The Authenticity Scale: Validation in Russian Culture.

The correlational study is aimed at validating the Authenticity Scale in Russian culture. Authenticity is considered a trait responsible for a person's ability to be oneself. It helps people resist environment pressure and prevent self-alienation, which contributes to maintaining psychological wellbeing. The original Authenticity Scale includes three subscales: Authentic Living, Accepting External Influence, and Self-Alienation. In total, 2,188 respondents (M age = 26.30, SD age = 13.81; 78.1% female) participated in the survey. The dimensionality of the Authenticity Scale and its measurement invariance across sex, age, and depression rate subgroups was examined with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses; the original tripartite structure was kept. Convergent validity was tested through correlation analyses with the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, the International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short-Form, the Centre of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. According to the CFA results, the structure of the Russian version differs from the original one slightly (item 1 was moved from the subscale Authentic Living to the subscale Accepting External Influence and item 4 was excluded); however, the modified factor model showed the best absolute and comparative fit statistics [CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.050 (90% CI [0.40; 0.60]) and SRMR = 0.037]. The reliability (McDonald's Omega) of the Authenticity Scale subscales was satisfactory and ranged from 0.78 to 0.84. It was revealed that youth are more likely to have high scores on Accepting External Influence and Self-Alienation than adults. Men and women did not significantly differ on the sub-scores of Authenticity Scale. Multigroup CFA also showed that Authenticity Scale scores may be biased in people with high levels of clinical depression, in terms of the item intercepts. Authentic Living is positively connected with mental wellbeing, self-esteem, positive affect, satisfaction with life, and negatively with depressive symptoms and negative affect; reverse trends were found for Accepting External Influence and Self-Alienation subscales. The Russian version of the Authenticity Scale is a valid, reliable tool that may be recommended for use in various areas of non-clinical practice

Measurement Invariance of Personal Well-Being Index (PWI-8) Across 26 Countries

This report examines the measurement invariance of the Personal Well-being Index with 8 items (PWI-8). University students (N = 5731) from 26 countries completed the measure either through paper and pencil or electronic mode. We examined uni-dimensional structure of PWI and performed a Multi-group CFA to assess the measurement invariance across the 26 countries, using conventional approach and the alignment procedure. The findings provide evidence of configural and partial metric invariance, as well as partial scalar invariance across samples. The findings suggest that PWI-8 can be used to examine correlates of life satisfaction across all included countries, however it is impossible to compare raw scores across countries

The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Its Structure and Measurement Invariance Across 48 Countries

COVID-19 has been a source of fear around the world. We asked whether the measurement of this fear is trust worthy and comparable across countries. In particular, we explored the measurement invariance and cross-cultural replicability of the widely-used Fear of COVID-19scale(FCV-19S), testing community samples from 48countries (N= 14,558). The findings indicate that the FCV-19Shas a somewhat problematic structure, yet the one-factor solution is replicable across cultural contexts and could be used in studies that compare people who vary on gender and educational level. The validity of the scale is supported by a consistent pattern of positive correlations with perceived stress and general anxiety. However, given the unclear structure of the FCV-19S, we recommend using latent factor scores, instead of raw scores, especially in cross-cultural comparisons