.43a | |
| Job insecurity | 2.41 (0.77) | −0.34a | −0.19a | −0.14a | −0.19a | −0.11 | −0.23a | |
| Lack of reward | 2.69 (0.59) | −0.44a | −0.28a | −0.36a | −0.32a | −0.16a | −0.37a | |
| MBI-GS | ||||||||
| Exhaustion | 3.25 (1.28) | −0.50a | −0.28a | −0.26a | −0.29a | −0.19a | −0.37a | |
| Cynicism | 2.61 (1.25) | −0.51a | −0.47a | −0.37a | −0.48a | −0.38a | −0.51a | |
| Professional efficacy | 3.85 (0.92) | 0.47a | 0.53a | 0.50a | 0.60a | 0.64a | 0.61a | |
| PWI-SF | 23.91 (8.45) | −0.62a | −0.44a | −0.45a | −0.47a | −0.30a | −0.50a | |
| Low social performance and self-confidence | 11.59 (3.92) | −0.56a | −0.43a | −0.44a | −0.47a | −0.43a | −0.54a | |
| Depression | 2.58 (1.93) | −0.47a | −0.31a | −0.36a | −0.38a | −0.30a | −0.43a | |
| Sleep disturbance and anxiety | 1.82 (1.43) | −0.40a | −0.21a | −0.25a | −0.26a | −0.26a | −0.32a | |
| Low general well-being and vitality | 7.91 (2.70) | −0.59a | −0.41a | −0.38a | −0.39a | −0.31a | −0.49a | |
Table 1 Participant demographics (n = 316)
aAll employment is categorized depending on duration of his or her employment status; one or more than year as permanent, one month to a year as temporary, less than a month as daily employment; bWe asked the participants, ‘What is your highest level of education? Please indicate the total length of time that you have attended school.’ The years of schooling were written in parentheses.
Table 2 Mean scores and internal reliability (n = 316)
Table 3 Confirmatory factor analysis of the 15 items of the Korean version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler
The robust maximum likelihood estimation method was used.
PERMA: Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment; P: positive emotion; E: engagement; R: relationships; M: meaning; A: accomplishment; df: degrees of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual.
a
Table 4 Convergent and divergent validity; Pearson's correlations with other scales
PERMA: Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment; P: positive emotion; E: engagement; R: relationships; M: meaning; A: accomplishment; MHC-SF: Mental Health Continuum-Short Form; UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; KOSS-SF: Korean Occupational Stress Scale-Short Form; MBI-GS: Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey; PWI-SF: Psychosocial Well-being Index-Short Form.
a
