Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic
Background There is an urgent need to assess changes in well-being on a multinational scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus culturally valid scales must be available. Methods With this in mind, this study examined the invariance of the WHO well-being index (WHO-5) among a sample of 5183 people fr...
- Autores:
-
Tomás Caycho Rodríguez
Vilca, Lindsey W.
Valencia, Pablo D.
Carbajal León, Carlos
Reyes Bossio, Mario
Blanco, Miguel
Rojas Jara, Claudio
Polanco Carrasco, Roberto
Gallegos, Miguel
Cervigni, Mauricio
Martín, Pablo
Palacios, Diego Alejandro
Moreta Herrera, Rodrigo
Samaniego-Pinho, Antonio
Lobos Rivera, Marlon Elías
Buschiazzo Figares, Andrés
Puerta Cortés, Diana Ximena
Corrales-Reyes, Ibraín Enrique
Calderón, Raymundo
Franco Ferrari, Ilka
Flores-Mendoza,m Carmen
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of journal
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2023
- Institución:
- Universidad de Ibagué
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio Universidad de Ibagué
- Idioma:
- eng
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repositorio.unibague.edu.co:20.500.12313/3881
- Acceso en línea:
- https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12313/3881
- Palabra clave:
- COVID-19
Cross-cultural
Invariance
Well-being
WHO well-being index
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
| id |
UNIBAGUE2_b5cf61de5ffdd51a96ceb72371e84a5f |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unibague.edu.co:20.500.12313/3881 |
| network_acronym_str |
UNIBAGUE2 |
| network_name_str |
Repositorio Universidad de Ibagué |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.eng.fl_str_mv |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| spellingShingle |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic COVID-19 Cross-cultural Invariance Well-being WHO well-being index |
| title_short |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_full |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_fullStr |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_sort |
Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Tomás Caycho Rodríguez Vilca, Lindsey W. Valencia, Pablo D. Carbajal León, Carlos Reyes Bossio, Mario Blanco, Miguel Rojas Jara, Claudio Polanco Carrasco, Roberto Gallegos, Miguel Cervigni, Mauricio Martín, Pablo Palacios, Diego Alejandro Moreta Herrera, Rodrigo Samaniego-Pinho, Antonio Lobos Rivera, Marlon Elías Buschiazzo Figares, Andrés Puerta Cortés, Diana Ximena Corrales-Reyes, Ibraín Enrique Calderón, Raymundo Franco Ferrari, Ilka Flores-Mendoza,m Carmen |
| dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv |
Tomás Caycho Rodríguez Vilca, Lindsey W. Valencia, Pablo D. Carbajal León, Carlos Reyes Bossio, Mario Blanco, Miguel Rojas Jara, Claudio Polanco Carrasco, Roberto Gallegos, Miguel Cervigni, Mauricio Martín, Pablo Palacios, Diego Alejandro Moreta Herrera, Rodrigo Samaniego-Pinho, Antonio Lobos Rivera, Marlon Elías Buschiazzo Figares, Andrés Puerta Cortés, Diana Ximena Corrales-Reyes, Ibraín Enrique Calderón, Raymundo Franco Ferrari, Ilka Flores-Mendoza,m Carmen |
| dc.subject.proposal.eng.fl_str_mv |
COVID-19 Cross-cultural Invariance Well-being WHO well-being index |
| topic |
COVID-19 Cross-cultural Invariance Well-being WHO well-being index |
| description |
Background There is an urgent need to assess changes in well-being on a multinational scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus culturally valid scales must be available. Methods With this in mind, this study examined the invariance of the WHO well-being index (WHO-5) among a sample of 5183 people from 12 Latin Americans countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). Results The results of the present study indicate that the WHO-5 is strictly invariant across samples from different Latin American countries. Furthermore, the results of the IRT analysis indicate that all items of the WHO-5 were highly discriminative and that the difficulty required to respond to each of the five items is ascending. Additionally, the results indicated the presence of moderate and small size differences in subjective well-being among most countries. Conclusion The WHO-5 is useful for assessing subjective well-being in 12 Latin American countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, since the differences between scores can be attributed to differences in well-being and not in other characteristics of the scale. |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-10-27T14:37:14Z |
| dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-10-27T14:37:14Z |
| dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-04-06 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
Artículo de revista |
| dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1 |
| dc.type.coar.none.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| dc.type.coarversion.none.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| dc.type.content.none.fl_str_mv |
Text |
| dc.type.driver.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| dc.type.redcol.none.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART |
| dc.type.version.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| format |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.citation.none.fl_str_mv |
Caycho-Rodríguez, T., Vilca, L.W., Valencia, P.D. et al. Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychol 11, 102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01149-8 |
| dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
2050-7283 |
| dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12313/3881 |
| identifier_str_mv |
Caycho-Rodríguez, T., Vilca, L.W., Valencia, P.D. et al. Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychol 11, 102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01149-8 2050-7283 |
| url |
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12313/3881 |
| dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv |
14 |
| dc.relation.citationissue.none.fl_str_mv |
102 |
| dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv |
1 |
| dc.relation.citationvolume.none.fl_str_mv |
11 |
| dc.relation.ispartofjournal.none.fl_str_mv |
BMC Psychology |
| dc.relation.references.none.fl_str_mv |
O’Brien N, Barboza-Palomino M, Ventura-León J, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Sandoval-Díaz JS, López-López W, Salas G. Nuevo coronavirus (COVID-19). Un análisis bibliométrico Rev Chil Anest. 2020;49:408–15. https://doi.org/10.25237/revchilanestv49n03.020. Scholten H, Quezada-Scholz VE, Salas G, Barria-Asenjo NA, Molina R, García JE, Somarriva F. Abordaje psicológico del COVID-19: una revisión narrativa de la experiencia latinoamericana. Interam J Psychol. 2020;54(1):e1287. Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, Bullmore E. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(6):547–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1. Hotopf M, Bullmore E, O’Connor RC, Holmes EA. The scope of mental health research during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Br J Psychiatry. 2020;217(4):540–2. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2020.125. O’Connor RC, Wetherall K, Cleare S, McClelland H, Melson AJ, Niedzwiedz CL, Robb KA. Mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 Mental Health & Wellbeing study. Br J Psychiatry. 2021;218(6):326–33. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2020.212. Villani L, Pastorino R, Molinari E, Anelli F, Ricciardi W, Graffigna G, Boccia S. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological well-being of students in an Italian university: a web-based cross-sectional survey. Global Health. 2021;17(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00680-w. Sønderskov KM, Dinesen PT, Santini ZI, Østergaard SD. Increased psychological well-being after the apex of the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2020;32(5):277–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/neu.2020.26. Sønderskov KM, Dinesen PT, Vistisen HT, Østergaard SD. Variation in psychological well-being and symptoms of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from a three-wave panel survey. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2021;33(3):156–9. Sischka PE, Costa AP, Steffgen G, Schmidt AF. The WHO-5 well-being index–validation based on item response theory and the analysis of measurement invariance across 35 countries. J Affect Disord Rep. 2020;1:100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2020.100020. Thornicroft G, Slade M. New trends in assessing the outcomes of mental health interventions. World Psychiatry. 2014;13(2):118–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20114. Kusier AO, Folker AP. The Well-Being Index WHO-5: hedonistic foundation and practical limitations. Med Humanit. 2020;46(3):333–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2018-011636. Wilke J, Hollander K, Mohr L, Edouard P, Fossati C, González-Gross M, Tenforde AS. Drastic reductions in mental well-being observed globally during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the ASAP survey. Front Med. 2021;8:246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.578959. Miller MJ, Sheu H. Conceptual and measurement issues in multicultural psychology research. In: Brown SD, Lent RW, editors. Handbook of counseling psychology. New York: Wiley; 2009. p. 103–20. Caycho T. Importancia del análisis de invarianza factorial en estudios comparativos en Ciencias de la Salud. Rev Cub Educ Méd Super. 2017;31(2):1–3. Milfont TL, Fischer R. Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. Int J Psychol Res. 2010;3(1):111–30. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857. World Health Organization. Well-Being measures in primary health care: The DepCare Project. Health for All. Target 12, Geneva, WHO; 1998. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–76. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585. Bech P, Gudex C, Johansen KS. The WHO (Ten) well-being index: validation in diabetes. Psychother Psychosom. 1996;65(4):183–90. https://doi.org/10.1159/000289073. Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2(4):253–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6. Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA. 1994;272(8):619–26. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520080061045. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Ventura-León J, Azabache-Alvarado K, Reyes-Bossio M, Cabrera-Orosco I. Validez e invariancia factorial del Índice de Bienestar General (WHO-5 WBI) en universitarios peruanos. Revista Ciencias de la Salud. 2020;18(3):1–23. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.9797. Perera BPR, Jayasuriya R, Caldera A, Wickremasinghe AR. Assessing mental well-being in a Sinhala speaking Sri Lankan population: validation of the WHO-5 well-being index. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01532-8. Bonnín CM, Yatham LN, Michalak EE, Martínez-Arán A, Dhanoa T, Torres I, Reinares M. Psychometric properties of the well-being index (WHO-5) spanish version in a sample of euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2018;228:153–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.12.006. Dadfar M, Momeni Safarabad N, Asgharnejad Farid AA, Nemati Shirzy M, Ghazie pour Abarghouie F. Reliability, validity, and factorial structure of the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in Iranian psychiatric outpatients. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2018;40:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0044. Faruk MO, Alam F, Chowdhury KUA, Soron TR. Validation of the Bangla WHO-5 Well-being Index. Glob Ment Health. 2021;8:e26. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2021.26. Heun R, Bonsignore M, Barkow K, Jessen F. Validity of the five-item WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in an elderly population. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2001;251(2):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03035123. Schougaard LMV, de Thurah A, Bech P, Hjollund NH, Christiansen DH. Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish WHO-5 Well-being Index in outpatients with epilepsy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1001-0. Badahdah AM, Khamis F, Al Mahyijari N. The psychological well-being of physicians during COVID-19 outbreak in Oman. Psychiatry Res. 2020;289:113053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113053. Gao J, Zheng P, Jia Y, Chen H, Mao Y, Chen S, Dai J. Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0231924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231924. Mortazavi F, Mehrabadi M, KiaeeTabar R. Pregnant women’s well-being and worry during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03548-4. Millsap RE. Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge; 2011. Whittaker TA. The impact of noninvariant intercepts in latent means models. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20:108–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.742397. Chen FF. What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;95(5):1005–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193. Boer D, Hanke K, He J. On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: a review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2018;49(5):713–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117749042. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(1):4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002. Schütte S, Chastang JF, Parent-Thirion A, Vermeylen G, Niedhammer I. Social inequalities in psychological well-being: a European comparison. Commun Ment Health J. 2014;50(8):987–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-014-9725-8. Faulkner J, O’Brien WJ, McGrane B, Wadsworth D, Batten J, Askew CD, Lambrick D. Physical activity, mental health and well-being of adults during initial COVID-19 containment strategies: a multi-country cross-sectional analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2021;24(4):320–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.11.016. El-Den S, Chen TF, Gan YL, Wong E, O’Reilly CL. The psychometric properties of depression screening tools in primary healthcare settings: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2018;225:503–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.08.060. Soper DS. A-priori sample size calculator for Structural Equation Models [Software]; 2021. http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):286–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:1–6. López-Rodríguez JA. Declaración de la iniciativa CHERRIES: adaptación al castellano de directrices para la comunicación de resultados de cuestionarios y encuestas online. Aten Primaria. 2019;51(9):586–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2019.03.005. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. Guilford Publications; 2015. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. The Guilford Press; 2015. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Routledge; 2015. Green SB, Yang Y. Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: an alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):155–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9099-3. Viladrich C, Angulo-Brunet A, Doval E. A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología. 2017;33(3):755–82. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2007;14(3):464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834. Samejima F. Graded response model. In: Van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK, editors. Handbook of modern Item response theory. New York: Springer; 1997. p. 85–100. Hambleton RK, van der Linden WJ, Wells CS. IRT models for the analysis of polytomously scored data: brief and selected history of model building advances. In: Nering ML, Ostini R, editors. Handbook of polytomous item response models New York. New York: Routledge; 2010. p. 21–42. Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R Package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02. Jorgensen TD, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann AM, Rosseel Y. semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5–1; 2018. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools. Rizopoulos D. ltm: An R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. J Stat Softw. 2006;17(5):1–25. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v017.i05. Lancet T. COVID-19 in Latin America: a humanitarian crisis. Lancet. 2020;396(10261):1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32328-X. Kohn R, Ali AA, Puac-Polanco V, Figueroa C, López-Soto V, Morgan K, Vicente B. Mental health in the Americas: an overview of the treatment gap. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2020;42:e165. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2018.165. Goodboy AK, Martin MM. Omega over alpha for reliability estimation of unidimensional communication measures. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2020;44(4):422–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1846135. Slocum-Gori SL, Zumbo BD, Michalos AC, Diener E. A note on the dimensionality of quality of life scales: an illustration with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Soc Indic Res. 2009;92(3):489–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9303-y. Kenny DA, Kaniskan B, McCoach DB. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol Methods Res. 2015;44(3):486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236. Taasoobshirazi G, Wang S. The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: an examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedom. J Appl Quant Methods. 2016;11(3):31–9. Marquez DX, Aguiñaga S, Vásquez PM, Conroy DE, Erickson KI, Hillman C, Powell KE. A systematic review of physical activity and quality of life and well-being. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(5):1098–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz198. Hjemdal O, Roazzi A, Maria da Graça BB, Friborg O. The cross-cultural validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults: a comparison between Norway and Brazil. BMC Psychol. 2015;3(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0076-1. Żemojtel-Piotrowska M, Piotrowski JP, Osin EN, Cieciuch J, Adams BG, Ardi R, Maltby J. The mental health continuum-short form: the structure and application for cross-cultural studies–A 38 nation study. J Clin Psychol. 2018;74(6):1034–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22570. Meredith W, Teresi JA. An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care. 2006;44(11):S69–77. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9(2):233–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5. Sass DA. Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2011;29(4):347–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406661. Park N, Peterson C, Ruch W. Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction in twenty-seven nations. J Posit Psychol. 2009;4(4):273–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902933690. Dimitrova R, Domínguez Espinosa ADC. Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale in Argentina, Mexico and Nicaragua. Social Inq Well-being. 2015;1(1):32–9. https://doi.org/10.13165/SIIW-15-1-1-04. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Valencia PD, Vilca LW, Carbajal-León C, Vivanco-Vidal A, Saroli-Araníbar D, Reyes-Bossio M, White M, Rojas-Jara C, Polanco-Carrasco P, Gallegos M, Cervigni M, Martino P, Palacios DA, Moreta-Herrera R, Samaniego-Pinho A, Lobos-Rivera ME, Buschiazzo Figares A, Puerta-Cortés DX, Corrales-Reyes IE, Calderón R, Pinto Tapia B, Franco Ferrari I, Flores-Mendoza C. Cross-cultural validation of the new version of the coronavirus anxiety scale in twelve Latin American countries. Curr Psychol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02563-0. Leibenluft E. Gender differences in mood and anxiety disorders: from bench to bedside. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 1999. Finch HW, French BF, Hernández Finch ME. Comparison of methods for factor invariance testing of a 1-factor model with small samples and skewed latent traits. Front Psychol. 2018;9:332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00332. Ximénez C. Recovery of weak factor loadings when adding the mean structure in confirmatory factor analysis: a simulation study. Front Psychol. 2016;6:1943. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01943. Beauducel A, Wittmann WW. Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Struct Equ Model. 2005;12(1):41–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3. Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Rodriguez LM. Measurement invariance of the prosocial behavior scale in three hispanic countries (Argentina, Spain, and Peru). Front Psychol. 2020;11:29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00029. |
| dc.rights.accessrights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.rights.coar.none.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| dc.rights.license.none.fl_str_mv |
Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0) |
| dc.rights.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.place.none.fl_str_mv |
United Kingdom |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-023-01149-8#article-info |
| institution |
Universidad de Ibagué |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/04dce710-4790-4c05-923a-0f0a4d05b950/download https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/b29358cb-bcad-4328-9772-3d492b71ee12/download https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/e81836df-0101-4580-9072-22639a30cf42/download https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/27c3f4f0-4321-4447-89db-d77801e189a6/download |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
34a9d760095bb0c290f35e73faa3ef88 717f909687fe0c0b4334cfee54c26711 2fa3e590786b9c0f3ceba1b9656b7ac3 9f46ec41dad37df304bc88ec84ff2cf6 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Ibagué |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bdigital@metabiblioteca.com |
| _version_ |
1814204081243160576 |
| spelling |
Tomás Caycho Rodríguez2736d248-21e2-447a-802e-97f5c84d65cf-1Vilca, Lindsey W.f6ae1777-2153-4cab-ad39-d1e3ae827538-1Valencia, Pablo D.8cb8c41a-4484-4c6b-b4a3-664341d12a1e-1Carbajal León, Carlos99e1b93f-b510-472c-9ba8-f5b5154ce4e2-1Reyes Bossio, Marioba231db2-23a0-40d0-a59b-bbe0cb637bd2-1Blanco, Miguel89ae8f88-489f-4be4-ab5b-94a0137d5012-1Rojas Jara, Claudio7f0e23a3-229b-4190-8d4d-376a5d5a31f4-1Polanco Carrasco, Robertoc663f0ac-21b0-4839-9474-86d75fd65db6-1Gallegos, Miguel80ac4243-7407-4d51-93e0-0eb35bf0eaeb-1Cervigni, Mauricio493a3a70-cc69-4b6e-a78f-e861cb5afc42-1Martín, Pabloe17efffa-ec61-4432-aeae-7401a5e6c35b-1Palacios, Diego Alejandro2eb894f5-edbd-47a8-8819-c5b51b98a228-1Moreta Herrera, Rodrigob3d7167e-a52b-49f9-b12c-cc1a127e05b4-1Samaniego-Pinho, Antoniobeffc6ba-b55d-47c4-b542-25ab0434d148-1Lobos Rivera, Marlon Elías9c2fa568-7876-4677-858d-2e635a636ca0-1Buschiazzo Figares, Andrés9695260b-7eb8-4e7d-930b-31ef6b5e4230-1Puerta Cortés, Diana Ximenab85e87fc-8842-4733-9405-b4ea8a1a2a39-1Corrales-Reyes, Ibraín Enriquea9da1bc6-92ed-4848-8a8c-de74eb62c125-1Calderón, Raymundo379848b5-9abd-427e-b384-ecb6659c49df-1Franco Ferrari, Ilka3d491af0-ef92-4504-a851-4d6f3ba1aed0-1Flores-Mendoza,m Carmeneda34af4-c6c1-4205-ad84-3a908cd5f640-12023-10-27T14:37:14Z2023-10-27T14:37:14Z2023-04-06Background There is an urgent need to assess changes in well-being on a multinational scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus culturally valid scales must be available. Methods With this in mind, this study examined the invariance of the WHO well-being index (WHO-5) among a sample of 5183 people from 12 Latin Americans countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). Results The results of the present study indicate that the WHO-5 is strictly invariant across samples from different Latin American countries. Furthermore, the results of the IRT analysis indicate that all items of the WHO-5 were highly discriminative and that the difficulty required to respond to each of the five items is ascending. Additionally, the results indicated the presence of moderate and small size differences in subjective well-being among most countries. Conclusion The WHO-5 is useful for assessing subjective well-being in 12 Latin American countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, since the differences between scores can be attributed to differences in well-being and not in other characteristics of the scale.application/pdfCaycho-Rodríguez, T., Vilca, L.W., Valencia, P.D. et al. Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychol 11, 102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01149-82050-7283https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12313/3881engUnited Kingdom14102111BMC PsychologyO’Brien N, Barboza-Palomino M, Ventura-León J, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Sandoval-Díaz JS, López-López W, Salas G. Nuevo coronavirus (COVID-19). Un análisis bibliométrico Rev Chil Anest. 2020;49:408–15. https://doi.org/10.25237/revchilanestv49n03.020.Scholten H, Quezada-Scholz VE, Salas G, Barria-Asenjo NA, Molina R, García JE, Somarriva F. Abordaje psicológico del COVID-19: una revisión narrativa de la experiencia latinoamericana. Interam J Psychol. 2020;54(1):e1287.Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, Bullmore E. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(6):547–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1.Hotopf M, Bullmore E, O’Connor RC, Holmes EA. The scope of mental health research during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Br J Psychiatry. 2020;217(4):540–2. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2020.125.O’Connor RC, Wetherall K, Cleare S, McClelland H, Melson AJ, Niedzwiedz CL, Robb KA. Mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 Mental Health & Wellbeing study. Br J Psychiatry. 2021;218(6):326–33. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2020.212.Villani L, Pastorino R, Molinari E, Anelli F, Ricciardi W, Graffigna G, Boccia S. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological well-being of students in an Italian university: a web-based cross-sectional survey. Global Health. 2021;17(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00680-w.Sønderskov KM, Dinesen PT, Santini ZI, Østergaard SD. Increased psychological well-being after the apex of the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2020;32(5):277–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/neu.2020.26.Sønderskov KM, Dinesen PT, Vistisen HT, Østergaard SD. Variation in psychological well-being and symptoms of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from a three-wave panel survey. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2021;33(3):156–9.Sischka PE, Costa AP, Steffgen G, Schmidt AF. The WHO-5 well-being index–validation based on item response theory and the analysis of measurement invariance across 35 countries. J Affect Disord Rep. 2020;1:100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2020.100020.Thornicroft G, Slade M. New trends in assessing the outcomes of mental health interventions. World Psychiatry. 2014;13(2):118–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20114.Kusier AO, Folker AP. The Well-Being Index WHO-5: hedonistic foundation and practical limitations. Med Humanit. 2020;46(3):333–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2018-011636.Wilke J, Hollander K, Mohr L, Edouard P, Fossati C, González-Gross M, Tenforde AS. Drastic reductions in mental well-being observed globally during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the ASAP survey. Front Med. 2021;8:246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.578959.Miller MJ, Sheu H. Conceptual and measurement issues in multicultural psychology research. In: Brown SD, Lent RW, editors. Handbook of counseling psychology. New York: Wiley; 2009. p. 103–20.Caycho T. Importancia del análisis de invarianza factorial en estudios comparativos en Ciencias de la Salud. Rev Cub Educ Méd Super. 2017;31(2):1–3.Milfont TL, Fischer R. Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. Int J Psychol Res. 2010;3(1):111–30. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857.World Health Organization. Well-Being measures in primary health care: The DepCare Project. Health for All. Target 12, Geneva, WHO; 1998.Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–76. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585.Bech P, Gudex C, Johansen KS. The WHO (Ten) well-being index: validation in diabetes. Psychother Psychosom. 1996;65(4):183–90. https://doi.org/10.1159/000289073.Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2(4):253–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6.Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA. 1994;272(8):619–26. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520080061045.Caycho-Rodríguez T, Ventura-León J, Azabache-Alvarado K, Reyes-Bossio M, Cabrera-Orosco I. Validez e invariancia factorial del Índice de Bienestar General (WHO-5 WBI) en universitarios peruanos. Revista Ciencias de la Salud. 2020;18(3):1–23. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.9797.Perera BPR, Jayasuriya R, Caldera A, Wickremasinghe AR. Assessing mental well-being in a Sinhala speaking Sri Lankan population: validation of the WHO-5 well-being index. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01532-8.Bonnín CM, Yatham LN, Michalak EE, Martínez-Arán A, Dhanoa T, Torres I, Reinares M. Psychometric properties of the well-being index (WHO-5) spanish version in a sample of euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2018;228:153–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.12.006.Dadfar M, Momeni Safarabad N, Asgharnejad Farid AA, Nemati Shirzy M, Ghazie pour Abarghouie F. Reliability, validity, and factorial structure of the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in Iranian psychiatric outpatients. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2018;40:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0044.Faruk MO, Alam F, Chowdhury KUA, Soron TR. Validation of the Bangla WHO-5 Well-being Index. Glob Ment Health. 2021;8:e26. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2021.26.Heun R, Bonsignore M, Barkow K, Jessen F. Validity of the five-item WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in an elderly population. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2001;251(2):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03035123.Schougaard LMV, de Thurah A, Bech P, Hjollund NH, Christiansen DH. Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish WHO-5 Well-being Index in outpatients with epilepsy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1001-0.Badahdah AM, Khamis F, Al Mahyijari N. The psychological well-being of physicians during COVID-19 outbreak in Oman. Psychiatry Res. 2020;289:113053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113053.Gao J, Zheng P, Jia Y, Chen H, Mao Y, Chen S, Dai J. Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0231924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231924.Mortazavi F, Mehrabadi M, KiaeeTabar R. Pregnant women’s well-being and worry during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03548-4.Millsap RE. Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge; 2011.Whittaker TA. The impact of noninvariant intercepts in latent means models. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20:108–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.742397.Chen FF. What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;95(5):1005–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193.Boer D, Hanke K, He J. On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: a review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2018;49(5):713–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117749042.Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(1):4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.Schütte S, Chastang JF, Parent-Thirion A, Vermeylen G, Niedhammer I. Social inequalities in psychological well-being: a European comparison. Commun Ment Health J. 2014;50(8):987–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-014-9725-8.Faulkner J, O’Brien WJ, McGrane B, Wadsworth D, Batten J, Askew CD, Lambrick D. Physical activity, mental health and well-being of adults during initial COVID-19 containment strategies: a multi-country cross-sectional analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2021;24(4):320–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.11.016.El-Den S, Chen TF, Gan YL, Wong E, O’Reilly CL. The psychometric properties of depression screening tools in primary healthcare settings: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2018;225:503–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.08.060.Soper DS. A-priori sample size calculator for Structural Equation Models [Software]; 2021. http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc.Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):286–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:1–6.López-Rodríguez JA. Declaración de la iniciativa CHERRIES: adaptación al castellano de directrices para la comunicación de resultados de cuestionarios y encuestas online. Aten Primaria. 2019;51(9):586–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2019.03.005.Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. Guilford Publications; 2015.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. The Guilford Press; 2015.Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Routledge; 2015.Green SB, Yang Y. Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: an alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):155–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9099-3.Viladrich C, Angulo-Brunet A, Doval E. A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología. 2017;33(3):755–82. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401.Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2007;14(3):464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.Samejima F. Graded response model. In: Van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK, editors. Handbook of modern Item response theory. New York: Springer; 1997. p. 85–100.Hambleton RK, van der Linden WJ, Wells CS. IRT models for the analysis of polytomously scored data: brief and selected history of model building advances. In: Nering ML, Ostini R, editors. Handbook of polytomous item response models New York. New York: Routledge; 2010. p. 21–42.Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R Package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.Jorgensen TD, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann AM, Rosseel Y. semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5–1; 2018. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools.Rizopoulos D. ltm: An R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. J Stat Softw. 2006;17(5):1–25. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v017.i05.Lancet T. COVID-19 in Latin America: a humanitarian crisis. Lancet. 2020;396(10261):1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32328-X.Kohn R, Ali AA, Puac-Polanco V, Figueroa C, López-Soto V, Morgan K, Vicente B. Mental health in the Americas: an overview of the treatment gap. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2020;42:e165. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2018.165.Goodboy AK, Martin MM. Omega over alpha for reliability estimation of unidimensional communication measures. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2020;44(4):422–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1846135.Slocum-Gori SL, Zumbo BD, Michalos AC, Diener E. A note on the dimensionality of quality of life scales: an illustration with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Soc Indic Res. 2009;92(3):489–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9303-y.Kenny DA, Kaniskan B, McCoach DB. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol Methods Res. 2015;44(3):486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236.Taasoobshirazi G, Wang S. The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: an examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedom. J Appl Quant Methods. 2016;11(3):31–9.Marquez DX, Aguiñaga S, Vásquez PM, Conroy DE, Erickson KI, Hillman C, Powell KE. A systematic review of physical activity and quality of life and well-being. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(5):1098–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz198.Hjemdal O, Roazzi A, Maria da Graça BB, Friborg O. The cross-cultural validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults: a comparison between Norway and Brazil. BMC Psychol. 2015;3(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0076-1.Żemojtel-Piotrowska M, Piotrowski JP, Osin EN, Cieciuch J, Adams BG, Ardi R, Maltby J. The mental health continuum-short form: the structure and application for cross-cultural studies–A 38 nation study. J Clin Psychol. 2018;74(6):1034–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22570.Meredith W, Teresi JA. An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care. 2006;44(11):S69–77.Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9(2):233–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.Sass DA. Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2011;29(4):347–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406661.Park N, Peterson C, Ruch W. Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction in twenty-seven nations. J Posit Psychol. 2009;4(4):273–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902933690.Dimitrova R, Domínguez Espinosa ADC. Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale in Argentina, Mexico and Nicaragua. Social Inq Well-being. 2015;1(1):32–9. https://doi.org/10.13165/SIIW-15-1-1-04.Caycho-Rodríguez T, Valencia PD, Vilca LW, Carbajal-León C, Vivanco-Vidal A, Saroli-Araníbar D, Reyes-Bossio M, White M, Rojas-Jara C, Polanco-Carrasco P, Gallegos M, Cervigni M, Martino P, Palacios DA, Moreta-Herrera R, Samaniego-Pinho A, Lobos-Rivera ME, Buschiazzo Figares A, Puerta-Cortés DX, Corrales-Reyes IE, Calderón R, Pinto Tapia B, Franco Ferrari I, Flores-Mendoza C. Cross-cultural validation of the new version of the coronavirus anxiety scale in twelve Latin American countries. Curr Psychol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02563-0.Leibenluft E. Gender differences in mood and anxiety disorders: from bench to bedside. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 1999.Finch HW, French BF, Hernández Finch ME. Comparison of methods for factor invariance testing of a 1-factor model with small samples and skewed latent traits. Front Psychol. 2018;9:332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00332.Ximénez C. Recovery of weak factor loadings when adding the mean structure in confirmatory factor analysis: a simulation study. Front Psychol. 2016;6:1943. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01943.Beauducel A, Wittmann WW. Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Struct Equ Model. 2005;12(1):41–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3.Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Rodriguez LM. Measurement invariance of the prosocial behavior scale in three hispanic countries (Argentina, Spain, and Peru). Front Psychol. 2020;11:29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00029.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-023-01149-8#article-infoCOVID-19Cross-culturalInvarianceWell-beingWHO well-being indexIs the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemicArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationTEXTPortada 1.pdf.txtPortada 1.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain8https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/04dce710-4790-4c05-923a-0f0a4d05b950/download34a9d760095bb0c290f35e73faa3ef88MD53THUMBNAILPortada 1.pdf.jpgPortada 1.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg10901https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/b29358cb-bcad-4328-9772-3d492b71ee12/download717f909687fe0c0b4334cfee54c26711MD54LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-8134https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/e81836df-0101-4580-9072-22639a30cf42/download2fa3e590786b9c0f3ceba1b9656b7ac3MD52ORIGINALPortada 1.pdfPortada 1.pdfapplication/pdf176416https://repositorio.unibague.edu.co/bitstreams/27c3f4f0-4321-4447-89db-d77801e189a6/download9f46ec41dad37df304bc88ec84ff2cf6MD5120.500.12313/3881oai:repositorio.unibague.edu.co:20.500.12313/38812023-10-28 03:00:17.71https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/https://repositorio.unibague.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad de Ibaguébdigital@metabiblioteca.comQ3JlYXRpdmUgQ29tbW9ucyBBdHRyaWJ1dGlvbi1Ob25Db21tZXJjaWFsLU5vRGVyaXZhdGl2ZXMgNC4wIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgTGljZW5zZQ0KaHR0cHM6Ly9jcmVhdGl2ZWNvbW1vbnMub3JnL2xpY2Vuc2VzL2J5LW5jLW5kLzQuMC8= |