Subgroup
Mean
SD
Min-max
Skewness
Kurtosis
Cronbach’s alpha
Group 1 (N = 568)
46.4
11.3
4–70
−.61
.28
.83
FET1 college students 2007
Group 2 (N = 1,480)
48.0
10.4
10–70
−.53
.32
.82
FET2 college students 2008
Group 3 (N = 185)
43.0
10.4
15–63
−.31
−.51
.74
FET3 Setswana-speaking college students 2009
Group 4 (N = 263)
48.3
10.6
5–68
−.78
.84
.83
FET4 college students 2010
Group 5 (N = 293)
46.6
10.5
14–67
−.63
.03
.90
University students 2010
Group 6 (N = 122)
43.9
10.8
6–66
−.57
.75
.90
Adults, Afrikaans speaking 2008
Group 7 (N = 204)
45.1
11.6
8–69
−.49
.23
.91
Adults, English and Afrikaans speaking 2007/8
Group 8 (N = 409)
48.2
10.9
11–70
−.42
−.18
.89
Teachers multicultural 2008/9
Group 9 (N = 296)
46.2
13.1
6–70
−.49
−.35
.82
Adults, Setswana speaking 2008
Group 10 (N = 459)
43.4
12.8
2–69
−.29
−.52
.84
Adults, Setswana speaking 2009
Group 11 (N = 1,050)
Adults, Setswana speaking
A. Urban 2005
41.0
9.2
8–63
−.36
−.11
.71
B. Rural 2005
36.5
9.3
6–67
.52
.86
.76
Group 12 (N = 1,275)
Adults, Setswana speaking
A. Urban (N = 581) 2010
45.9
12.1
7–70
−.59
.30
.80
B. Rural (N = 694) 2010
46.4
11.9
4–70
−.86
.53
.78
The MHC-SF measured consistently in all groups, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients from 0.71 for the Setswana version as completed by adult Setswana speakers in group 11 (2005) to 0.91 for the English version as completed by Afrikaans- and English-speaking adults. Most of the other reliability indices were between 0.80 and 0.90. Mean scores vary between 36.5 for the Setswana version as determined in a rural sample (2005) and 48.3 for the English version in a college student group as completed in 2010. Standard deviations vary between 9.2 and 13.1. In all instances (except that of the adult rural Setswana-speaking group of 2005), scores were negatively skewed, indicating more scores to the positive/higher side though all the values were within the suggested range of −1 to 0,which indicates a moderate deviation from the normal distribution curve (Field 2005). The kurtoses for the various groups range from steep (groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12) to shallow (groups 3, 8, 9, 10), with group 5 almost nearing a normal curve (Howitt and Cramer 2008).
Correlations Between the MHC-SF and Other Measures of Psychosocial Well-Being
The correlations between the MHC-SF, on the one hand, and other measures of psychosocial well-being on the other are shown in Table 4.2 for the student/youth groups and in Table 4.3 for the adult groups.
Table 4.2
Correlations between the MHC-SF and other measuresa of psychosocial health in student/youth subgroups
Measures | Group 1 FET1 N = 568 | Group 2 FET2 N = 1,480 | bGroup 3 FET3 N = 185 | Group 4 FET4 N = 263 | Group 5 University N = 293 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWLS | .50 | ||||
GHQ | −.23 | −.30 | −.29 | −.31 | |
PHQ-9 | −.24 | −.31 | −.28 | −.32 | |
NGSE | .31 | .38 | .26 | .40 | |
SRS | .46 | .49 | .40 | ||
CSE | .49 | .50 | .56 | ||
FORQ | .42 | .51 | .30 | .55 | |
GPWS | .58 |
Table 4.3
Correlations between the MHC-SF and other measuresa of psychosocial health in adult samples
Measures | Group 6 Afrikaans N = 122 | Group 7 English N = 204 | Group 8 Teachers N = 409 | Group 9 Setswana N = 296 | Group 10 Setswana N = 459 | Group 11 Setswana N = 1,050 U–R | Group 12 Setswana N = 1,275 U–R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SOC | .57 | .46 | .30–.31 | ||||
AFM:PA | .70 | .56 | .51–.51 | ||||
AFM:NA | −.54 | −.18 | −.25 to −.29 | ||||
SWLS | .49 | .34 | .39–.39 | .40–42 | |||
GHQ | −.56 | −.30 | −.37 | −.22 to −.21 | −.37 to −.37 | ||
PHQ-9 | −.53 | −.25 | −.25 | .38 | −.19 to −.20 | ||
NGSE | .31–.35 | ||||||
SRS | .31 | ||||||
CSE | .70 | .47 | .45 | .50–.39 | |||
FORQ | .65 | .59 | .46 | .48 | |||
GPWS | .53 | .52 | .50–.50 | ||||
WEMWBS | .42–.42 |
As can be noted in Tables 4.2 and 4.3, the MHC-SF correlates significantly with other indices of psychosocial well-being and negatively with indices of symptoms as measured by the GHQ and PHQ-9. The magnitude of correlations of the MHC-SF with a particular scale varied slightly in the different groups. The strongest positive correlations are found with positive affect, sense of coherence, coping self-efficacy, fortitude, and general psychological well-being. The correlations can be classified as ranging from large to medium effect (Field 2005) in terms of the practical significance of the correlations. Satisfaction with life in group 5 has a significant correlation of 0.50 with MHC-SF, which explains 25% of the variance.
Prevalence of Levels of Psychosocial Well-Being
The percentages of participants who were flourishing, languishing, or moderately mentally healthy in each of the subgroups are shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4
The prevalence of the various levels of mental health in all groups
