Test-Retest: Values reported include 0.82 for a 2-month interval (Diener et al. 1985), 0.84 for a 2-week interval, and 0.84 for a one-month interval (student sample-Pavot et al. 1991). In their 1993 review, Pavot & Diener (1993) reported test retest reliability ranging from 0.83-0.50 and intervals ranged from 2 weeks to 4 years with higher reliabilities generally associated with shorter retest intervals.

Internal Consistency: Item to total correlations ranged from 0.57-0.75 (α=0.87) in a sample of undergraduate university students and from 0.63-0.81 in a sample of elderly persons (Diener et al. 1985). In a sample of older individuals (mean age=74), α=0.83, while in a sample of university students, α=0.85 (Pavot et al. 1991). Item to total correlations ranged from 0.55-0.80 among older individuals and 0.63-0.77 among the students, with α=0.91(time 1) and 0.82(time 2), points separated by a few weeks (Suh & Diener 1996) (varying etiologies). Reliability according to Fleishman & Benson formula (1987) was 0.921 (Shevlin et al. 1998) (healthy subjects). Arrindell et al. (1999) reported α=0.82 and item-total correlations ranging from 0.5 to 0.7, while α=0.78 for the Portuguese version in an adolescent sample (Neto et al. 1993). In a review, Pavot and Diener identified 6 articles evaluating internal consistency, α ranged from 0.79-0.89 and item-to-total correlations ranged from 0.71 to 0.86—mean inter-item correlation=0.70, α= 0.92 (Westaway et al. 2003; healthy subjects). Lucas et al. (1996) reported α=0.84, 0.84 and 0.88 over three studies, α=0.78, mean inter-item correlation=0.41, item total correlations ranging from 0.52-0.65 (Neto 1993; adolescents); α=0.86 (Meyer et al. 2004; health subjects).

Construct Validity: Principal components factor analysis (PCA) revealed a single factor accounting for 66% of the variance and factor loadings ranged from 0.61(Item 5) to 0.84 (Item 1) (Diener et al. 1985). PCA revealed a single factor accounting for 65% and 74% of variance in elderly and student subject samples respectively, with loadings ranging from 0.78-0.93 (Pavot et al. 1991). PCA revealed a single factor accounting for 60.1% of variance, with items 1-4 factor loadings >70%,  and item 5=0.64 (Arrindell et al. 1999). Factor analysis revealed a single factor accounting for 76% of the variance; factor loadings ranged from 0.81 to 0.92 (Westaway et al. 2003). A one-factor measurement model was found for both male and female Spanish adolescents suggesting no factor invariance across the sexes (Atienza et al. 2003). Shevlin et al. (1998) reported a single factor with factor loadings ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 and PCA analysis revealed a single factor accounting for 53.3% of variance (Neto 1993).

Construct Validity (Convergent/Divergent): SWLS scores differentiated between groups of young adults defined by marital status (p<0.001) (Arrindell et al. 1999). Significant differences in life satisfaction were identified between all groups of patients based on analyzed disorder (substance use, affective disorder, anxiety disorder, somatoform disorder) and those with no disorder (Meyer et al. 2004).

Construct Validity (convergent/divergent): SWLS scores correlated with selected personality measures: 0.54 with self-esteem, -0.41 with symptom checklist, -0.48 with neuroticism, -0.25 with emotionality, 0.20 with sociability and very low correlations with activity and impulsivity (Diener et al. 1985). Furthermore, SWLS scores were correlated: r=0.86 with rated self-esteem (Westaway et al. 2003); r=0.52 (time 1), 0.43 (time 2) with positive affect and r=-0.36 (time 1), -0.30 (time 2) with negative affect (Lucas et al. 1996); r=0.60 (time 1) and 0.52 (time 2) with optimism and r=0.59 (time 1) and 0.55 (time 2) (Lucas et al. 1996); SWLS scores correlated with global happiness (Fordyce Scale r=0.68) as well as with affect balance (r=0.76; Pavot et al. 1991). Multi-method multi-trait analyses demonstrated that assessment via the SWLA is able to discriminate between life satisfaction and both affective aspects of SWB, optimism and self-esteem (Lucas et al. 1996). Significant positive correlations were demonstrated with social acceptance, self-efficacy, psychological maturity, impulsivity/activity, self-concept, physical attractiveness and happiness while significant negative correlations between SWLS and loneliness, self-assessed loneliness, social anxiety and shyness were reported (Neto 1999). SWLS scores correlated with recent (within 3 months) positive and negative life events (r=0.25 and –0.28, respectively, p<0.01) (Suh et al. 1996).

Concurrent validity: Moderately strong correlations (r=0.47-0.68) were found with other measures of subjective well-being, including: Fordyce’s % of time happy question and single-item measure of happiness, Differential Personality Questionnaire, Cantril’s Self-Anchoring Ladder, Gurin, Andrews and Withey’s D-T scale, Campbell, Bradburn’s Affect Balance Scale, and Summed Domain Satisfaction. In addition, SWLS scores correlated with interviewer rating of life satisfaction (r=0.43) (Diener et al. 1985). Pavot et al. (1991) reported moderate to strong correlations (r=0.42-0.81) with both self and peer reported assessments of life satisfaction (LSI-A, Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale, Daily satisfaction, memory difference, peer-rated SWLS & peer-rated LSI-A). In a review of studies evaluating SWLS, Pavot & Diener (1993) reported convergence with related measures (Andrews/Withey Scale, Fordyce Global Scale) as well as negative correlations with measures of distress (Beck Depression Inventory, negative affect and anxiety, depression & distress on the Symptom Checklist-90). The Oxford Happiness Inventory (r=0.56), Depression-Happiness scale (r=0.61), neuroticism, and conscientiousness were the most significant predictors of SWLS scores (Hayes et al. 2003)(healthy subjects).

The Extended Satisfaction with Life Scale (ESWLS) (Alfonso et al. 1996; Gregg and Salisbury 2001) (healthy subjects).

The Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale (TSWLS) (Pavot et al. 1998; McIntosh 2000) (healthy subjects).