Correlational findings

Study Baruffol et al. (1995): study BE 1992

Adults, community, Belgium, 1990-1992
Survey name:
Unnamed study
N = 184
Non Response:
T1- T2 attrition: 49%
Interview: face-to-face
Structured interview


Authors's label
distressing events and psychopathological status
Our Classification
Presence of distressing life events between T1 and T2
0: absence of event
1: presence of event

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Elaboration / Remarks O-DT-u-sq-f-7-a Chi² = . p < .02 T1 happiness by T1-T2 distressing events
Psychological disorders between T1 and T2
A: happy at T1(above mean)               
  a: no disturbing events T1-T2:         16%
  b: one or more disturbing events T1-T2:19%
B: unhappy at T1 (below mean)            
  a: no disturbing events T1-T2         :15%
  b: one or more disturbing events T1-T2:38%
Chi square: Bb>Ab.Ba
O-DT-u-sq-f-7-a OR = 2.4 p < .05 Relative Risk Estimate
Confidence Interval: 1.20-4.57
Risk Respondents (who were unhappy at T1 and experienced disturbing events between T1 and T2) has 2.4 times more chance to get a neurotic disorder than non-risk respondents
O-DT-u-sq-f-7-a Chi² = . p < .05 To determine the predictive power of each variable alone, the predictors were entered seperately into logistic equations: a simple one with 1 variable and the second model with 2 variables.
If one compares the simple model with the 2-term model results, one can see what model is the best: the one that produces the greatest change in scaled deviance(CD). Dependent is: neurotic disorder.
CD for overall satisfaction=7.5