Validity of the Jordanian Version of the Life Snapshot Inventory

Abstract

Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP) and the Life Snapshot Inventory (LSI) agree with a contextual, behavioral, relational approach to psychotherapy in which therapists focus on what happens in a session between the client and therapist to shape the interpersonal behaviors, emotional awareness, and self-expression necessary for clients to create and maintain close relationships and to live meaningful lives. This study aimed to test the reliability and the convergent validity of the (LSI) as a self-report instrument to measure meaningful personal and social factors. It was created in Functional Analytic Psychotherapy for use in various areas of life (e.g., family, work, love, spirituality, sexuality, health, etc.). This study involved 393 Jordanian participants (M = 49 years) in the sample. The examined questionnaire was compared with the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 Items (DASS-21) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) to examine its validity. The results demonstrated a high internal consistency (α = 0.92) of the LSI, with a correlation ranging between 0.74 and 0.87, both of which were statistically significant. Further, the factorial analysis identified only one factor (45.31% variance). Additionally, the results showed that both the DASS-21 and treatment options had an effect on the total scores of the LSI and the RSES. The LSI was introduced as the predictor and the variable related to depression, anxiety, stress, and the RSES as the dependent variables. The scale in total explained −31% of the variance in depression, −30% of the variance in anxiety, −22% of the variance in stress, and 46% of the variance in RSES. However, the results did not show any effects on the variables of gender, employment, and qualification. The examined questionnaire would be a helpful measure for use in healthcare, diagnosis, and clinical contexts in Jordanian society.

1. Introduction

1.1. Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP)

(FAP) (Kohlenberg and Tsai 1991; López-Bermúdez et al. 2021; Tsai et al. 2009, 2012) is a form of contextual therapy, which falls under the umbrella of third-generation therapies (Hayes 2004; Pérez-Alvarez 2012). FAP is becoming increasingly important to re-examine the therapeutic context, as well as its stages, its effectiveness, and the basics of the interactions herein that lead to the changes in clients’ target behaviors and self-efficacy. FAP is based on the principles of a functional analysis of clients’ behaviors during counseling sessions (López-Bermúdez et al. 2021; Montaño et al. 2018). It also includes the natural and persistent reinforcers that shape the behaviors of the counselors regarding the situations that arise during treatment sessions. In addition, FAP establishes a balanced and functional therapeutic relationship within the context of the counseling session and begins to explore the behaviors of individuals in their daily lives (Kohlenberg and Tsai 1991; Montaño et al. 2018).

The change process herein focuses on the direct behaviors of the clients during the counseling session, including their manners of speaking, thinking, feeling, looking, listening, remembering, and their emotional responses. These are similar to process-related behaviors (PRBs) (Kohlenberg et al. 2002). In this context, there are three types of behaviors that psychotherapists must become aware of to understand the goals of the therapeutic process (Kohlenberg and Tsai 1991). The first is the challenge faced by counselors, wherein they form an intimate relationship in the counseling session, typically inviting clients to complain and open up, thereby making them uncomfortable. The therapist needs to reduce and minimize any adverse outcomes during this process. However, this is rarely performed. The second type involves the improvements that occur during the counseling sessions through the therapeutic process that normally happens after the course of several psychotherapy sessions. Finally, the third type is the changes in the client’s behaviors and their beliefs about the functional analysis of the therapeutic process, with this including the clients’ observations, their description of their behaviors, and their satisfaction with the treatment process (López-Bermúdez et al. 2021). In addition, FAP systematizes five rules around which the therapist should base treatment, including (1) observing the occurrence of clinically relevant behaviors (CRBs), (2) evoking CRBs, (3) reinforcing CRB2s, (4) observing the reinforcing effects of therapist behavior on CRBs, and (5) provide interpretations about the variables that affect the client’s behavior (Kanter et al. 2017; Kohlenberg and Tsai 1991; Tsai et al. 2009).

Since the publication of the FAP in 1991, diverse empirical studies have been conducted on it, including those focusing on its use in parallel with various other therapeutic interventions (Callaghan et al. 2004; Gaynor and Lawrence 2002; Kohlenberg et al. 2002). Follette and Callaghan (1995) and Callaghan (2006) conducted research into supervision in the field of FAP and described the effectiveness of this method during clinical supervision. Additionally, Busch et al. (2010) analyzed the mechanisms of change that occur during this process. Oshiro (2011) explored these mechanisms of change using treatment strategies based on FAP. Furthermore, Callaghan et al. (2003) used FAP effectively and successfully in treating clients with histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders. The results reveal the importance of the theoretical contributions to understanding how FAP’s therapeutic relationship can function as a mechanism of change in therapy; this example demonstrates the diversity of the writings on FAP that have appeared.

FAP is considered a therapeutic method because it adapts to an individual’s needs and considers their unique differences, as it does not adopt specific techniques but rather uses those known through an understanding of behavioral changes (Kanter et al. 2017; Montaño et al. 2018).

The clinical targets when conducting FAP are to observe and elicit CRB and differentially and contingently reinforce a more adaptive in-session behavior. This includes individual psychotherapy, weekly group skills training (e.g., mindfulness, interpersonal effectiveness, distress tolerance, and emotion regulation), and skills-coaching phone calls, as required (Macías et al. 2019).

In addition, FAP deals with all the cognitive methods that activate during the functional analysis of behaviors and applies them within the natural context of the relationship between the client and the therapist (Tsai et al. 2019). A recent review by Valero-Aguayo and Ferro-García (2015) highlighted the significant progress that has occurred over the past twenty years in the field of FAP research and publication (including effectiveness studies, therapist supervision, its integration with other therapies, and its various forms of evaluation) (Kanter et al. 2017; Mangabeira et al. 2012; Valero-Aguayo and Ferro-García 2015, 2018). In particular, models related to the evaluation of several rating scales regarding the mentor–mentee relationship and the interactions herein have been discovered. Additionally, many scales have been developed as useful tools to assist therapists, such as the case conceptual model, the mid-treatment questionnaire, and those on confidential counseling relationship experiences. These questionnaires can be found in Tsai et al. (2009).

Furthermore, a measure of self-experience has also been codified for use in the Spanish context (Valero-Aguayo et al. 2014). These tools reflect the extent of changes in behavior during both the therapeutic and FAP processes.

1.2. The Life Snapshot Inventory (LSI)

Among the questionnaires mentioned in Tsai et al.’s (2009) study in relation to FAP, the LSI has been used by psychotherapy practitioners to assess the progress and development of the therapeutic process (Tsai et al. 2009). However, no standardized psychometric questionnaires have been published in Arabic or English, except for a study entitled The Validity of the Spanish Version of the LSI (Ruiz-García et al. 2021). The LSI possesses various psychometric properties in addition to its ability to adapt according to the needs of specific therapeutic interventions. The LSI differentiates itself between people according to their individual problems and is important for evaluating healthcare and treatment contexts. The questionnaire comprises a record assessing the values of the respondent and their life goals. Individuals are asked to rate their answers along a 10-point Likert scale, which relates to their satisfaction with the weekly counseling sessions or other events specified in the questionnaire. The LSI includes individuals’ satisfaction with their lives, including their self-care, love, intimacy, health, sporting activities, discipline, family relationships, friendships, spiritual life, altruism, authenticity, emotional expression, and gratitude, among others. This questionnaire reflects the LSI and evaluates how respondents perform these important daily tasks, in addition to its being used for the basic assessment of the client’s values and the extent of the positive changes that occur with respect to their goals during the psychotherapy sessions. This list is useful for quickly evaluating the development of the therapeutic process, as well as in measuring the effectiveness of the therapeutic methods being used, as it records the changes that occur during the treatment process.

Ruiz-García et al. (2021) stated that, in their analysis, the content of the LSI includes other concepts as well, including the respondents’ personal values, life satisfaction, and self-esteem, with the theoretical construction of these concepts depending on the extent to which an individual evaluates them in their daily life. The LSI concepts may be linked to other structures as well, such as peoples’ self-concept, self-efficacy, and their objective experiences of the self; notably, these scales are specific and focus on individuals and how they view themselves, their abilities, and overall competence (Céspedes et al. 2021; Montaño et al. 2018).

1.3. Present Study

Nevertheless, we must consider this model within the context of functional analysis for use among individuals in getting them to answer questions based on specific items. This tool also allows respondents to express their satisfaction with life in both their writing and behavioral terms, as well as in other contextual treatments used to evaluate their values. Thus, individuals provide information about their lives and their behavioral levels according to these values, in addition to demonstrating their commitment to implementing these values in their daily lives (Reilly et al. 2019; Ruiz-García et al. 2021). This tool is similar to the Value Living Questionnaire (VLQ; Wilson et al. 2010), which assesses the importance placed on various daily life factors by the individual and the methods that they used to achieve these values. The VLQ differs from the LSI questionnaire in that its purpose focuses more on realism and how the individual finds their values in a given situation and within different areas of their life. Conversely, self-esteem is an effective concept, defined as an individual’s beliefs about themselves and how they view these beliefs (Rosenberg 1965). Specifically, the self-esteem scale in the LSI assesses the extent of an individual’s feelings while also being linked to other important aspects, including their social relationships, work, health, psychological adjustment, and positive feelings (Mann et al. 2004). The concept of wellness, which is also assessed by the LSI, is closely related to that of self-esteem (Krieger et al. 2015) and is largely based on how people evaluate themselves across various situations (Ruiz-García et al. 2021). For example, it would include how a client sees themselves in relation to their personal and familial relationships, spiritual life, friendships, financial lives, altruism, and creativity, which are included in the verbal construction of self-esteem and life satisfaction (Moksnes and Espnes 2013; Orth and Robins 2014). In this context, the concepts of self-esteem and wellness are closely related to each other. Herein, individuals who give a positive evaluation of their lives also tend to have a higher level of self-esteem.

This verbal construction is a result of peoples’ experiences and is strongly associated with individuals’ satisfaction with their lives, their happiness, and their health while being negatively related to anxiety and depression (Bajaj et al. 2018; Leary and MacDonald 2003; Liu et al. 2014; Orth and Robins 2014). Furthermore, we believe that this tool is a good fit when compared to the benchmarks used in other scales (Ruiz-García et al. 2021).

The LSI also includes a life satisfaction scale, with this concept being a cognitive assessment of one’s quality of life and is closely related to health and wellness and predicts various mental health variables, positive life habits, and healthy social relationships (Miller et al. 2019). An individual’s life satisfaction is associated with their assessment of two types of life factors: first, life satisfaction is negatively related to an individual’s psychological problems; second, it is related to people’s financial situations, their familial lives, their friendships, and other factors (Diener and Diener 2009; Ruiz-García et al. 2021; Sortheix and Lonnqvist 2013).

Unlike the other psychometric characteristics of the tools mentioned, the LSI is used to evaluate the respondent’s level of satisfaction, which is expressed in different areas of their private and social lives, as stated by them while answering the questions, as well as for examining their degree of satisfaction with every aspect of their life. This concept depends on a person’s experiences and the extent to which the individual adopts the provided reinforcements. The questionnaire also helps individuals appreciate their experiences and the impact they have on their lives. Additionally, life satisfaction and its evaluation also change throughout the occurrence of new and different experiences. Therefore, an individual’s LSI score changes over time according to the new events that they then experience; therefore, we assumed that the degree of change that a person experiences would be linked to the external changes in their lives, which makes this tool suitable for therapeutic operations (Ruiz-García et al. 2021). Depending on the prior justifications for the importance of the LSI, this study came to test and adapt the psychometric characteristics of the scale to Jordanian society. This study then adopted the following objectives: (1) translate the LSI from English into Arabic for use within the clinical context; (2) evaluate its psychometric properties related to its internal stability; (3) examine its discriminatory validity by comparing it to a similar self-report tool.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A total of 393 people participated in this study, including 233 women (59%) and 160 men (41%), with an average age of 49 years, ranging between 18 and 69 years. Being 18 years old is the legal age that allows a person to answer the items on the questionnaire, as well as those on their demographic and social variables, without the need for parental consent. We used a cross-sectional survey design and a convenience community-based sample. Data were collected through an online assessment protocol, which was constructed through the Survey Creator software. Most of the participants in this study (42%) were students, all of whom were from Jordanian universities, while the number of employed participants was 138 (35%). A total of 65 respondents (17%) completed the scale and reported that they had received counseling. Thus, the size of the sample increased in a snowball manner. Approximately 587 questionnaires were sent. Data were collected from a public sample; a copy of the instruments was sent through Google Drive. The link to the instruments was also sent via email and social media to all employees and university students.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of LSI and RSES of depression, anxiety, stress, gender, employment, qualification, and treatment.

Variables	LSI				RSES
	Level	N	M	S.D	M	S.D
Depression	Depressed	140	70.80	42.44	33.76	5.87
	Non-depressed	253	182.83	36.54	12.78	6.19
Anxiety	Anxious	157	83.50	55.20	32.24	7.96
	Non-anxious	236	182.45	36.87	12.28	5.35
Stress	Stressed	163	87.21	57.91	31.47	8.79
	Non-stressed	230	182.40	36.81	12.31	5.38
Gender	Males	169	137.89	65.52	20.57	11.93
	Females	224	146.71	66.61	20.02	11.64
Employment	Employee	138	146.67	68.13	19.33	11.73
	Not employee	78	137.62	60.84	20.21	12.58
	Student	154	142.63	67.85	21.14	11.23
	Retired	23	140.35	63.37	20.09	12.75
Qualification	High school	102	148.59	63.98	21.25	12.18
	Diploma	76	141.46	71.89	19.92	11.32
	Bachelor	145	138.18	66.59	19.81	11.79
	Master and above	70	146.07	62.66	20.09	11.68
Treatment	Yes	312	132.29	68.04	22.34	12.05
	No	81	183.88	36.59	12.23	5.47

shows the distribution of the sample according to the different variables. The participants also provided their informed consent by ticking an “x” if they wished to participate and were informed that their data and information would be kept confidential and used only for scientific research purposes. The sample was recruited from Jordanian universities and workers in ministries and private companies.

The confidentiality of the information has been confirmed. The results of this study and the information the participants sent will be used only for scientific research purposes. There is no way to reveal the examiner’s identity; most questionnaires were obtained through various social networking sites, and any person under 18 years of age was excluded. All respondents agreed to participate according to the ethics of scientific research due to the Helsinki declaration of Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Scientific Research Committee at Mutah University and was conducted in accordance with the instructions of the American Psychological Association and the Ethics of Scientific Research. Thus, consent was obtained from all participants.

2.2. Instruments

The study was conducted across three sections. The first section concerned participants’ demographic data, including their gender, employment status, qualification, and treatment. Participants were excluded if their nationality was not Jordanian or if they did not want to participate. The second and third sections included the LSI, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 items (DASS-21), respectively. The RSES and DASS-21 scales were used because they are most closely related to the therapeutic context of FAP, as they indicate the psychological state of the client in terms of stress, anxiety, and depression. Additionally, insomnia is one of the reliable indicators in diagnosing mental disorders, and they are among the most widely used scales. On average, it took 10 to 15 min to complete the entire questionnaire.

The LSI allows for the continuous assessment of the respondent’s general psychological state while receiving therapeutic interventions in parallel with FAP. This scale comprises 24 items answered in a self-report fashion that are related to different values, including self-care, time, work, love, intimacy, home life, family, life goals, altruism, friendships, social relationships, emotional flexibility, gratitude, and others. All the LSI items are answered positively using a Likert-type scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 10) on the different aspects of life satisfaction. 

Table 2. Items scores and correlation with overall LSI factor.

Items	Means	S.D	r
Satisfaction with life	7.54	2.54	0.53
Self-care	6.43	1.67	0.74
Time management/discipline	7.59	1.52	0.43
Meaningful work	7.23	2.56	0.57
Love and intimacy	6.90	2.54	0.72
Sexuality	7.12	1.19	0.60
Health and nutrition	5.93	1.50	0.77
Exercise	7.37	2.65	0.49
Home management/environment	7.34	1.63	0.43
Life purpose	6.32	1.48	0.62
Friendships and social support	6.56	2.67	0.66
Family relationships	7.24	1.88	0.58
Finances	7.32	1.57	0.77
Courage/Ability to take risks	6.07	2.36	0.49
Spiritual life	7.85	2.43	0.57
Contribution to community/altruism	6.98	2.67	0.69
Emotional insight/cognitive flexibility	6.61	1.52	0.42
Mindfulness	7.55	1.67	0.68
Authentic expression/Speaker inner voice	7.98	2.37	0.51
Creative and artistic expression	7.56	1.86	0.74
Problems as opportunities	6.32	2.90	0.60
Sense of gratitude	7.45	1.81	0.52
Activities that bring pleasure	6.87	2.23	0.44
Lifelong learning	7.32	1.63	0.67

shows the description of all 24 items of the questionnaire (e.g., love and intimacy, sexuality, and health and nutrition).

The RSES (Rosenberg 1965; Jaradat 2006) was used as a tool to measure the respondents’ self-esteem. The scale comprises 10 items that measure the general self-esteem of adolescents and adults. In addition, its items are answered using a four-point Likert scale, with 1 for “totally agree” and 4 for “totally disagree”. The scores were summed for all items after performing a reverse scale for the positively worded ones for the negative items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9. The total scores ranged from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher ratings. For the purposes of the current study, the items of this scale were of specialists at Mutah University. All of them hold a doctorate and various academic ranks, wherein a consensus of 80% of the (10) arbitrators was achieved, meaning that all the items were approved as they exceeded the 80% test. The reliability was ensured by a split-half reliability, wherein the stability coefficient was 0.89, while Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.91.

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21; developed by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995); revised by Antony et al. (1998)) is composed of 21 items divided across three subscales (including depression, anxiety, and stress). All the items are answered negatively, which are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = does not apply at all to 3 = applies all the time). The total score ranges from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating that the respondents are more likely to be anxious, depressed, and/or stressed. Previous studies have shown that the scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.77, 0.82, 0.79, and 0.89 for depression, stress, anxiety, and the total scale score, respectively), construct validity, and criterion-related validity (Aldahadha 2018; Moussa et al. 2001).

2.3. Procedure

To adapt the LSI, the original English version of the scale was translated into Arabic by five experts in both languages who are also skilled in psychotherapy, counseling, and mental health practices. The questionnaire was presented to a small group of students and employees from Mutah University (N = 28) to verify its usefulness, weaknesses, and clarity of items. The final version given to the participants was then obtained, with the validity of the translation being verified through a reverse translation procedure to ensure that its meaning was maintained and that its translation followed the same procedures used in previous studies. (Aldahadha 2019, 2020). The translations of the Arabic and English scales were presented to two psychologists who are fluent in both Arabic and English after their translation into Arabic by two other translation specialists. In addition, the two versions were compared with each other, and decisions were made on the wording of some items and the modification of others; certain words were replaced with other more precise and specialized options due to reviewers’ judgments in the psychology and the Arabic and English language experts. The agreed-upon Arabic version was then back-translated into English and compared to the original version to verify the compatibility of the meaning and translation. Finally, to make the measurement suitable for the Arab environment in general and the Jordanian environment in particular, the scale was presented to 10 reviewers, including professors of counseling and psychology. All of them hold a doctorate and various academic ranks.

Later on, the participants were asked to think out loud while reading this tool after it was given to 30 students and 30 other people of various ages and educational levels, to test whether it was appropriate and if its items were clear and understandable or if there was any ambiguity or doubt. All participants’ feedback was taken into consideration, where weaknesses were addressed, strengths were emphasized, and this tool was then named the LSI scale (Jordanian version). Finally, copies of all the tools were sent over Google Drive, with their links sent via email and social media to all staff and students at the university by cooperative correspondents in lieu of financial support. Those who received the link were instructed to resend it to other groups they knew would result in as many participants as possible.

The objectives were briefly explained to the participants, with the respondents then being left free to answer the questionnaires after being informed that their participation was voluntary and that their information would be treated with complete confidentiality without mentioning their names while also telling them that none of their personal information, including their emails, names, or addresses, would be recorded.

3. Data Analysis

The means and standard deviations were used to compare the variables, with a multi-analysis of variance ANOVA being calculated along with calculating the overall effect size. The following interpretations were used to explain the effect size: small = 0.2, medium = 0.5, and large = 0.8 (Field 2013). Levin’s test for homogeneity of variance was used to verify the homogeneity of the slope degrees of the sample along the LSI and RSES scales, with the p-values of the homogeneity for these instruments being 0.075 and 0.081, respectively, which are non-significant values at a level of p < 0.05. Pearson’s correlation matrices were also calculated to study the associations between variables. The exploratory factor analysis test used, as well as Pearson’s correlations, were calculated through the item’s total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha if the item was excluded. Finally, a multiple linear regression analysis was used. All analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics v.25 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA).

4. Results

4.1. LSI Scale Construction

In order to study the psychometric properties of the Jordanian version of the LSI, the original version of the Spanish version was adopted (Tsai et al. 2009). The Spanish translation (Ruiz-García et al. 2021) was reviewed, and to emphasize the development of the LSI scale suitable for Jordanian society, its possible factorial scale was initially verified through a varimax rotation. In order to determine the adequacy and suitability of the sample to conduct the construction validation procedures, the exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring method) and Kaiser (1974) tests were used, and the result was 0.81, which means that the data are suitable for the construction validation analysis value of 0.75 (Kaiser 1974). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to determine whether there was indeed a general factor in the total correlation matrix. The result indicated that there were no differences between the correlations, which means the normality of the sample distribution, and there is one factor and continuity in the detection of the factors analysis (χ2 = 4328.11, p < 0.063). The results showed that there was one main factor, as seen in Table 1. All items were confirmed because they received a loading value of more than 40%. As a result, 24 items were grouped into one component, accounting for 45.31% of the total variance (see Table 1).

4.2. The Relationship between LSI and Other Metrics

A Pearson’s correlation test was conducted to evaluate the relationships between each of the items from the LSI questionnaire, with these being compared to the total score for the DASS-21 and RSES scales (

Table 3. Item scores and correlation with DASS-21 and RSES.

Items	Depression	Anxiety	Stress	RSES
1.	−0.23 **	0.34 **	−0.23 *	0.38 *
2.	−0.17 *	−0.21 *	−0.19 **	0.21 **
3.	−0.14 *	0.29 **	−0.33 **	0.28 **
4.	0.32 **	0.23 **	0.29 *	0.38 **
5.	−0.39 **	−0.38 **	−0.32 **	0.31 **
6.	−0.23 **	−0.45 **	−0.19 **	0.30 **
7.	−0.44 **	−0.33 **	−0.19 **	0.28 **
8.	−0.23 **	−0.17 *	−0.09 *	0.25 **
9.	−0.21 **	−0.30 **	−0.45 **	0.19 **
10.	−0.25 **	−0.21 **	−0.42 **	0.29 **
11.	−0.19 **	−0.41 **	−0.49 **	0.19 *
12.	−0.23 *	−0.51 **	−0.51 **	0.31 **
13.	−0.19 **	−0.52 **	−0.50 **	0.21 **
14.	−0.31 **	−0.32 **	−0.34 **	0.28 **
15.	−0.22 *	−0.20 *	−0.13 *	0.39 **
16.	−0.19 *	−0.31 **	−0.21 **	0.40 **
17.	−0.21 **	−0.40 **	−0.32 **	0.40 **
18.	−0.58 **	−0.41 **	−0.41 **	0.39 **
19.	−0.18 *	−0.29 **	−0.51 **	0.30 **
20.	−0.21 **	−0.27 **	−0.23 **	0.41 **
21.	−0.53 **	−0.37 **	−0.30 **	0.09 *
22.	−0.44 **	−0.28 **	−0.24 **	0.11 **
23.	−0.43 **	−0.32 **	−0.18 **	0.27 **
24.	−0.27 **	−0.19 *	−0.09 **	0.15 **
Total	−0.12 **	−0.25 **	−0.21 **	0.39 **

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

). The results of the estimated correlations show that all values were significant at either the 0.01 or 0.05 level for all items of the LSI questionnaire, as well as for its total score. The correlation value ranged between 0.09 and 0.58, as the relationships were inversed for the DASS-21 scale and were positive for the RSES scale.

4.3. The Effect of the DASS-21 Factors (Depression, Anxiety, and Stress) on the LSI

To verify the effect of the DASS-21 factors on the LSI variables—including the gender, employment, qualification, and treatment (received treatment or did not receive) factors from both the LSI and RSES—their means and standard deviations were calculated. Certain cut-off points were adopted for the three subscales in the DASS-21 scale (13 + for depression, 9 + for anxiety, 15 + for stress) (Lovibond and Lovibond 1995), as well as for the RSES scale (21+) (Jaradat 2006). The average scores of the sample on the dimensions of the DASS-21 scale ranged from 70.80 to 182.83, with a standard deviation ranging from 36.53 to 57.91. Regarding the RSES, the means ranged from 12.30 to 33.76, with the standard deviation ranging from 5.35 to 8.78, as shown in Table 3.

To verify the differences in these averages, an ANOVA was conducted on the effect of the DASS-21 factors (depression, anxiety, and stress) and gender, employment, qualification, and treatment on the LSI and RSES scores.

Table 4. Multi-way analysis of variance ANOVA examining the differences between depression, anxiety, stress, gender, employment, qualification, and treatment on LSI and RSES.

Source	Dependent Variable	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Eta Square
Depression	SLI	1,131,162.46	1	1,131,162.46	753.77	0.00 **	0.658
	RSES	39,691.73	1	39,691.73	1073.21	0.00 **	0.733
Anxiety	SLI	923,226.82	1	923,226.82	454.24	0.00 **	0.537
	RSES	37,530.29	1	37,530.30	882.81	0.00 **	0.693
Stress	SLI	864,295.87	1	864,295.87	395.88	0.00 **	0.503
	RSES	35,010.91	1	35,010.91	715.16	0.00 **	0.647
Gender	SLI	7477.13	1	7477.13	1.71	0.192	0.004
	RSES	29.16	1	29.16	0.211	0.647	0.001
Employment	SLI	4304.65	3	1434.88	0.326	0.807	0.003
	RSES	239.55	3	79.85	0.576	0.631	0.004
Qualification	SLI	7392.99	3	2464.33	0.560	0.641	0.004
	RSES	138.70	3	46.23	0.333	0.802	0.003
Treatment	SLI	171,137.75	1	171,137.76	43.26	0.00 **	0.100
	RSES	6562.35	1	6562.35	53.92	0.00 **	0.121

Note: LSI = life snapshot inventory; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; ** p < 0.01.

presents the results, showing that there are statistically significant differences in the effects of the DASS-21 factors and treatment on the total score of the LSI scale: depression (F = 753.77, p = 0.00), anxiety (F = 454.23, p = 0.00), stress (F = 395.88, p = 0.00), and treatment (F = 171,137.75, p = 0.00). Regarding the RSES, the results were as follows: depression (F = 1073.21, p = 0.00), anxiety (F = 882.81, p = 0.00), stress (F = 715.16, p = 0.00), and treatment (F = 656.35, p = 0.00). According to Cohen’s equation, the value of the eta square ranged between medium and high (Field 2013). These results did not reveal any effect by gender, employment, or qualification on the variables from the LSI and RSES.

4.4. Reliability

In order to verify the stability of the tool, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of its internal consistency was extracted using the split-half reliability at the total level. The reliability coefficient (0.92) and other related values were considered acceptable for the purposes of the current study. Regarding the relationship of the LSI with all of its items, a Pearson’s test was conducted, with the results showing that all these correlations were statistically significant at either the 0.05 or 0.01 level, with them ranging between 0.74 and 0.87.

4.5. Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regressions (standard method) were performed to assess the contribution of the LSI in predicting the values obtained in depression, anxiety, stress, and RSES. The LSI was introduced as the predictor and the variable related to depression, anxiety, stress, and the RSES as the dependent variables. The scale in total explained −31% of the variance in depression, −30% of the variance in anxiety, −22% of the variance in stress, and 46% of the variance in RSES. All values showed a significant property (p = 0.00), meaning that the greater an individual’s ability to use the strategies for dealing with the scale assessed by the LSI, the fewer symptoms they experienced as per the DASS-21 and RSES. In summary, the LSI was the best in explaining the variation in RSES (see

Table 5. Multiple regression analyses for LSI predicting scores on measures of depression, anxiety, stress, and RSES.

Model	β	t	p	sr2
Depression	−0.314	−7.88 **	0.000	0.042
Anxiety	−0.306	−6.63 **	0.000	0.049
Stress	−0.226	−5.51 **	0.000	0.052
RSES	−0.461	10.40 **	0.000	0.049

** p < 0.01; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

).

5. Discussion

In order to study the validity and reliability psychometric properties of the LSI, the original version was utilized (Tsai et al. 2009), with its Spanish version (Ruiz-García et al. 2021) being reviewed. In addition, 24 items were grouped into one component, which explains the 45.31% variance found. The results of this study corroborate those reported by Ruiz-García et al. (2021). Additionally, the questionnaire items were similar to those mentioned by Tsai et al. (2009), which comprised 24 items related to different values, including self-care, time, work, love and intimacy, home life, life purpose, altruism, friendships and social relationships, emotional flexibility, and gratitude.

A Pearson’s test was conducted to examine the relationships between each of the items of the LSI questionnaire and the total scores of the DASS-21 and RSES. The results revealed that all the correlation values were significant at either the 0.01 or 0.05 level for all the items in the LSI questionnaire and the total score. This means that the higher the LSI and RSES values were, the lower the DASS-21 value would be. This result can be interpreted based on the strong correlation between these tools; therefore, the therapeutic applications of the LSI are reliable when taking measurements before and after treatment, as well as for verifying the effectiveness of the treatment for the related scales or personal growth skills.

To verify the effect of the DASS-21 and the gender, employment, qualification, and treatment variables on both the LSI and RSES, the means and standard deviations were calculated, and a multiple variance analysis was conducted. The results show that there are statistically significant differences in the effect of DASS-21 and the treatment on the total score of the LSI, while the results did not reveal any effect of gender, employment, and qualification on the LSI and RSES factors. This is because the DASS-21 is used to diagnose mental disorders, as it can distinguish between individuals who have received treatment and those who have not. In addition, depression, anxiety, and stress affect the factors measured by both the LSI and RSES, which explains why these tools distinguish between depressed, non-depressed, anxious, non-anxious, stressed, and non-stressed respondents, implying that it has reliable psychometric, therapeutic, and diagnostic properties.

In order to verify the reliability of the tool, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of its internal consistency was extracted using the half-split method. The results indicate that all these correlations were statistically significant at either the 0.05 or 0.01 level, with them ranging between 0.74 and 0.87. Finally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted for the three dependent variables of the DASS-21 and RSES. All the values showed a negative direction, meaning that the greater the individual’s ability to use strategies for dealing with issues mentioned in the LSI, the fewer symptoms they experienced, as per the DASS-21 and RSES.

In summary, this study attempted to verify the validity and reliability of the English version of the LSI questionnaire for use in Jordanian society. The results revealed the presence of 24 items in the scale according to a component analysis test, with the results showing good internal consistency and appropriateness for the purposes of this study and good correlations with several related scales. The results differed between clients who had received treatment and those who had not. Finally, the results of the overall score for this questionnaire showed good predictors and effect sizes with the variables of depression, anxiety, stress, and treatment. This study’s findings showcase the importance of conducting further research to verify the psychometric properties of the LSI questionnaire in various patient groups and populations.

This study was conducted to emphasize the FAP and to emphasize the development of the LSI scale suitable for Jordanian society, as it possesses good psychometric properties and reliability for evaluating various psychotherapy methods, the benefits of which go beyond the evaluation and diagnosis of the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. This will have wide applications in the field of psychotherapy and will be used as a method in the initial examination of the psychological state of the patient, as is the case at the end of the treatment process, to ensure the absence of symptoms. This scale is the first in the Arab world, and we recommend that it be used by psychologists to verify the efficiency of psychological treatment and the extent of their client’s satisfaction with the counseling process. In any case, this study was conducted within the context of simple parameters. We also recommend that it be applied to larger samples and studied in relation to the Valued Living Questionnaire (VLQ) on both males and females, inpatients, and healthy persons.