The multidimensional scale of subjective well-being of employed persons (MSWEP): validity and reliability

Background Employee well-being is of strategic importance for individuals, organisations, and society. However, there is a lack of reliable, theoretically grounded tools to assess it comprehensively. This study aims to validate the Multidimensional Scale of Subjective Well-being of Employed Persons (MSWEP), which is theoretically developed and pilot-tested in alignment with the OECD, WHO, and Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) frameworks. Method A cross-sectional, non-experimental design was applied. The scale was tested using a two-stage sampling approach: purposive selection of companies from multiple sectors (administrative, service, healthcare, pharmaceutical, energy), followed by census sampling of all employees. Out of 2,100 potential respondents, 1,631 employees participated in the study. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, Response Index (RI), and Discrimination Index (DI), while test–retest reliability was measured using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Construct validity was analysed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and convergent and divergent validity indices (CR, AVE, R²). Results EFA revealed a six-factor structure: (1) subjective well-being, (2) social inclusion, (3) professional development, (4) work intensity, (5) health risks, and (6) autonomy, with total explained variance of 67.21%. CFA showed good model fit (CFI = 0.916, TLI = 0.901, RMSEA = 0.0612, SRMR = 0.049). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.74 to 0.90; ICC values ranged from 0.70 to 0.88 (p < 0.001), confirming temporal stability. Convergent validity was supported (AVE: 0.50–0.75; CR: 0.79–0.93), and AVE values exceeded inter-construct correlations, supporting discriminant validity. Conclusion The MSWEP demonstrates strong psychometric properties and is aligned with international standards. It offers a reliable and valid tool for assessing subjective well-being in diverse employment settings. The scale can support academic research and inform workplace interventions. Further longitudinal studies are recommended to assess conceptual distinctiveness and applicability across occupational contexts.