Human Growth Assignment Help

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 354 A Factor Structure of Wellness: Theory, Assessment, Analysis, and Practice John A. Hattie, Jane E. Myers, and Thomas J. Sweeney The Wheel of Wellness, a theoretical model of well-being, incorporates 16 dimensions of healthy functioning that can be assessed using the Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle (WEL; J. E. Myers, T. J. Sweeney, & J. M. Witmer, 1998). A series of studies are reported concerning the development and validation of the WEL based on a large database. In the current study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the items and scales revealed 5 primary factors of well-being (Creative, Coping, Social, Essen- tial, and Physical) and 1 superordinate factor identified as “Wellness.” T he concept of well-being has traditionally been viewed from two differing perspectives (Keyes, 1998). The long-standing “clinical tradition” operationalizes well-being through “measures of depression, distress, anxiety, or substance abuse” (p. 121), whereas the “psychological tradition” operationalizes well-being in terms of one’s subjective evaluation of life satisfaction. This second tradition is reflected in the consider- able breadth of literature in psychology, yet, as Ryff and Keyes (1995) noted, “the absence of theory-based formulations of well-being is puzzling” (p. 720). These authors further noted the need for developing theoretical models, for testing the fit of such models with empirical data, and for conducting theory- guided structural analyses. The development of comprehen- sive theoretical models requires a working elaboration of the concept of well-being. Diener (1984) suggested that any such elaboration must include at least three components: It should be subjective, reflecting a concern for how the individual views him- or herself; it should include positive indices of an individual’s sentiments toward life as opposed to negative ones; and it should be global to encompass all areas of an individual’s life.

The World Health Organization (WHO) as early as 1947 de- fined health in terms of wellness as “physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease” (WHO, 1958, p. 1) and later provided a definition of optimal health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO, 1964, p. 1). Dunn (1961), who is widely credited as being the “ar- chitect” of the modern wellness movement, defined wellness as “an integrated method of functioning which is oriented toward maximizing the potential of which the individual is capable” (p.

4). He also suggested that counselors were in a unique position to help individuals achieve high-level wellness (Dunn, 1977). John A. Hattie, School of Education, University of Auckland; Jane E. Myers, Department of Counseling and Educational Development, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Thomas J. Sweeney, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, Ohio University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jane E. Myers, Department of Counseling & Educational Development, PO Box 26171, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402-6171 (e-mail: [email protected]). Counselors seeking a basis for wellness interventions have a variety of theoretical models from which to choose. For example, Hettler (1984), a public health physician and medi- cal educator, proposed a hexagon model that specifies six dimensions of healthy functioning, including physical, emo- tional, social, intellectual, occupational, and spiritual. Two paper-and-pencil assessment instruments, the Lifestyle As- sessment Questionnaire (National Wellness Institute, 1983) and Testwell (National Wellness Institute, 1983), were de- veloped based on the hexagon model. Hinds (1983), also a university-based health educator, developed the Lifestyle Cop- ing Inventory to help individuals deal with stress manage- ment and health promotion. The Lifestyle Coping Inventory assesses a variety of lifestyle, nutritional, drug, exercise, envi- ronmental, problem-solving, and psychosocial habits that af- fect health and stress levels. The difficulty with these models for counseling-oriented professions is that each has a firm basis in health care rather than psychological development, with the latter receiving far less emphasis in health promo- tion and disease prevention programs based on these theories (Erfurt, Foote, & Heirich, 1991). Although the instruments designed to assess the elements of each model have accept- able reliability and validity, and although each is clearly mea- suring “a unidimensional construct called wellness” (Palombi, 1992, p. 225), the lack of an emphasis on psychological health limits their utility as adjuncts to counseling. Furthermore, adequate research exists to suggest that the components of healthy functioning differ for persons of different ages (Keyes, 1998; Ryff & Heidrich, 1997; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), thus mod- els that lack a developmental emphasis have limited utility for mental health interventions.

Ragheb (1993) noted that there is a “strong and growing demand for a wellness measure, valid and reliable, to assist practitioners and scientists” (p. 22). Kulbok and Baldwin JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 355 A Factor Structure of Wellness (1992), following a concept analysis of preventive health behavior and a review of the goals of Healthy People 2000 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990), also concluded that “reliable and valid measures of the many dimensions of health behavior in general, and of health- promoting behavior specifically” (p. 57) are clearly needed.

Because wellness is “an observable and measurable behavior” (Palombi, 1992, p. 225), the development of such measures is indeed possible. However, any such measure should be based in a theory that provides a basis for counseling interven- tions, as is the Wheel of Wellness (Myers, Sweeney, & Witmer, 2000; Sweeney & Witmer, 1991; Witmer & Sweeney, 1992; Witmer, Sweeney, & Myers, 1998).

The purpose of this article is to describe the factor struc- ture underlying the Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle (WEL; Myers, Sweeney & Witmer, 1998), a paper-and-pencil mea- sure of wellness based on the Wheel of Wellness model. After a discussion of the conceptual model, relevant supporting research, and development and validation of the instrument, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses are described.

The underlying factor structure is presented, and implica- tions for theory and practice are explored. THE WHEEL OF WELLNESS There is a long heritage in psychological theory of viewing the person as a “whole” seeking “reciprocal actions of the mind on the body, for both of them are parts of the whole with which we should be concerned” (Adler, 1956, p. 255).

This integration was developed further by Jung (1958) and, particularly, Maslow (1954/1970), who argued that striving toward self-actualization, growth, and excellence is a uni- versal human tendency and overarching life purpose.

Sweeney and Witmer (1991), Witmer and Sweeney (1992), and Myers et al. (2000) proposed a holistic model of wellness and prevention over the life span based on theoretical and empirical literature that “incorporates . . . concepts from psychology, anthropology, sociology, religion, and education” (Witmer & Sweeney, 1992, p. 140). The results of research as well as theoretical perspectives from personality, so- cial, clinical, health, and developmental psychology were foundations for this model, as well as stress management, ecology, and contextualism.

The model proposes five life tasks, depicted in a wheel (see Figure 1), which are interrelated and interconnected. These five tasks are essence or spirituality, work and leisure, friend- ship, love, and self direction. The life task of self direction is further subdivided into the 12 tasks of (a) sense of worth, (b) sense of control, (c) realistic beliefs, (d) emotional awareness and coping (e) problem solving and creativity, (f), sense of humor, (g) nutrition, (h) exercise, (i) self care, (j) stress man- agement, (k) gender identity, and (l) cultural identity. These life tasks interact dynamically with a variety of life forces, including but not limited to one’s family, community, reli- gion, education, government, media, and business/industry.

Support for the interaction between components of the Wheel of Wellness is found elsewhere (e.g., Cowen, 1991;Koff & Bauman, 1997; Myers et al., 2000) and is not repeated here. The intent of this article is to investigate the factor structure underlying a measure that identifies each of the five life tasks and subtasks as characteristics of healthy function- ing and a major component of wellness. Consistent with Millar and Hull’s (1997) framework for measuring human wellness, the criterion for inclusion of a component in the wheel was that the preponderance of studies suggest a direct link to healthy lifestyles and longevity. More detailed discussions of the literature related to the components of wellness may be found in Lightsey (1996) and Myers et al. (2000).

The WEL (Myers et al., 1998) was developed to assess each of the five life tasks and subtasks in the Wheel of Wellness. The conceptual outline of the attributes of the Wheel of Wellness formed the basis for development of items for inclusion in the WEL, and the purpose of this article is to outline the psychometric properties of this scale and to indicate its use in various situations. METHOD Myers et al. (1998) developed the WEL by first creating an initial pool of more than 500 items, based on discussion and initial field-testing (not reported here). Items were gener- ated as self-statements (e.g., “I am satisfied with my leisure activities,” “I consider myself to be an active person”) to which a respondent would reply using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, undecided or neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). Then we carried out a succession of qualitative FIGURE 1 The Wheel of Wellness Note. From The Wheel of Wellness, by J. M. Witmer, T. J. Sweeney, & J. E. Myers. Copyright 1998. Reprinted with permission. JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 356 Hattie, Myers, and Sweeney and quantitative studies to solicit feedback from respon- dents who completed the WEL at classes, workshops, and conferences that we conducted.

Myers et al. (1998) subsequently conducted a series of four studies over a 6-year period to field-test and improve the psychometric properties of the WEL and to ensure that each scale had no more than about 4 to 6 items, wherever possible.

The first form of the WEL consisted of 114 items and was administered to convenience samples of 18- to 91-year-olds (n = 723). Nine of the 16 scales had estimates of reliability (alpha) greater than .65. Further items were added to im- prove the weaker scales, and the second form was then ad- ministered to 18- to 80-year-olds (n = 1,394). There were still some scales that were not as reliable as desired, and it also became clear from an initial factor analysis that the Work and Leisure scale would be best split into two subscales. As a consequence, some items were discarded, additional items were developed to measure these two new scales, different items were written for the scales with lower reliability, and the instructions and some items were reworded to ensure an average 7th-grade reading level (with no item at more than a 12th-grade reading level). These 97 items were adminis- tered to 122 high school students in rural North Carolina.

An additional 99 undergraduate students were administered the WEL twice, at a 2-week interval, to determine test– retest reliability. All estimates of reliability exceeded .68, with most above .80, indicating stability in the scores across occasions. In addition, a study by Myers (1998) also is re- ported that assessed the validity of the WEL in relation to other assessment measures (N = 299 graduate students).

The focus of the present study was the 103-item WEL, which had been administered to 3,043 persons including 10- to 18-year-olds (n = 213), university students (n = 1,357), young adults (26–35 years, n = 524), middle-aged adults (36– 55 years, n = 662), and older age adults (56+ years, n = 184).

About half were from either sex (54% male, 46% female); 81% were White, and 9% were African American. Of their highest educational qualification, 44% had a high school di- ploma; 10% had technical and trade qualifications; and 30% had bachelor’s, 11% master’s, and 5% doctoral degrees. Sev- enteen percent lived alone; 7% lived in rural areas, 16% in small towns, 26% in midsize towns, 15% in large towns/cities, and 36% in a metropolitan area. To place all scales onto a common metric, each scale was converted to a score that ranged from 20 to 100 by dividing the total score for each scale by the numbers of items and then multiplying by 20.

This transformed scale seemed more meaningful for interpre- tation purposes and, because it is a linear transformation, retains all of the properties of the original metric. RESULTS The estimates of reliability (coefficient alpha) of this version of the WEL were all sufficiently high to allow meaningful interpretations of their scores (Table 1). The total sample tended to score quite high on Love, Friendship, and Self Care, as reflected in the means and higher skewness; otherwise, thedistributions are close to normal. The lowest mean scores were found for Realistic Beliefs, Nutrition, Work, and Exercise.

Given that it was expected that there would be 17 clear factors (one for each subscale), a maximum-likelihood ex- ploratory factor analysis based on the 103 items was com- pleted specifying 17 factors. Each set of items loaded only on their expected factor, and the average factor loadings on the expected factor (average .62) was 29 times greater than on the off-loadings (average = .02). There were two noted issues. The Problem Solving and Creativity and the Sense of Control items loaded consistently on the same factor. The former aimed to assess open-mindedness and flexibility and the latter planning and control. Because these two scales are expected to load on the same higher order factor, it was decided to keep them separate; however, further research would help in deciding whether they should be collapsed or refined to make them more distinct. Also, the item loadings within the Gender Identity scale were not as high as for the other factors, and the addition of more items could further strengthen this scale.

An exploratory factor analysis of the 17 scale scores is presented in Table 1. Five clear factors emerged from this analysis. The first factor, Creative Self, includes those scales related to the way we positively interpret our world (Prob- lem Solving and Creativity, Sense of Control, Sense of Hu- mor, Work, and Emotional Awareness). The second factor reflects our manner of coping (Coping Self) by using Realis- tic Beliefs, Leisure, Stress Management, and Sense of Worth.

The third factor relates to our Social Self or how we connect with others (Friendship and Love). The fourth factor relates to our essence or Essential Self (Spirituality, Self Care, Gen- der Identity, and Cultural Identity). The fifth, and last, factor relates to our Physical Self or body attributes (Exercise and Nutrition). In reviewing the correlations between these fac- tors, there is some evidence of the circumplex patterning, as should be expected if the relationships form a “wheel,” at the scale level. That is, there are larger correlations near the di- agonal and decreasing correlations as we move away, but the correlations do not increase again as desired. Thus, there is tentative support for the wheel, but more evidence and re- search is needed to more fully explore this aspect of the model.

The next step was to specify a restricted factor pattern allowing each item to load only on its expected scale, then the scales restricted to load only on the appropriate second- order factors (as identified in the aforementioned factor analysis), and these five loading onto a single third-order factor we named “Wellness.” Figure 2 presents the standard- ized estimates from a structural equation model (AMOS; SPSS, 2003) at the second and third levels only (space precludes presenting the first-level detail). From this confirmatory factor analysis, the goodness-of-fit index, the root mean square error of estimation (RMSEA) was .042 (χ 2 = 8261, df = 2533), which is indicative of acceptable fit of the data to this theoretical model (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Each of the standardized factor loadings is statistically significantly different from zero and quite substantial. Wellness, the third- order factor, is best referenced by our Creative and Coping JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 357 A Factor Structure of Wellness Self and least by our Physical Self, although all five contrib- ute substantially to overall wellness.

A series of multivariate analyses of variance provided more detailed information on differences between the means of the 17 WEL scales (because of the large number of statisti- cal significance tests, an alpha of .001 was used to deter- mine significance). The participants were divided into five age groups (10–18, 19–25, 26–35, 36–55, and 56+) and three ethnic groups (White, African American, and others, i.e., mainly Hispanics and Asian Americans). There were statis- tically significant main effects for age, F(68, 11049) = 5.14, p < .001, and ethnicity, F(34, 5630) = 2.58, p < .001, and no significant interactions. The means on Spirituality progres- sively increased from youngest to oldest participants (see Table 2). There were lower means for the younger group (10–18 years) for Self Care (which peaked among the oldest groups), Realistic Beliefs, Problem Solving and Creativity (which decreased somewhat in the oldest group), and Work.

The means for Friendship were highest for the 19- to 25- year-olds, Leisure was lowest for the 36- to 55-year-olds, and Nutrition was highest for the oldest group.

Ethnicity differences were found for only one scale. Afri- can Americans scored higher than Whites and others on Sense of Worth (87 vs. 82 and 81, respectively). There were nodifferences in means for those living alone compared with those living with others (with parents or partners, Mult.

F[17, 2549] = 1.28, p = .192), but there were marital status differences, Mult. F(68, 1005) = 4.12, p < .001. Single per- sons scored lowest on Problem Solving and Creativity, Nu- trition, Self Care, and Spirituality, married persons scored highest on Love, and separated, divorced and widowed per- sons scored highest on Realistic Beliefs.

To determine the validity of the WEL in relation to other assessment measures, the second author selected a variety of instruments that purport to measure psychological char- acteristics similar to those included in the scales of the WEL.

The sample included 299 graduate students in counseling courses who took the WEL and other instruments over a 4- year period, as part of courses in life span development and wellness taught by Myers. In particular, the WEL was ad- ministered in concert with Testwell (National Wellness In- stitute, 1983), the widely used assessment instrument based on Hettler’s (1984) hexagon model. It was hypothesized that similar scales between the WEL and Testwell would correlate highly (Table 3). The WEL compares favorably with most instruments with similar scale definitions. The one exception is that the Coping Resources Inventory (CRI) Total Coping score and the WEL Stress Management score Creative Self Problem Solving and Creativity Sense of Control Emotional Awareness and Coping Sense of Humor Work Coping Self Leisure Stress Management Sense of Worth Realistic Beliefs Social Self Friendship Love Essential Self Essence or Spirituality Self Care Gender Identity Cultural Identity Physical Self Nutrition Exercise Creative Coping Social Essential Physical TABLE 1 Summary Information About the Major Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle (WEL) Factors ( N = 3,043) Scale/Factor M 78.75 79.36 80.58 79.98 80.87 72.93 73.73 78.80 72.05 83.02 60.98 87.64 86.67 88.61 79.43 76.08 85.10 80.60 76.16 69.80 66.01 73.58 SD α αα α αCreativeCopingSocial EssentialPhysical 8.67 11.63 11.31 12.19 12.61 13.90 7.90 14.23 14.72 12.76 14.43 10.83 11.63 13.56 10.01 17.97 16.97 12.43 15.13 16.58 20.30 18.02.72 .72 .80 .80 .73 .61 .83 .79 .81 .87 .89 .76 .85 .79 .75 .66 .74.75 .67 .35 .32 .26 .00 .00 .32 .19 .00 .15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 — .13 .55 .26 .25.00 .00 .16 .19 .00 .51 .47 .32 .25 .01 –.14 .00 –.19 .25 .21 .11 .00 — .40 .13 .22.00 .00 .28 .21 .00 .11 .00 .15 .00 .82 .49 .00 .00 .29 .21 .00 .00 — .44 .35.00 .00 .00 .00 –.17 –.00 .00 .00 .21 .00 .10 .49 .48 .40 .30 –.00 .13 — .25.00 .00 .00 .00 .14 .14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .10 .00 .00 .50 .80 — Note . Boldfaced values in columns 2 and 3 represent the means and standard deviations of second-order factors. Boldfaced coefficients in columns 5 through 9 represent the loadings of the third-order factors on the respective second-order factors. Correlation Between Factors JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 358 Hattie, Myers, and Sweeney do not correlate as high as expected—perhaps because the WEL scale is limited in scope and definition to cognitive coping strategies. It may be necessary to consider the WEL coping as only related to cognitive coping, and alternative items used from other scales to assess other coping dimen- sions (i.e., Essential, Physical, Creative, and Social Selves). DISCUSSION The major aims of this article were to explain a theoretical model of wellness and to evaluate an assessment measure that would meaningfully assess the various components of the model. After an extensive literature review, a series of major dimensions and subcomponents of these dimensions were articulated from which items were written. The final set of scales all had sufficiently high estimates of reliability to dependably rely on these scores. The factor structure of each scale indicated that each was unifactorial, and particu- lar care was taken to ensure that each scale was not merely a bloated specific. That is, each scale included a varied range of items from across the expected domain and was not merely a collection of items with minor wording differences. Thefirst-order factor model clearly supported these 17 scales, because each item loaded clearly only on the desired factor/ scale. These 17 scales grouped into five higher order factors, which we named Creative Self, Coping Self, Social Self, Essen- tial Self, and Physical Self. A third-order factor model, with Wellness at the apex (presented as follows), was supported and appears to provide an excellent representation of the dimensions of well-being. The major purpose of this study was to describe the assessment scales and to provide evi- dence of the usefulness of the scores from these scales.

Evidence has also been provided that there is a clearly identi- fiable third-order factor structure underlying these scales. This higher order dimensionality of wellness is similar to that found by Ryff and Keyes (1995), who found a single higher order factor underlying their six scales of self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, pur- pose in life, and personal growth.

Most critical for the validity of the model, the original Wheel of Wellness model was developed from psychological and counseling theory, particularly that of Adler and his followers (Mosak & Dreikurs, 1967; Sweeney, 1998a, 1998b; Sweeney & Witmer, 1991; Witmer & Sweeney, 1992, 1998). FIGURE 2 Standardized Estimates From Structural Equation Model Note. Values in figure are beta coefficients derived from the LISREL-7 fully standarized solution. Control Gender Identity Cultural Identity Intelligence JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 359 A Factor Structure of Wellness Adlerian theory and constructs were used to organize the myriad research outcomes principally focused on studies that identify characteristics of persons who live both long and well (i.e., experienced life satisfaction with their circum- stances). Adlerians believe that all persons are confronted with five major life tasks: work, friendship, love, self, and spirit (Sweeney, 1998a). In the original Wheel of Wellness model, self direction incorporated the 12 spokes of the model, while the life tasks of work and leisure, friendship, love, and spirituality were concentric to but interacting with the spokes.

Witmer et al. (1998) described their conceptualization as a dynamic, multidimensional sphere. As a consequence, any ef- fort to depict it in a static, unidimensional way fell short of what individuals experience in their development over the life span. For those interested in its use in counseling, the model and original WEL had face validity and provided a refreshing departure from the more common diagnostic tools designed to identify dysfunction and otherwise negative at- tributes of clients (Myers et al., 2000).

For research purposes, the value in this model of wellness is at least twofold. The first is to provide a diagram to unify the varying dimensions and highlight the core aspects of Wellness, and the second is to identify the major dimen- sions that led to the development of items for the WEL.

Thus, the model is most effective in that it can identify the various dimensions of wellness and can provide direction that leads to the development of reliable and factorially clean factors (which therefore have greater verisimilitude,given that the model led to the items and not the usual pooling of vast numbers of items and seeing what is there).

The model specifies that wellness is the cumulative effect of several factors associated with human behavior and efforts to meet life’s demands. From the studies described in this article, we suggest that Wellness is the core of the “wheel,” and then the five second-order dimensions of Creative Self, Coping Self, Social Self, Essential Self, and Physical Self de- fine the rims. The unity of personality that Adler referred to in his work is represented here as The Indivisible Self (i.e., the factors overlap and interact to such an extent that the dominant, higher order Wellness factor is evident as “Self”), with the five factors providing definition of the components of Self. The Indivisible Self wellness model (IS-Wel; Myers & Sweeney, in press; Sweeney & Myers, 2005) is a clinical model derived in part from the structural model shown in Figure 1.

This model is useful to counselors as a common basis for assessment as well as clinical interventions.

The first factor, the Creative Self, is composed of what Adlerians would consider to be coping skills for daily liv- ing: Problem Solving and Creativity, Sense of Control, Emo- tional Awareness and Coping, Sense of Humor, and Work.

Behaviors associated with problem solving, use of creative capacities, sense of control through action, use of positive humor, emotional expressiveness, and satisfaction through work are all central to these factors. As noted earlier, a vari- ety of studies have noted the effects of these elements on both longevity and quality of life (Myers et al., 2000). While Creative Self Problem Solving and Creativity Sense of Control Emotional Awareness and Coping Sense of Humor Work Coping Self Leisure Stress Management Sense of Worth Realistic Beliefs Social Self Friendship Love Essential Self Essence or Spirituality Self Care Gender Identity Cultural Identity Physical Self Nutrition Exercise TABLE 2 Univariate F Ratios, Degrees of Freedom, and Probabilities for the Wellness Factors Moderated by Age, Ethnic Group, and Marital Status ( N = 3,043) Scale/Factor F 10.4* 0.5 0.4 2.2 5.7* 4.7* 0.5 1.5 5.3* 5.7* 3.1 8.9* 16.1* 0.4 2.2 15.6* 2.4 Note. AA = African American; Mar. = married; Sep. = separated; Div. = divorced; Wid. = widowed.

* p < .001. Age 10–18 Ethnic Group Marital Status 19–25 26–35 36–55 56+ F White AA Other F Mar. SingleSep. Div. Wid.

74 79 79 79 66 80 72 80 60 83 81 72 80 80 76 63 7878 81 80 80 71 79 72 84 59 88 88 76 83 81 79 59 7382 81 79 78 73 78 72 84 63 84 88 79 89 80 78 66 7282 81 80 80 74 76 71 84 64 84 88 83 91 79 77 68 7179 83 81 74 75 80 74 87 60 84 96 85 94 79 79 84 770.4 2.0 0.6 5.7 3.1 1.6 1.1 4.1 0.9 1.7 3.5 0.8 0.6 1.1 2.6 1.8 0.379 79 79 78 72 78 73 81 61 85 86 78 86 80 77 68 74 78 83 81 76 69 79 72 87 60 84 85 80 89 79 80 66 74 79 80 80 81 74 79 73 82 62 86 88 78 86 81 76 70 756.4* 1.4 0.8 1.0 6.1* 0.7 1.1 1.3 6.0 0.7 13.6 12.6* 10.5* 2.4 1.9 9.8 1.483 82 82 83 76 80 73 83 62 87 94 79 90 77 77 70 7379 80 80 82 72 79 72 83 60 88 87 73 83 77 77 63 7384 82 81 79 79 77 72 84 65 88 89 80 89 77 77 70 8183 81 82 83 75 78 74 80 66 85 84 82 90 73 73 55 7380 81 80 80 78 79 75 87 65 87 84 85 90 78 78 77 75 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 360 Hattie, Myers, and Sweeney work was a key factor in the original model as a major Adle- rian life task, it remains important to what constitutes wellness, although it is less prominent in the revised model as a result of these analyses. However, other studies cited earlier (Myers et al., 2000) that were concerned with longevity and quality of life also make a strong case for the inclusion of work as an important factor to well-being.

The factor we call Coping Self, comprising Leisure, Stress Management, Sense of Worth, and Realistic Beliefs, includesthree scales from our theoretically defined concept of Self- Direction and one that originally was included as a component of the Work task (Leisure). Each of these components provides a means of responding to the circumstances of life in a manner that promotes healthy functioning. Each involves some degree of cognitive processing, intentional behavior, and active re- sponding, similar to but not identical with Lazarus’s (1999) concept of active coping. Our emphasis, however, is on the individual’s efforts to derive satisfaction from an idiographic perspective. Satisfaction, stress, and “reality” are literally in the eye of the beholder. Adler spoke of the “ironclad logic of social living” and the fictive “private logic” of individuals (Adler, 1956, pp. 127–131; Sweeney, 1998a, p. 216, 240). All of us, according to Adler, have certain social opportunities and challenges. Indi- viduals who construct a private logic that permits them to cope successfully in life through interactions with others are also more likely to experience what we call wellness.

The next factor, Social Self, includes the key life tasks of Friendship and Love. In the original model, efforts to differ- entiate these life tasks involved degrees of intimacy, famil- ial and otherwise. Nevertheless, definitions found in the lit- erature about both friendship and love are often blurred by language, illustrations, and cases that do little to make dif- ferentiation. Perhaps it is less important to differentiate be- tween them than to acknowledge that studies of longevity and life satisfaction underscore the vital role of social rela- tionships throughout the life span.

The fourth factor, Essential Self, includes but is not lim- ited to the original concept of spirituality as it emerged from an analysis of the literature. Purposiveness, meaning in life, and a sense of a power greater than one’s self are all a part of this factor. We believe that the combination of these four scales contributes to that which makes individuals in- trinsically and fundamentally unique in nature (i.e., their spirituality or essence). Rather than being the core charac- teristic of a healthy person, however, Essential Self main- tains a statistical level of importance equal to that of the other four higher order factors, and furthermore it includes aspects of optimism. It is close to what Marshall, Wortman, Vickers, Kusulas, and Hervig (1994) termed optimistic con- trol, which includes aspects of having faith in one’s abilities and the capacity to derive meaning from life. In addition, this factor includes elements of self-definition (Gender Iden- tity and Cultural Identity) that are important aspects of one’s worldview (Lee & Richardson, 1991).

A review of the items in the Essential Self factor suggests that another dynamic may be uncovered. The items speak to individuals’ efforts to “take care” of themselves by not engaging in self-destructive behaviors (i.e., use of illegal drugs, tobacco) and, instead, seeking preventive medical assistance.

Clinicians include destructive behaviors and lack of pre- ventive behaviors as potential indices of mental illness.

Individuals without purpose or direction in life, who lack optimism or hope, are at higher risk for both mental and physical illness. They are less likely, we think, to “take care” of themselves as well. In short, without an essential sense of well-being, there is less motivation for self care.

Spirituality Sense of Worth Sense of Control Realistic Beliefs Emotional Responsiveness Problem Solving and Creativity Exercise Nutrition Humor Self Care Gender Identification Cultural Identification Work Friendship Love TABLE 3 Correlations Between Selected Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle (WEL) Scales and Scales of Related Instruments ( N = 299) WEL Scale Other ScalesCorrelations .60** .62** .66** .31* .50** .62 .37** .51** .38** .40** .29* .44** .48** .45** –.50** .44* .37** .67** .59** .53** .47** .39** .28* .61** .61** .74** .72** .33* .48** .66** .34** .29 .41** .42** .48** .41** .44* .40** .49** .44* Note . Testwell = assessment instrument based on Hettler’s (1984) hexa- gon model; CRI = Coping Resources Inventory; MPD = Measures of Psychosocial Development; ISAC = Inventory of Self Actualizing Char- acteristics; DCT = Developmental Counseling and Therapy.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.Testwell: Spirituality CRI: Spiritual Coping CRI: Total Coping MPD: Generativity Life Satisfaction CRI: Cognitive Coping ISAC: Accept Other/Self MPD: Integrity Testwell: Emotional Control Rotter’s Locus of Control MPD: Trust MPD: Autonomy Life Satisfaction Testwell: Emotional Control Death Anxiety CRI: Cognitive Coping DCT: Concrete Testwell: Emotional Awareness CRI: Emotional MPD: Intimacy Testwell: Intellectual ISAC: Problem Centered MPD Initiative Testwell: Physical Fitness CRI: Physical Testwell: Nutrition CRI: Physical ISAC: Sense of Humor Testwell: Self Care CRI: Total Coping MPD: Identity MPD: Identity Testwell: Occupation CRI:Cognitive CRI: Social ISAC: Interpersonal MPD: Intimacy CRI: Social ISAC: Interpersonal MPD: Intimacy JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 361 A Factor Structure of Wellness Not surprising, perhaps, is the finding that exercise and nutrition, components of the fifth factor Physical Self, loaded together but not in concert with the other, psychologically oriented components of the model. The traditional view of health behaviors tends to emphasize physical factors to the exclusion of others (e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990), while more “holistic” approaches based in psychological sciences tend to leave these factors out entirely (see Keyes, 1998). Based on these data, an inte- gration of physical and psychological components is needed in a comprehensive wellness model. Such is not the case in most clinical applications or research designs at the present time. Each discipline, for example, whether in physiology, nutrition, medicine, or psychology, tends to focus exclu- sively on its traditional areas of research interest.

In sum, then, the revised conceptualization of the model retains its essential components, but these components are reconstituted into a model where a higher third-order fac- tor, Wellness, is at the core. Five second-order factors still incorporate the five life tasks of the original model, but the 17 original components are grouped into Creative Self, Cop- ing Self, Social Self, Essential Self, and Physical Self. Work constitutes a factor within the Interactive Self rather than a major life task by itself.

A series of multivariate analyses of variance indicated differences in the means across independent variables. Al- though the statistical differences reported among and be- tween groups are of interest, we should note at the outset that the absence of differences is equally important. For example, there were no gender differences, and only one scale differed across ethnic groups. In short, men and women, and Whites and African Americans responded more similarly than not to the factors on the WEL. The one exception to the ethnic differences (Sense of Worth) was particularly pro- nounced, with African Americans scoring highest. The items in this scale include references to liking one’s self despite imperfections, believing in oneself as worthwhile, valuing self as unique, and being able to be “real” and genuine in relation to others. It is noteworthy that the majority of African Americans in this sample were undergraduate col- lege students, a subset of the African American population who may, by virtue of their attendance at college, experi- ence a higher sense of self-efficacy and, as reflected here, a greater sense of self-worth.

Differences by age developmentally followed a pattern whereby the youngest participants (10–18 years) scored low- est and the oldest participants (56+ years) scored highest on Self Care, Spirituality, and Work. With the Spirituality and Work scales, the respondents seemed to express a greater sense of satisfaction and contentment as they grow older.

Students in high school or postsecondary education are less likely to have sufficient life experiences to reflect on their own or to feel satisfaction with their contributions through school and work. According to studies over the life span, each of the stages and phases of adult development involve challenges that ultimately require a test of one’s personal resources. Successfully meeting these challenges is expectedto result in higher levels of confidence and a keener appre- ciation for values that transcend those challenges. Regard- ing Self Care, among the young, there is a tendency to take good health and safety for granted. With life experience, as reflected possibly in the scores on this scale, individuals increasingly become more health and safety conscious. The oldest group (56+ years) is more likely to make a life-style and value commitment to better health, as noted earlier, in that the highest Self Care and Nutrition scores were for the oldest group (56+ years).

The midyears group (36–55 years) also reflected the low- est scores regarding Leisure, particularly compared with the very youngest and very oldest participants. Developmen- tally, career, family, and related activities tend to require the most discretionary time for something other than lei- sure activities during these years in many peoples’ lives.

Intellectual Stimulation scores were highest for the two age groups (26–35 years and 36–55 years) most involved with career, family, and related demands. By contrast, the young- est group (10–18 years) had the lowest scores on this scale.

We do need to be cautious concerning the results, however, because there could be a confound between age and cohort effects, and thus alternative research designs based on longi- tudinal age comparisons can help tease out these effects and can help assess maturational or life experiences effects.

Seven of the 17 scales revealed differences among those married, single, separated, divorced, or widowed. In 6 of the 7 scales with statistically significant differences, single persons scored lowest on Realistic Beliefs, Intellectual Stimulation, Nutrition, Self Care, Spirituality, and Work. Widowed per- sons, by contrast, were highest in responses to 5 of the 7 scales including Nutrition, Self Care, Realistic Beliefs, Work, and Spirituality. For both the single and separated persons, the major discriminators were Work and Intellectual Stimu- lation, with single persons scoring lowest and separated per- sons highest. In the family therapy literature, persons in the process of uncoupling tend to seek support from their work, friends, and counselors in order to cope with an otherwise confusing, painful, potentially failed intimate relationship.

With many decisions to be made and new challenges to face, these scores may reflect persons’ higher consciousness of these needs. Divorced persons scores were highest on one scale, Realistic Beliefs, and lowest on another, Gender Identity. Suc- cessful uncoupling (i.e., divorce and positive adjustment) could result in the more realistic, less irrational expectations many persons place on themselves. On the other hand, with a poor adjustment, responses to these items could be construed as a result of an angry response to not meeting others’ expecta- tions or caring how others feel.

The various dimensions of the WEL are more than person- ality attributes, because they are closer to various goal strivings (Emmons, 1986)— in that they are nomothetic, id- iographic, and personalized motives. That is, the goals a per- son chooses are tied to the life tasks, such that he or she strives to attain these goals. DeNeve and Cooper (1998) ar- gued that well-being was very much related to a motivation to control the events in one’s environment, with individuals JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 362 Hattie, Myers, and Sweeney high in desire for control described as assertive, decisive, and capable of manipulating events to ensure desired outcomes.

Although the WEL dimensions are closer to goal strivings, there are relations to the Big Five (Agreeableness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) in personality theory. The Big Five is perhaps the most widely used personality theory, and it has gained much support and interest (Briggs, 1992; Costa & Widiger, 1994; Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1984/1990; Waller, 1999). Agreeableness refers to the quality of one’s interpersonal relations, the inclination toward interpersonal trust, and consideration of others, and thus the WEL dimen- sions of Friendship and Love would be included in Agree- ableness. Extraversion focuses primarily on the quantity and intensity of relationships and relates to the disposition to- ward positive emotions, sociability, and high activity. The WEL dimensions of Sense of Humor, with the active using of humor to cope with one’s own difficulties, and of Leisure, which includes activities typically approached from a “play- ful” point of view, both relate to Extraversion. Some of the other aspects of Extraversion, such as hardiness, positive affec- tivity, and social competence, are clearly present among the items in some of the other WEL dimensions. Conscientious- ness, or Constraint, relates to task behavior, socially accepted impulse control, persistence, industriousness, and organiza- tion. The WEL dimension of Sense of Control clearly relates to conscientiousness because it emphasizes beliefs about mas- tery, competence, self-confidence, and self-efficacy. Similarly, Realistic Beliefs and Stress Management have many aspects of task behavior and organization. Neuroticism or its converse, emotional stability, relates to the tendency to experience emotional distress or to adjustment. The WEL dimension of Emotional Awareness and Coping includes many aspects of emo- tional stability, lack of vulnerability, and emotional control.

Openness to Experience contains components of intellectual stimulation, culture, creativity, broad interests, and cognitive complexity, and a receptive orientation toward varied expe- riences and ideas. These components relate to the WEL di- mensions of Sense of Worth, Problem Solving and Creativity, and Cultural Identity.

There are a number of WEL dimensions that do not easily fit under any of the Big Five. These include Essential Self, which is related to a belief system and optimism; Exercise and Nutrition, which are attitudes and actions relating to physical dimensions; Self Care, which is a protective or non- self-abuse dimension; Gender Identity; and Work, although the latter could relate to aspects of Extraversion and Open- ness to Experience. We consider that the Big Five may assist in explaining personality but that the WEL dimensions are closer to the more holistic notion of well-being (which can certainly include aspects of personality). Note, for example, that DeNeve and Cooper (1998) completed a meta-analysis of 137 personality variables considered to constitute well- being and reported that the average correlation of well-being with Extraversion was .17, Agreeableness .17, Conscientious- ness .21, Neuroticism –.21, and Openness to Experience .11.

The personality traits that were most strongly related to well-being tended to deal with the following characteristics: the ex- perience of emotions (emotional stability, positive affectivity, tension) and the characteristic explanations that people give for life events (repressive defensiveness, hardiness, trust, and the control variables). Primarily, Physical Self and Essential Self, including Self Care, critically contribute to additional perspec- tives to well-being beyond personality attributes. CLINICAL APPLICATIONS Perhaps the most encouraging outcome of the current study was the secondary gain about the WEL’s potential for use in practice. Participants in a variety of settings volunteered to participate in the data collection with the understanding that their scores would be explained to them in relation to the model. Even though caution was conveyed regarding the developmental nature of the instrument, both professional counselors and participants/clients expressed enthusiasm for the WEL as a practical yet comprehensive assessment for promoting positive well-being. This was especially so among the clinical mental health population, who tended to be more accustomed to dysfunctional diagnoses and reme- dial treatment plans to correct them. Enhancement of func- tioning is a very different emphasis than simply attempting to restore adequate functioning.

Published accounts of the Wheel of Wellness and IS-Wel models and their potential for use in clinical practice are available (Myers & Sweeney, in press; Myers et al., 2000; Sweeney, 1998a; Sweeney & Myers, 2005; Witmer & Sweeney, 1998). In one case illustration (Sweeney & Myers, 2004), a depressed, divorced Hispanic woman is referred to the counse- lor by her physician due to family-of-origin distress, difficulty with her teaching responsibilities, and parenting of her two young children. With the aid of the IS-Wel Model compo- nents, the counselor is able to develop a treatment plan that progressively addresses her major life tasks (i.e., work, friend- ship, love, self, and spirituality). Included in the treatment plan are activities appropriate to not only ameliorating but enhancing, for example, her sense of worth and sense of control through relaxation exercises, physical recreation, nutrition, and more relaxed, effective parenting methods. Attention to her spiritual needs was central to the plan as well.

A treatment plan is more accurately portrayed, in this case, as an educational reorientation plan that was devel- oped to reflect each of the 17 components of the model.

Several of these components, such as Sense of Humor, Emo- tional Responsiveness, and Problem Solving and Creativity, are useful indices of improving emotional functioning as well as outcomes of positive mental health. These and other components are often not addressed in more traditional diagnostic systems. Individual, couple, family, and group counseling methods, parent education study groups, par- ents without partners, and similar approaches may also be incorporated into a plan for achieving greater wellness. What is most different about using a wellness approach is the emphasis on wellness in all of its dimensions, rather than solely on remediation of dysfunction. JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 363 A Factor Structure of Wellness The WEL is an instrument that shows promise as an ad- junct to counseling to engage clients in meaningful dialogue about the value of wellness to them, as well as ways to enhance their wellness. The current statistical factoring of the model components (Creative Self, Coping Self, Social Self, Essential Self, and Physical Self) provides additional richness to the clinical value of the instrument. The Wheel of Wellness model was conceptualized as multidimensional and dynamic in nature (Witmer & Sweeney, 1992). That each of the origi- nal components of the Wheel continues to prove viable as a factor of total wellness is significant. Practitioners may choose to use the Wheel of Wellness as it evolved from the literature as a basis for explaining wellness to clients and developing treatment plans. Alternately, the use of the five factors (Creative Self, Coping Self, Social Self, Essential Self, and Physical Self) identified in this study may prove useful in clinical settings. Additional studies should help to deter- mine whether the original five life tasks as depicted in the Wheel of Wellness or the five higher order factors as de- picted in the structural model provide the most useful in- formation in clinical settings, both for practitioners and for clients. Additional study is also needed to determine within- and between-group differences for persons of varied ethnic backgrounds on the components of wellness. Such information will be useful to the practitioner as well. CONCLUDING COMMENTS We have defended the Wheel of Wellness model, a theoreti- cal model that was the basis for the WEL. Factor analysis of the WEL database resulted in confirmation of the original 17 dimensions (a third-order factor structure), and 5 higher order dimensions of wellness (a second-order factor struc- ture). These 5 higher order dimensions— Creative Self, Cop- ing Self, Social Self, Essential Self, and Physical Self—each relate to Wellness, a single higher order factor defined as a “way of life oriented toward optimal health and well-being in which mind, body, and spirit are integrated by the indi- vidual to live life more fully within the human and natural community” (Witmer & Sweeney, 1998, pp. 43–44). All of these factors can be reliably measured.

There is still more research needed on the WEL and on the factor structure underlying this measure. Additional studies are needed to confirm this structure across populations. The estimates of reliability are sufficiently high to encourage meaningful interpretation of the scale scores, and the items are firmly grounded in a meaningful psychological model of well-being. The ultimate usefulness of the WEL relates to dependable interpretations, and we are building much case practice using the WEL (Sweeney, 1998b), as well as investi- gating the counseling consequences of these interpretations. REFERENCES Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.). New York: Basic Books.

Briggs, S. R. (1992). Assessing the five-factor model of personality de- scription. Journal of Personality, 60, 253–293.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cowen, E. L. (1991). In pursuit of wellness. American Psychologist, 46, 404–408.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.

Dunn, H. L. (1961). High-level wellness. Arlington, VA: Beatty.

Dunn, H. L. (1977). What high level wellness means. Health Values:

Achieving High Level Wellness, 1, 9–16.

Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.

Erfurt, J. C., Foote, A., & Heirich, M. A. (1991). The cost-effectiveness of work-site wellness programs for hypertension control, weight loss, and smoking cessation. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 33, 962–970.

Hettler, W. (1984). Wellness: Encouraging a lifetime pursuit of excel- lence. Health Values: Achieving High Level Wellness, 8, 13–17.

Hinds, W. C. (1983). Personal paradigm shift: A lifestyle intervention approach to health care management. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Hofstee, W. K., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.

Jung, C. G. (1958). The undiscovered self (R. C. F. Hall, Trans.). New York:

Mentor Books.

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.

Koff, E., & Bauman, C. L. (1997). Effects of wellness, fitness, and sport skills programs on body image and lifestyle behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 555–562.

Kulbok, P. A., & Baldwin, J. H. (1992). From preventive health behavior to health promotion: Advancing a positive construct of health. Ad- vanced Nursing Science, 14, 50–64.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York:

Springer.

Lee, C. L., & Richardson, B. L. (1991). Multicultural issues in counseling:

New approaches to diversity. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Lightsey, O. R. (1996). What leads to wellness? The role of psycho- logical resources in well-being. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 589–759.

Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Vickers, R. R., Jr., Kusulus, J. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1994). The five-factor model of personality as a frame- work for personality-health research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 278–286.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York:

Harper & Row. (Original work published 1954) McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York:

Guilford Press. (Original work published 1984) Millar, J. S., & Hull, C. (1997). Measuring human wellness. Social Indica- tors Research, 40, 147–158.

Mosak, H. H., & Dreikurs, R. (1967). The Life Tasks III, the fifth life task.

Individual Psychologist, 5, 16–22.

Myers, J. E. (1998). The Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle manual. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.

Myers, J. E., & Sweeney, T. J. (in press). The Indivisible Self: An evidence- based model of wellness. Journal of Individual Psychology.

Myers, J. E., Sweeney, T. J., & Witmer, J. M. (1998). The Wellness Evalua- tion of Lifestyle. Greensboro, NC: Authors.

Myers, J. E., Sweeney, T. J., & Witmer, J. M. (2000). The Wheel of Wellness counseling for wellness: A holistic model for treatment planning.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 251–266.

National Wellness Institute. (1983). Testwell. Stevens Point, WI: Author.

Palombi, B. J. (1992). Psychometric properties of wellness instruments.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 221–225. JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 364 Hattie, Myers, and Sweeney Ragheb, M. G. (1993). Leisure and perceived wellness: A field investiga- tion. Leisure Sciences, 15, 13–24.

Ryff, C. D., & Heidrich, S. M. (1997). Experience and well-being: Explo- rations on domains of life and how they matter. The International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, 20, 193–206.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well- being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.

SPSS. (2003). AMOS 5.0. [Computer software]. Chicago: Author.

Sweeney, T. J. (1998a). Adlerian counseling: A practitioner’s approach (4th ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Sweeney, T. J. (1998b) Adlerian theory. In D. Cappuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.), Counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 113–150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sweeney, T. J., & Myers, J. E. (2005). Optimizing human development: A new paradigm for helping. In A. Ivey, M. B. Ivey, J. E. Myers, & T. J.

Sweeney (Eds.), Developmental counseling and therapy: Promoting wellness over the lifespan (pp. 39–68). New York: Houghton-Mifflin/Lahaska.

Sweeney, T. J., & Witmer, J. M. (1991). Beyond social interest: Striving toward optimal health and wellness. Individual Psychology, 47, 527–540.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1990). Healthy people 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Waller, N. G. (1999). Evaluating the structure of personality. In R. C.

Cloninger (Ed.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 155–197). Wash- ington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Witmer, J. M., & Sweeney, T. J. (1992). A holistic model for wellness and prevention over the life span. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 140–148.

Witmer, J. M., & Sweeney, T. J. (1998). Toward wellness: The goal of counseling. In T. J. Sweeney, Adlerian counseling: A practitioner’s ap- proach (pp. 43–99). Philadelphia: Accelerated Development, Taylor & Francis Group.

Witmer, J. M., Sweeney, T. J., & Myers, J. E. (1998). The Wheel of Wellness.

Greensboro, NC: Authors.

World Health Organization. (1958). Constitution of the World Health Organization, Annex. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

World Health Organization. (1964). Basic documents (15th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development is the property of American Counseling Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development is the property of American Counseling Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.