View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Replicability and Revision of the Ecowellness Inventory: Development of a Brief Measure of Ecowellness

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Replicability and Revision of the Ecowellness Inventory: Development of a Brief Measure of Ecowellness
Language: English
Authors: Reese, Ryan (ORCID 0000-0001-7716-5610), Holden, Christopher J. (ORCID 0000-0001-6563-5822), Hall, Christian (ORCID 0000-0002-7157-447X), Wingrove, Twila
Source: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2022 55(4):266-285.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Ecology, Wellness, Measures (Individuals), Factor Structure, Factor Analysis, Goodness of Fit, Test Validity, School Counseling, Conservation (Environment), Replication (Evaluation)
DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2021.2022984
ISSN: 0748-1756
1947-6302
Abstract: We examined the replicability of the 61-item EcoWellness Inventory (EI-61; Reese et al., 2015) and the factor structure of a brief form (i.e., EI-15). The EI-15 demonstrated excellent model fit and initial convergent validity evidence. The inventory serves as a potentially useful tool for assessing ecowellness in professional counseling practice and research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1370147
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFIRQBTBrZGN_Yi82Ko7kodAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFbxlP5x7gfnWnTreAIBEICBmjAFjVR397hCDmrWICAMJ8aUWthE2cGjkhH7dNtXzSkAUQSxNg6E-TLlgsYXMd2PDdprveou8WhjOwZa49iApSeAcFa78_ED5CqeTegvlktn4fW-DWvwtMvgRVo9eYmD-Ujafjdrrbb3y7haQ1DYifqLpaGtYPRefAOXOampTGE8OX6yMxI0ariArU1xbCMRjKAgA0JuxnJuH08=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159762656;mev01oct.22;2022Oct21.06:05;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159762656-1">Replicability and Revision of the EcoWellness Inventory: Development of a Brief Measure of EcoWellness </title> <p>We examined the replicability of the 61-item EcoWellness Inventory (EI-61; Reese et al., 2015) and the factor structure of a brief form (i.e., EI-15). The EI-15 demonstrated excellent model fit and initial convergent validity evidence. The inventory serves as a potentially useful tool for assessing ecowellness in professional counseling practice and research.</p> <p>Keywords: Confirmatory factor analysis; EcoWellness; nature-based counseling; parallel analysis; short form</p> <p>Humanity's relationship with the nonhuman world or nature (i.e., green and blue spaces, including urban parks, wilderness areas, and virtual reality natural environments) has drawn significant multidisciplinary scholarly attention in the past decade. Certainly, the ongoing climate crisis contributed much to the increase in attention to our species' connection with the natural world (Hrabok et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]), though many researchers have focused their efforts on studying the possible therapeutic effects that natural environments might have on human health and wellness (Frumkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]). For instance, with a sample of nearly 20,000 participants in the United Kingdom, White et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref3">54</reflink>]) found that the probability of reporting high overall well-being increased for individuals spending at least two hours in nature per week in comparison with those who did not spend time in nature.</p> <p>In the past decade professional counseling scholars began exploring possible methods for applying the burgeoning nature and wellness literature base in traditional outpatient and K-12 school-based contexts (Greenleaf et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; Reese & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]; Swank et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref6">51</reflink>]; Walker et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref7">53</reflink>]). We (Reese & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]) defined the ecowellness construct in the counseling literature to aid helping professionals in addressing nature contact and connection as part of wellness assessment and intervention. We suggested that ecowellness functioned as a "missing link" within wellness counseling models, particularly the Indivisible Self Model of Wellness (IS-Wel; Hattie et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]). The IS-Wel encompasses one overall factor, the Indivisible Self, five second order factors (coping self, creative self, essential self, physical self, and social self), and 17 third-order factors (Hattie et al.). However, the IS-Wel authors overlooked nature contact and connection as an integral component of indivisible wellness. We (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>]) developed the 61-item EcoWellness Inventory (EI-61), arguing that the assessment might help counselors assess nature connection as part of holistic wellness, identify appropriate clients for nature-based counseling interventions, and help counselors identify areas of nature connection to address as part of wellness counseling.</p> <p>Despite several studies demonstrating its construct validity (Holden et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref11">50</reflink>]; Reese & Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>]; Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]; Swank & Reese, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]), the utility of the EI-61 is limited in applied and research settings because of its length. Additionally, when recently attempting to predict wellness-related measures from ecowellness using structural equation modeling, we identified issues related to poor model fit suggesting possible concerns related to replicability of the factor structure of the EI-61. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to explore whether a shortened assessment and replicable factor structure of ecowellness was possible. In Study 1 we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine a tentative, alternative factor structure of ecowellness. Study 2 included a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) wherein we aimed to replicate the findings from Study 1 with excellent model fit indices. In Study 3 we studied initial convergent validity evidence of a shortened EI-61 with hypothetically related measures of resilience, self-esteem, self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, global wellbeing, and personality.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-2">EcoWellness</hd> <p>Our initial conceptualization of ecowellness included three constructs (Reese & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). Within the <emph>access</emph> domain, we argued that an individual must be able to experience nature through its immediate presence or through indirect sensory experiences (i.e., hear, see, touch, taste, or smell) in order to reap any wellness benefits. Next, we suggested that individuals possessing a strong <emph>environmental identity</emph>, the extent to which one incorporates nature into self-concept, might be more inclined to spend time in nature, and thus, more likely to experience the wellness benefits of nature. Lastly, we proposed that <emph>transcendence</emph>, feeling connected with entities beyond oneself, is the propensity to feel more strongly connected with one's spirituality and with others in natural settings (i.e., community connectedness). Following an exhaustive review of the theoretical and empirical literature (Reese, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref16">37</reflink>]), we expanded our initial conceptualization of ecowellness by delineating each of the initially defined constructs into seven facets.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-3">Physical and Sensory Access</hd> <p>We broke the access domain down into <emph>physical access</emph> and <emph>sensory access</emph>. That is, to experience the wellness benefits from nature contact, one must have direct contact or exposure to nearby forms of nature (e.g., the ability to access nature nearby one's home) or the ability to experience nature through one's senses (e.g., a view of nature, listening to nature sounds). Across studies, physical access to nature contributed to indicators of resilience (Marselle et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>]). For example, Smith et al. (2019) identified that a microbial commonly found in soil might positively contribute to human physiological resilience by inhibiting pathways that contribute to inflammation in the body. Further, children raised in areas with minimal nature are at greater risk for developing psychiatric disorders (Engemann et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) and depressive symptoms in adulthood compared with persons growing up in areas with greater proximity to natural spaces (Bezold et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]). Other researchers pointed toward the positive effects nearby nature access has on emotional well-being (Ernst & Burcak, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]; Madzia et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]; Moens et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sensory access to nature positively contributed to mental wellbeing in virtual reality settings, including reductions in the psychophysiological stress response (Annerstedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>]; McSweeney et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>]) and reduced rumination (i.e., looping negative thoughts) and activation in areas of the brain associated with rumination (Bratman et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]). Additionally, exposure to nature in experimental settings (i.e., images and views of nature) initiated attention restoration, including the enhancement of focus and concentration (Lackey et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-4">Connection, Preservation, and Protection</hd> <p>We parsed the environmental identity domain into the constructs of <emph>connection</emph>, <emph>preservation</emph>, and <emph>protection</emph>. Connection included an affective and cognitive affinity for nature, including recalling pleasant prior experiences in nature and having a favorite place in nature. For example, prior literature demonstrated that nature relatedness positively impacted facets of wellness (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]; Nisbet et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref28">32</reflink>]). Preservation, or environmental agency, included having favorable attitudes and behaviors toward caring for nature (e.g., recycling). Research participants who engaged in environmentally friendly behaviors reported greater health and wellness benefits overall; purposefully caring for nature (i.e., environmentalism) positively contributed to perceptions of wellness (Jax et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]). Protection, or nature self-efficacy, included one's level of confidence in experientially navigating nature (e.g., awareness of plants or animals that could be of harm). In prior literature, activities in nature bolstered both self-esteem (Dyg & Wistoff, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>]) and self-efficacy (Margalit & Ben-Ari, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>]). We theorized that those who viewed themselves as part of nature may have greater familiarity and comfort in navigating natural landscapes, thus visiting nature with greater frequency for health and wellness purposes.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-5">Spirituality and Community Connectedness</hd> <p>The perceived quality of nature experiences might also be important in facilitating wellness (Keenan et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; Richardson, Hamlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]; Richardson, Passmore et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref34">45</reflink>]). Awe-inspiring nature experiences, for example, may bring people into greater connection with conceptions of spirituality (Kamitsis & Francis, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>]). Spending time with others around natural settings facilitated stronger group cohesion (Baklien et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]), and the presence of nature in quasi-experimental settings positively affected feelings of generosity (Guéguen & Stefan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]). As in the original conceptualization of ecowellness (Reese & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>]), transcendence included concepts of <emph>community connectedness</emph> (e.g., feeling more connected with others and around nature) and <emph>spirituality</emph> (e.g., experiencing a stronger connection with one's values or conception of higher power in nature).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-6">EcoWellness Factor Structure and Convergent Validity Evidence</hd> <p>The delineation of the ecowellness construct into three theorized higher order domains and seven corresponding lower order facets contributed to a hypothesized hierarchical construct. We developed the 61-item EcoWellness Inventory (EI-61; Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]) to operationalize and examine the proposed higher order ecowellness factor structure inclusive of three higher order factors (access, environmental identity, and transcendence) and their corresponding proposed seven lower order factors (physical access, sensory access, connection, protection, preservation, community connectedness, and spirituality). However, the proposed higher order factor structure of ecowellness demonstrated poor model fit indices, possibly on account of high model-based correlations (near or above.80) across several of the seven proposed lower level factors (i.e., sensory access, physical access, spirituality, and connection). Next, we ran a principal axis EFA wherein the seven proposed lower level factors accounted for 73.4% of the variance in ecowellness. A subsequent CFA of the seven factor model demonstrated acceptable model fit indices (CFI =.97; RMSEA =.06 SRMR =.08) (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]). We concluded that the EI-61 required additional testing, and noted concerns for possible redundancy within items given the high model-based correlations across several of the EI-61 subscales (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Since its initial publication, we studied the EI-61 for convergent validity evidence. We (Reese & Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]) investigated relationships between the EI-61 and the Five Factor Wellness Inventory, a measure that operationalizes the IS-Wel (Hattie et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]). Using multivariate canonical correlation, we identified two interpretable functions, with the first function suggesting that the protection and preservation factors of ecowellness had the strongest effects on the function relating to the coping self, creative self, and physical self of the IS-Wel. The second function possessed strong spirituality components, with the spirituality domain having a strong effect on the essential self domain of wellness. We (Holden et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>]) also measured the extent to which facets of mindfulness, naturalness (i.e., the degree of how natural something is), and personality predicted ecowellness. The mindfulness facets of observing and describing and the personality factors of extraversion, agreeableness, and openness all significantly predicted ecowellness. Additionally, having a broad definition of nature (i.e., naturalness) significantly predicted ecowellness. We (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>]) also demonstrated generation and sex-based differences of ecowellness across the lifespan. Findings are generally consistent with prior studies wherein identifying as female and later in the lifespan typically coincides with measurements of greater nature connectedness (Haluza et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-7">Study Focus</hd> <p>Despite the potential utility and convergent validity evidence of the EI-61, several issues remain with the assessment. First, several subscales of the EI-61 correlated near or above.80 (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>]), which makes it difficult to argue that the factors are, in fact, distinct. Second, the 61-item length and factor structure of the assessment limits both its clinical utility and interpretability. Third, when recently setting out to further study the validity of the EI-61 in exploring relationships between the EI-61 and hypothetically related measures, we ran into issues related to poor model fit when predicting hypothetically related wellness outcomes. Collectively, these concerns necessitated the exploration of alternative brief EI formats which might exhibit stronger model fit and fewer items, thus expanding the possible usefulness of the assessment in counseling and research settings. We investigated the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is the seven-factor structure of the EI-61 replicable?</item> <p></p> <item> Can the EI-61 be revised to reduce redundancy in factor structure and measure length while improving model fit?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the alternative factor structure of the EI-61 demonstrate initial convergent validity with hypothetically related assessments?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0159762656-8">Method</hd> <p>We examined our research questions in three studies. In Study 1, we conducted EFA's on the 61-item EI using data from two convenience samples. After identifying an alternative factor structure in Study 1, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on a brief form of the EI-61, which we call the EI-15, in Study 2. In Study 2, we performed CFA's of different forms of the EI. In Study 3, we explored convergent validity of a brief form of the EI and the hypothetically related measures of resilience, self-esteem, self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, global well-being, and personality. We included these potentially related constructs in Study 3 based on findings from previous literature wherein ecowellness and similar constructs (e.g., nature relatedness and nature connectedness) were positively associated with holistic wellness, resilience, and other indicators related to well-being (Dyg & Wistoff, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]; Holden et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]; Margalit & Ben-Ari, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>]; Marselle et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]; Reese & Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>]; Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>]) and negatively associated with factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression (Annerstedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]; Bratman et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-9">Study 1 – Exploratory Factor Analysis of the EI–61</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159762656-10">Participants</hd> <p>We recruited two samples of US adults to complete the EI-61 and a brief demographics survey. We collected Sample 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 749) data in fall 2012 from the research clearinghouse, researchmatch.org, to determine the original seven-factor structure of the 61-item EI (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]), and we reanalyzed those data in the present study. Participant race/ethnicity data from Sample 1 were representative of the ResearchMatch.org population at the time of data collection (Researchmatch.org, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]). We collected Sample 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 743) data in fall 2018 and spring 2020 from Amazon MTurk, an online labor workforce. Table 1 includes demographic data for both Samples 1 and 2.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic Data for Samples 1, 2, 3, 2a, and 2 b.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Study 1</td><td>Study 2</td><td>Study 3</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sample 1</td><td>Sample 2*</td><td>Sample 3</td><td>Sample 2a</td><td>Sample 2b</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td char=".">749</td><td char=".">743</td><td char=".">300</td><td char=".">474</td><td char=".">193</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Age (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td /><td char=".">41.8(14.7)</td><td /><td char=".">34.8(10.2)</td><td /><td char=".">34.8(11.3)</td><td /><td char=".">47.8(10.8)</td><td /><td char=".">33.8(9.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%**</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%**</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">626</td><td char=".">83.6</td><td char=".">324</td><td char=".">43.6</td><td char=".">241</td><td char=".">80.3</td><td char=".">235</td><td char=".">49.6</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">31.6</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">113</td><td char=".">15.1</td><td char=".">418</td><td char=".">56.3</td><td char=".">53</td><td char=".">17.7</td><td char=".">238</td><td>0</td><td char=".">132</td><td char=".">68.4</td></tr><tr><td> Non-Binary</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td char=".">1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td> "Other"</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Race/Ethnicity</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%**</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%**</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td char=".">657</td><td char=".">87.7</td><td char=".">486</td><td char=".">65.4</td><td char=".">231</td><td char=".">77.0</td><td char=".">358</td><td char=".">70.0</td><td char=".">109</td><td char=".">57.0</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td char=".">37</td><td char=".">4.9</td><td char=".">161</td><td char=".">21.7</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">6.3</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">18.0</td><td char=".">64</td><td char=".">33.0</td></tr><tr><td> Latin American</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">1.7</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">3.9</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">2.7</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">5.0</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">4.6</td></tr><tr><td> Asian/Pacific Islander</td><td char=".">27</td><td char=".">3.6</td><td char=".">54</td><td char=".">7.3</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">7.7</td><td>0</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">1.5</td></tr><tr><td> South East Asian</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">3.0</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1.0</td></tr><tr><td> South Asian</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">2.0</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1.0</td></tr><tr><td> Native American</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">0.7</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">2.7</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">2.0</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.5</td></tr><tr><td> Middle Eastern</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1.5</td></tr><tr><td> "Other"</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td char=".">0.4</td><td>0</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">0.7</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">1.0</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.5</td></tr><tr><td> Missing</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td char=".">1</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *Sample 2 aggregated samples 2a and 2 b for the purposes of Study 1. **Participants in Samples 2a and 2b were permitted to select multiple race/ethnic identities. Thus, descriptive statistics will total greater than 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-11">Procedure</hd> <p>Upon IRB approval, we recruited participants in Sample 1 using researchmatch.org, a free clearinghouse for research volunteers in the United States. A sample of 853 participants (from a recruited sample size of 1,136; therefore, a 75.1% response rate) completed the EI-61 on Qualtrics for a chance to win a gift card. After the listwise removal of 104 cases with missing or incomplete data, 749 participants remained.</p> <p>We collected Sample 2 data (<emph>n</emph> = 743) via MTurk across two distinct data collections as part of a larger project that was preregistered via the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/nh68v/). However, the analyses presented here were conducted to further refine the EI-61 and were not preregistered. We analyzed data from the first collection (i.e., Sample 2a) in a previous study (Holden et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref58">50</reflink>]). However, data from the second collection (i.e., Sample 2 b) have not previously been published or analyzed. Additionally, we recruited Sample 2 b participants during the COVID-19 outbreak and assessments of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were included but not reported here. After IRB approval, we recruited participants on MTurk to complete the EI-61, demographic questions, and other measures in Qualtrics. We paid participants in Sample 2a $2.40 upon completion. Participants in Sample 2 b were paid $2.00 for their participation.</p> <p>Of the 550 participants recruited in Sample 2a, 515 cases were used. Of the 273 participants recruited in Sample 2 b, 228 cases were used. Across Sample 2, we removed cases using listwise deletion in instances where participants failed at least two of the three attention checks included in the questionnaire and by removing participants who failed a validity check asking them how seriously they took the study. More specifically, we embedded three attention checks throughout the survey (e.g., "If you are reading this, please select Strongly Agree"). One validity check question asked participants how seriously they took the study on a five-point scale. We only included the datasets of participants who indicated that they took the survey seriously, or very seriously. In addition, we removed the cases of participants with missing EI-61 and demographic data prior to data analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-12">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159762656-13">Demographic Questionnaire</hd> <p>Participants reported demographic data related to gender, racial identity, and age.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-14">EcoWellness Inventory (EI-61)</hd> <p>The EI-61 encompassed 61-items and participants answered items on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The scale addresses thoughts, emotions, and behaviors as they pertain to nature connection and correlates of wellness (e.g., "My access to nature makes me feel good). We scored subscales using a linear transformation with raw scores ranging on each subscale between 25 and 100. The seven subscales include the following: physical access (Sample 1α =.75; Sample 2α =.83) sensory access (Sample 1α =.88; Sample 2α =.91) connection (Sample 1α =.90; Sample 2α =.90), protection (Sample 1α =.69; Sample 2α =.69), preservation (Sample 1α =.77; Sample 2α =.78), spirituality (Sample 1α =.87; Sample 2α =.88), and community connectedness (Sample 1α =.86; Sample 2α =.87).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-15">Data Analyses</hd> <p>We conducted an EFA using SPSS Version 25.0 to explore potential factor structures of the EI-61 in two samples of the U.S. adult population. EFA involves iteratively testing the relationships among indicators of a construct to reveal latent structures (i.e., factors) therein. EFA can also be useful in eliminating statistically redundant or noncontributory items during scale construction. By performing an EFA on a set of indicators of a construct, removing indicators that fail to meet <emph>a priori</emph> suitability criteria, and then repeating this process on the reduced set of indicators, researchers can identify which indicators contribute to a model of a construct's latent structure. Typically, indicators with high factor loadings (e.g., >.50) and low cross-loadings are retained, while indicators with low factor loadings, high cross loadings, or high uniqueness are removed until a suitable factor structure is identified (Beavers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref59">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>We performed EFAs using principal axis factoring (PAF) with an oblique promax rotation method. PAF lacks the distributional assumptions made by other factor analysis techniques, and oblique rotations account for relationships between putative factors, so these approaches are often effective when studying psychological constructs like ecowellness that tend toward non-normality and significant interrelations among lower-level factors (Beavers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>]; Fabrigar et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref61">12</reflink>]). Prior to running each EFA, we used parallel analysis (PA) with PAF to determine how many factors to retain at each step (Hayton et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref62">18</reflink>]). For the purposes of consistency testing, all EFAs in the present study were first performed on data from Sample 1 until a suitable factor structure emerged that met the following <emph>a priori</emph> criteria: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) indicators loaded onto at least one factor with a loading of greater than.50, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>) indicators loaded strongly onto a single factor with at least two other indicators (i.e., a minimum number of three items per factor), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>) indicators had cross loadings no greater than half the loading onto their primary factor. After each round of analysis, we eliminated indicators failing to meet these criteria sequentially according to these criteria. Once we identified a stable factor structure in a set of items within Sample 1, we conducted an identical EFA on Sample 2 data. We repeated this process until a stable and identical factor structure emerged in both Sample 1 and Sample 2 with indicators that met all <emph>a priori</emph> suitability criteria.</p> <p>To check if the data met assumptions for EFA, we conducted preliminary analyses on each sample. Samples 1 and 2 exceeded sample size recommendations for exploratory factor analysis (i.e., <emph>n</emph> > 300; Beavers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]). Inter-item correlations among EI-61 items were slightly lower than the recommended cutoff for EFA (e.g., r >.30; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>]) in Sample 1 (<emph>r</emph> =.28) but surpassed this threshold in Sample 2 (<emph>r</emph> =.35). Shapiro-Wilks tests indicated that none of the EI-61 items met the test's stringent assumptions of normality, as expected; as mentioned previously, EFA and PAF techniques are robust to violation of normality, so we did not consider this problematic. EI-61 items did not exhibit multicollinearity, as evidenced by tolerance values ranging from.35 to.75 and VIF values ranging from 1.3 to 2.9 within items across both samples (Pett et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>]). Finally, EI-61 items were non-orthogonal, as indicated by statistically significant Bartlett's tests of sphericity in both samples (<emph>p</emph>'s <.01), and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values of sampling adequacy in Sample 1 (.95) and Sample 2 (.97) suggested that variance in item scores could be explained by an underlying factor structure. Table 2 includes a detailed comparison of sample characteristics alongside recommended criteria for EFA.</p> <p>Table 2. Study 1 Sample Characteristics and Suitability for Exploratory Factor Analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Sample 1</td><td>Sample 2</td><td>Recommendation</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Sample size (<italic>n</italic>)</td><td char=".">749</td><td char=".">743</td><td char=".">> 300</td></tr><tr><td>Mean correlation (<italic>r</italic>)</td><td char=".">.28</td><td char=".">.35</td><td char=".">>.30</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum Tolerance</td><td char=".">.38</td><td char=".">.35</td><td char=".">>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum VIF</td><td char=".">2.8</td><td char=".">2.9</td><td char=".">< 10</td></tr><tr><td>Bartlett's test of sphericity (<italic>p</italic>)</td><td char="."><.01</td><td char="."><.01</td><td char="."><.05</td></tr><tr><td>KMO value</td><td char=".">.95</td><td char=".">.97</td><td char=".">>.90</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> Recommended suitability criteria for EFA were adopted from Beavers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-16">Results</hd> <p>An initial PA of responses to all EI-61 items in Sample 1 indicated that an 11-factor solution best fit the data. Items failing to meet suitability criteria were removed one-by-one between each PA and EFA until a suitable factor structure emerged in Sample 1 data, at which point we replicated these analyses on Sample 2 data to see if an identical factor structure would emerge from the selected items. A detailed description of the item reduction process is available upon request from the corresponding author. Multiple factor structures meeting all (or most) <emph>a priori</emph> criteria were identified in Sample 1 data through this process, including a 6-factor solution explaining 49.0% of the variance in 34 items, a 4-factor solution explaining 46.5% of variance in 26 items, and a 3-factor solution explaining 49.0% of variance in 15 items. However, only the 3-factor solution replicated using data from Sample 2, explaining 50.1% of the cumulative variance in responses therein. This model included the subscales of <emph>environmental ecowellness</emph> (EI-61 items 35, 37, 43, 44, and 47), <emph>mental ecowellness</emph> (<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref70">49</reflink>, 51, 52, 53, and 55), and <emph>social ecowellness</emph> (<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref71">57</reflink>, 58, 60, 61, and 62). The items met all <emph>a priori</emph> criteria within both samples (Table 3). Factors had slight-to-moderate intercorrelations (<emph>r</emph>'s ranging from.36 to.74), adequate internal consistencies (α's ranging from.78 to.85), and, on average, each explained approximately one sixth of the total variance in responses (Table 4).</p> <p>Table 3. Study 1: Three Factor Model Derived From an Exploratory Factor Analysis of the EI–61.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Sample 1 (<italic>n</italic> = 749)</td><td>Sample 2 (<italic>n</italic> = 743)</td></tr><tr><td>Indicator</td><td>F.L.</td><td>Comm.</td><td>Uniq.</td><td>F.L.</td><td>Comm.</td><td>Uniq.</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Social EcoWellness</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> I feel a sense of community with others when together in nature.</td><td char=".">.62</td><td char=".">.47</td><td char=".">.53</td><td char=".">.61</td><td char=".">.52</td><td char=".">.48</td></tr><tr><td> Experiences with others in nature deepen my relationships with them.</td><td char=".">.70</td><td char=".">.55</td><td char=".">.45</td><td char=".">.77</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">.42</td></tr><tr><td> When in nature I am more giving to others.</td><td char=".">.70</td><td char=".">.55</td><td char=".">.45</td><td char=".">.86</td><td char=".">.60</td><td char=".">.40</td></tr><tr><td> I feel compassionate toward others when they are with me in nature.</td><td char=".">.91</td><td char=".">.71</td><td char=".">.29</td><td char=".">.66</td><td char=".">.54</td><td char=".">.46</td></tr><tr><td> When I am in nature, I find myself thinking about others in my life.</td><td char=".">.53</td><td char=".">.38</td><td char=".">.62</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">.50</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Environmental EcoWellness</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> I use renewable energy when I am able.</td><td char=".">.57</td><td char=".">.35</td><td char=".">.65</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">.34</td><td char=".">.66</td></tr><tr><td> I am concerned about climate change.</td><td char=".">.71</td><td char=".">.47</td><td char=".">.53</td><td char=".">.76</td><td char=".">.44</td><td char=".">.56</td></tr><tr><td> I feel strongly about an environmental cause.</td><td char=".">.81</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">.31</td><td char=".">.74</td><td char=".">.57</td><td char=".">.43</td></tr><tr><td> Having a positive impact on the health of the planet is important to me.</td><td char=".">.80</td><td char=".">.70</td><td char=".">.30</td><td char=".">.73</td><td char=".">.61</td><td char=".">.39</td></tr><tr><td> I make it a priority to recycle.</td><td char=".">.55</td><td char=".">.30</td><td char=".">.70</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">.27</td><td char=".">.73</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Mental EcoWellness</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> I feel connected to something bigger than myself when I am in nature.</td><td char=".">.59</td><td char=".">.37</td><td char=".">.63</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">.47</td><td char=".">.53</td></tr><tr><td> The stresses in my life seem to go away when I am in nature.</td><td char=".">.72</td><td char=".">.52</td><td char=".">.48</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char=".">.64</td><td char=".">.36</td></tr><tr><td> I go to nature to find peace.</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">.51</td><td char=".">.49</td><td char=".">.54</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">.50</td></tr><tr><td> My thoughts slow down when I am in nature.</td><td char=".">.65</td><td char=".">.41</td><td char=".">.59</td><td char=".">.73</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">.50</td></tr><tr><td> I experience a sense of privacy in nature.</td><td char=".">.54</td><td char=".">.37</td><td char=".">.63</td><td char=".">.67</td><td char=".">.44</td><td char=".">.56</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. F.L. = Factor Loading; Comm. = Communality; Uniq. = Uniqueness. Factor loadings are presented from the pattern matrix using promax rotation methods.</p> <p>Table 4. Study 1: Characteristics of, and Relationships Among, EI-15 Factors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Factor Correlations</td><td>Variance Explained (%)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td>Proportion</td><td>Cumulative</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>Skew</td><td>Kurtosis</td><td>α</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Sample 1</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(1) Social EcoWellness</td><td char=".">1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">77</td><td char=".">15.5</td><td>−0.75</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">.84</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Environmental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">.41</td><td char=".">1</td><td>–</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">80</td><td char=".">14.2</td><td>−0.97</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">.81</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Mental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">.68</td><td char=".">.36</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">49</td><td char=".">82</td><td char=".">13.9</td><td>−0.87</td><td char=".">1.30</td><td char=".">.79</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Sample 2</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(1) Social EcoWellness</td><td char=".">1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">76</td><td char=".">14.5</td><td>−0.34</td><td>−0.12</td><td char=".">.85</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Environmental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">.52</td><td char=".">1</td><td>–</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">83</td><td char=".">14.1</td><td>−0.81</td><td char=".">0.41</td><td char=".">.78</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Mental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">.74</td><td char=".">.55</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">50</td><td char=".">85</td><td char=".">12.4</td><td>−0.60</td><td>−0.15</td><td char=".">.83</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>. Pearson's <emph>r</emph> correlation coefficients were all statistically significant (<emph>p</emph>'s <.01). Individual items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (low scores) to 4 (high scores); factor scores are obtained by multiplying the averages of item scores in each factor by 25, for a total factor score ranging from 25 to 100.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-17">Discussion</hd> <p>Through PA and EFA using two separate samples, we reduced the 61-item EI to 15-items and three factors. Items retained in these factors appeared to reflect three broad dimensions of the ecowellness construct and all share an outward (i.e., transcendental) focus with natural environments to experience increased interconnection with others, care for nature, and mental restoration. One factor from the original validation study (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>]) was retained in its near original form (community connectedness), and items from three factors were removed entirely (physical access, sensory access, and connection). Notably, access to nature is either directly mentioned or inferred in ten out of the 15 items (e.g., "I go to nature to find peace"). Additionally, all items indirectly address connectedness with nature, but do so without explicitly referencing connection with nature (e.g., "I feel strongly about an environmental cause"). Thus, the semantic representation of the ecowellness construct was largely retained in the set of remaining items. In naming the three factors of the EI-15, we considered the actual item composition of the factor. Additionally, we identified subscale names that could be easily interpreted by both clinicians and clients in applied counseling settings.</p> <p> <emph>Social ecowellness</emph> closely mirrors the community connectedness factor in the 61-item EI (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref73">39</reflink>]). We eliminated just one item from the original subscale ("I feel connected to all of life when in nature"). Social ecowellness includes the propensity to experience emotional attunement and community with others in and around natural environments. Individuals scoring high on this factor report enhanced social cohesion, feelings of compassion toward others, and a deepening of important relationships while in nature.</p> <p> <emph>Environmental ecowellness</emph> includes items from both the protection and preservation factors of the EI-61. Specifically, we retained two items from the protection factor ("I use renewable energy when I'm able to" and "I am concerned about climate change") and three items from the preservation factor ("I feel strongly about an environmental cause," "Having a positive impact on the health of the planet is important to me," and "I make it a priority to recycle"). This factor comprises an action-orientation toward addressing environmental sustainability and climate change. Individuals scoring high on this subscale affirm attitudes and behaviors that evidence a commitment to environmental issues and overall ethic of care for nature.</p> <p> <emph>Mental ecowellness</emph> composes items originally within the spirituality factor of the EI-61. However, the removal of two items ("I gain clarity on my life's purpose" and "Walking in nature is a spiritual experience for me") resulted in less emphasis on spirituality within this subscale and a clear focus on mental health. <emph>Mental ecowellness</emph> is the expansion of self-concept to include and feel part of a larger whole in nature for reducing stress and achieving mental clarity and balance. Individuals scoring high on this subscale are more inclined to experience interconnectedness with nature and opportunities for stress reduction by way of slowing down cognitive processes, experiencing pleasant emotional states, and being at peace.</p> <p>In Study 1, we conclude that the EI-15 scores offer a replicable and sound factor structure that maintains the original intent and construct definition of ecowellness while eliminating redundancy. However, additional testing on the measure was necessary to confirm its factor structure, and therefore, its possible clinical and empirical utility.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-18">Study 2 – Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the EI-15</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159762656-19">Participants</hd> <p>Data used in Study 2 were aggregated from two independent samples of United States adults (<emph>n</emph>'s = 117 and 202) surveyed at different time points to run a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the original EI-61 items and will be referred to as Sample 3. Specifically, counselor educators and students from CACREP-accredited counseling programs participated in the study. After the listwise removal of 19 cases with missing or incomplete data, a sample of 300 remained. Table 1 includes demographic data for Sample 3.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-20">Procedure</hd> <p>Following IRB approval, we identified and contacted 431 CACREP liaisons to distribute a recruitment email to counselor educators and students within their counselor education programs. We invited participants to enroll in a broader study inquiring about self-care strategies and attitudes toward ecowellness in counselor education, in addition to completing items from the EI-61. Data collection for this study occurred in spring 2020 and spring 2021. As an incentive, participants could enter a drawing for a gift card. Between bounced (i.e., undeliverable) emails and some CACREP liasons indicating that their programs did not have CACREP accreditation at the time of the study, we estimated that approximately 375 CACREP liasons may have sent out our email invitation to counselor education program stakeholders across each of the two data collections. We made the following assumptions in estimating response rate: across the 375 CACREP programs, we estimated an average of five faculty members per CACREP-accredited program (i.e., 1,875 eligible faculty across programs recruited) and 50 students per program (i.e., 18,750 eligible students across programs recruited). Thus, we estimated the overall participant rate in Study 2 as 1.45%, making this a low participation rate sample.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-21">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159762656-22">Demographic Questionnaire</hd> <p>Participants completed demographic data related to gender, racial identity, and age.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-23">EI-61 and EI-15</hd> <p>We used items from the EI-61 to compare model fit parameters of the EI-61 and the EI-15 (i.e. we administered the EI-61 to participants without an additional administration of the EI-15). As reported in Study 1, the EI-61 includes seven factors. The EI-15 emerged in Study 1 and includes items taken from the EI-61. Items on both scales are answered on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). As with the EI-61, the EI-15 addresses thoughts, emotions, and behaviors as they pertain to nature connection and correlates of wellness. The three subscales identified in Study 1 for the EI-15 include social ecowellness, environmental ecowellness, and mental ecowellness. We scored subscales using a linear transformation with raw scores ranging on each subscale between 25 and 100. The internal consistency reliabilities of the EI-15 for this study ranged between.80 and.86 and are reported in Table 5.</p> <p>Table 5. Study 2: Standardized Factor Loadings of the Three-Factor EI-15.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Factor</td><td>Standardized Factor Loading</td><td>SE</td><td>z</td><td><italic>α</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Social EcoWellness</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">.86</td></tr><tr><td char=".">1. I feel a sense of community with others when together in nature.</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">2. Experiences with others in nature deepen my relationships with them.</td><td char=".">1.03</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">13.4</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">3. When in nature I am more giving to others.</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">12.7</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">4. I feel compassionate toward others when they are with me in nature.</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">14.0</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">5. When I am in nature, I find myself thinking about others in my life.</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">9.9</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Environmental EcoWellness</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td char=".">6. I use renewable energy when I am able.</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">7. I am concerned about climate change.</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">8.0</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">8. I feel strongly about an environmental cause.</td><td char=".">1.43</td><td char=".">.15</td><td char=".">9.5</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">9. Having a positive impact on the health of the planet is important to me.</td><td char=".">1.15</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">9.3</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">10. I make it a priority to recycle.</td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">.14</td><td char=".">7.5</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Mental EcoWellness</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">.84</td></tr><tr><td char=".">11. I feel connected to something bigger than myself when I am in nature.</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">12. The stresses in my life seem to go away when I am in nature.</td><td char=".">1.35</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">12.4</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">13. I go to nature to find peace.</td><td char=".">1.32</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char=".">12.7</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">14. My thoughts slow down when I am in nature.</td><td char=".">1.14</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char=".">11.3</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">15. I experience a sense of privacy in nature.</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">9.4</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. All <emph>p</emph>'s <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-24">Data Analyses</hd> <p>To test the reliability of the theoretical model of the three-factor ecowellness construct derived from previous EFA (see Study 1 above), we subjected responses to a modified 15-item version of the EI to confirmatory factor analyses using a maximum likelihood estimation method to determine model parameters. Using R Version 1.3.1073, we compared the three-factor model to a one-factor model as well as a seven-factor model representing the original factor structure of the EI-61 (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref74">39</reflink>]). We assessed goodness-of-fit using the following indices (and respective thresholds) for excellent fit: CFI ≥ 0.95, TLI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.06 (90% CI ≤ 0.06), and SRMR ≤ 0.08 (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-25">Results</hd> <p>Conservative Chi-squared tests comparing observed and expected model values were statistically significant for all three models, indicating that, under strict conditions, all the statistical models were discriminable from the actual structure of EI-61 and EI-15 responses. However, all remaining fit indices suggested that the data more closely converged to the three-factor model than the remaining models. CFI and TLI values exceeded the goodness-of-fit threshold of 0.95 for the three-factor model but ranged from.644 to.753 in the one- and seven-factor models. Similarly, the three-factor model produced a RMSEA of.044 (95% CI [.030,.058]) and a SRMR of.039, suitably lower than the recommended maximum values of.06 for model fit, while the RMSEA and SRMR of the one- and seven-factor models reflected poorer fit. Standardized factor loadings of EI-15 items that loaded onto the three-factor model are presented in Table 5. Figure 1 includes a path diagram for the three-factor model. The three factors were moderately correlated, with statistically significant (i.e., <emph>p</emph>'s <.01) Pearson's r values between factors of.36 (environmental and mental),.41 (environmental and social), and.65 (mental and social).</p> <p>DIAGRAM: Figure 1. Study 2: Path model of EI-15. Note. Factor intercorrelations are presented at the top of the diagram between three latent factors composing the EI-15: Environmental EcoWellness, Mental EcoWellness, and Social EcoWellness; standardized factor loadings are presented in the middle of the diagram with path arrows connecting each factor to observed EI-61 items; finally, error variances are presented at the bottom of the diagram for each observed variable.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-26">Discussion</hd> <p>In Study 2, the seven and one factor models of ecowellness of the EI-61 demonstrated poor to marginal indices of model fit. In contrast, the EI-15 demonstrated excellent model fit across indices, suggesting that the EI-15 is a structurally sound and strong measure of ecowellness. Additionally, the subscales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliabilities and moderate correlations. We conclude in Study 2 that the EI-15 has potential use in ecowellness counseling assessment and research, though additional confirmation of its factor structure is needed wherein only the EI-15 is administered to participants.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-27">Study 3 – Associations With the EI-15</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159762656-28">Participants</hd> <p>We analyzed Samples 2a and 2 b (i.e., the two samples that composed Sample 2 used for the parallel analysis EFA in Study 1) for the purpose of Study 3. As mentioned, Samples 2a and 2 b spanned two data collections via Amazon MTurk. Table 1 provides a breakdown of demographic data for both Samples 2a and 2 b.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-29">Procedure</hd> <p>We reported participant recruitment procedures for these samples in Study 1. Although we recruited a total of 550 participants in Sample 2a, we used a final sample of 474 participants for analysis. We recruited a sample of 273 participants for Sample 2 b. However, we conducted analyses on a sample of 193 participants. The reduction in sample sizes in both samples came from removing participants who we considered outliers on any measure in the questionnaire (i.e., deleted listwise at a value of 3 standard deviations above the mean). Additionally, we excluded the cases of participants who failed the attention check and validity check questions (as described in Study 1).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-30">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159762656-31">Demographic Questionnaire</hd> <p>Participants completed demographic data related to gender, racial identity, and age.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-32">EI-15</hd> <p>We investigated the EI-15 factor structure in Study 1 and confirmed it in Study 2. As previously described, the EI-15 is a 15-item measure used to assess a respondent's connection with nature, with particular attention to environmental ecowellness, social ecowellness, and mental ecowellness. Items on the EI-15 are answered on a 4-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). For Study 3 in Sample 2a, the subscales of the EI had internal consistency of α =.80 (environmental ecowellness), α =.86 (mental ecowellness), and α =.88 (social ecowellness). Sample 2 b had lower alphas of α =.69 (environmental ecowellness), α =.66 (mental ecowellness), and α =.70 (social ecowellness).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-33">Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>We measured self-efficacy in Sample 2a using the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>]), which is a 10-item scale using a 4-point Likert-type response scale with responses ranging from 1 – not at all true to 4 – exactly true. Participants indicated the degree to which they agreed with statements like "I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough." We calculated the total score by finding the sum of all the items. For the current study, GSE produced an internal consistency of α =.90</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-34">Resilience</hd> <p>We measured resilience in Sample 2a using the 28-item Resilience Research Centre Adult Resilience Measure (RRC-ARM; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>]), which is a five-point Likert-type scale where answers ranged from 1 – not at all to 5 – a lot. Participants used this scale to indicate the degree to which they identify with statements such as "I feel supported by my friends" and "I know where to get help in my community." For the current study, we used the sum RRC-ARM score, which produced an internal consistency of α =.93.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-35">Self-Esteem</hd> <p>In Sample 2a, we measured self-esteem using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref78">46</reflink>]). This is a ten-item measure assessing global self-esteem and contains items such as: "I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on equal plane with others." Responses were made on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale. We summed items to generate a total score on the RSES. The internal consistency for the RSES scores in this study was α =.91.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-36">GAD-7</hd> <p>In Sample 2 b, we measured general anxiety using the GAD-7 total score (Spitzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref79">49</reflink>]). The seven-item measure assesses symptoms of general anxiety. Participants endorsed the extent to which they experienced symptoms of anxiety (e.g., "feeling nervous, anxious or on edge") over the last two weeks. Responses were made on a 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) scale. Total score is calculated by adding each of the seven items. The larger the score, the greater a respondent's anxiety. The internal consistency for the GAD-7 scores in this study was α =.92.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-37">PHQ-9</hd> <p>We used the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]) to measure depression in Sample 2 b. Respondents answered nine questions related to symptoms of depression (e.g., "feeling down, depressed, or hopeless") they had experienced in the past two weeks. Participants rated each item on a 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) scale. Items are summed to generate a total score on the PHQ-9. The internal consistency for the PHQ-9 scores in this study was α =.88.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-38">WHO-Five</hd> <p>We assessd global well-being in Sample 2 b using the WHO-Five (Heun et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref81">19</reflink>]). Participants rated 5-items (e.g., "I have felt cheerful and in good spirits") based on the past two weeks, rating each item on a scale of 0 (at no time) to 5 (all of the time). We summed items to generate a total score on the Who-Five. Internal consistency for the WHO-Five scores in this study was α =.86.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-39">HEXACO</hd> <p>In Sample 2 b, we measured personality using the HEXACO-PI-R (Ashton & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>]). This is a 60-item measure assessing the traits of honesty-humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness (O). Respondents provided answers on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." We aggregated participants' responses across items to create an average score for each of the six traits (i.e., ten items for each trait). The internal consistency for the subscales representing the six factors of the HEXACO were Hα =.84, Eα =.77, Xα =.83, Aα =.83, Cα =.82, and Oα =.79.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-40">Results</hd> <p>To explore connections between the EI-15 and a variety of relevant outcomes, we conducted a series of bivariate correlations in Samples 2a and 2 b. For the sake of clarity, we discuss these correlations together. However, the correlation tables (Tables 6 and 7) indicate in which sample we measured each outcome.</p> <p>Table 6. Study 3: Descriptive Statistics of Variables and Correlations Between the EI–15, Resilience, and Self-Esteem in Sample 2a.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">6</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">1. Environmental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">.80</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">2. Mental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">.39***</td><td char=".">.86</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">3. Social EcoWellness</td><td char=".">.34***</td><td char=".">.65***</td><td char=".">.88</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">4. Resiliency</td><td char=".">.18**</td><td char=".">.28***</td><td char=".">.31***</td><td char=".">.93</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">5. Self-esteem</td><td char=".">.17***</td><td char=".">.24***</td><td char=".">.16***</td><td char=".">.61***</td><td char=".">.91</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">6. Self-efficacy</td><td char=".">.21***</td><td char=".">.32***</td><td char=".">.23<sup>****</sup></td><td char=".">.52***</td><td char=".">.62***</td><td char=".">.90</td></tr><tr><td> Mean</td><td char=".">79.63</td><td char=".">83.16</td><td char=".">75.60</td><td char=".">107.13</td><td char=".">3.74</td><td char=".">31.80</td></tr><tr><td> SD</td><td char=".">14.49</td><td char=".">14.03</td><td char=".">16.03</td><td char=".">16.73</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td char=".">4.37</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 ***<emph>p</emph> <.001. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> <item>7 <emph>Note.</emph> Study 3 subscale and scale internal consistency reliability coefficients (i.e., Cronbach's α) are located on the diagonal.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 7. Study 3: Descriptive Statistics of Variables and Correlations Between the EI–15, Personality, Well-Being, Depression, and Anxiety in Sample 2b.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">12</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">1. Environmental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">81.34</td><td char=".">12.23</td><td char=".">.69</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">2. Mental EcoWellness</td><td char=".">81.11</td><td char=".">11.13</td><td char=".">.55***</td><td char=".">.66</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">3. Social EcoWellness</td><td char=".">79.72</td><td char=".">12.45</td><td char=".">51***</td><td char=".">.63***</td><td char=".">.70</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">4. Honesty-humility</td><td char=".">2.95</td><td char=".">0.45</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.15*</td><td char=".">.29***</td><td char=".">.84</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">5. Emotionality</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td char=".">0.40</td><td char=".">.15*</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.06</td><td>-.12</td><td char=".">.77</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">6. Extraversion</td><td char=".">3.23</td><td char=".">0.45</td><td char=".">.29***</td><td char=".">.22**</td><td char=".">.33***</td><td char=".">.01</td><td>-.10</td><td char=".">.83</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">7. Agreeableness</td><td char=".">3.28</td><td char=".">0.38</td><td char=".">.21**</td><td char=".">.15*</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.37***</td><td>-.17*</td><td char=".">.17*</td><td char=".">.83</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">8. Conscientiousness</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.03</td><td>-.24**</td><td char=".">.45***</td><td>-.12</td><td char=".">.21**</td><td char=".">.20**</td><td char=".">.82</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">9. Openness</td><td char=".">3.20</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char=".">.22**</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.36***</td><td>-.12</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">.24***</td><td char=".">.38***</td><td char=".">.79</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">10. Well-being</td><td char=".">14.69</td><td char=".">5.47</td><td>-.05</td><td>-.07</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.11</td><td>-.10</td><td char=".">.22**</td><td char=".">.08</td><td>-.01</td><td>-.04</td><td char=".">.86</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">11. Depression</td><td char=".">11.95</td><td char=".">7.07</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.15*</td><td char=".">.28***</td><td>−52***</td><td char=".">.13</td><td>-.13</td><td>-.16*</td><td>-.51</td><td>-.40***</td><td char=".">.33***</td><td char=".">.88</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">12. Anxiety</td><td char=".">9.11</td><td char=".">5.74</td><td char=".">.12</td><td char=".">.20**</td><td char=".">.30***</td><td>−52***</td><td char=".">.14*</td><td>-.06</td><td>-.18*</td><td>-.51</td><td>-.44***</td><td char=".">.27***</td><td char=".">.91***</td><td char=".">.92</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 ***<emph>p</emph> <.001. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> <item>9 <emph>Note</emph>. Study 3 subscale and scale internal consistency reliability coefficients (i.e., Cronbach's α) are located on the diagonal.</item> </ulist> <p>Across Samples 2a and 2 b, the three facets of the EI-15 (i.e., environmental ecowellness, social ecowellness, and mental ecowellness) were positively correlated with each other. However, none of these correlations were above <emph>r</emph> =.65. Additionally, each of the three facets were significantly correlated with resiliency, self-esteem and self-efficacy. Environmental ecowellness was positively correlated with the personality domains of emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness. Mental ecowellness was positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, depression, and anxiety but negatively associated with honesty-humility. Finally, social ecowellness was positively associated with extraversion, depression, and anxiety, but negatively associated with honesty-humility and conscientiousness.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-41">Discussion</hd> <p>In Sample 2a, we found that those who scored higher across the ecowellness traits tended to report greater resilience, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. We anticipated these relationships given that prior research linked nature contact and connection with indicators of resilience (Marselle et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref83">29</reflink>]), self-esteem (Dyg & Wistoff, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref84">9</reflink>]), and self-efficacy (Margalit & Ben-Ari, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref85">28</reflink>]). Taken together, these correlations suggest that each of the three facets of the EI-15 may be independently useful in assessing connections between ecowellness and various outcomes.</p> <p>Sample 2 b results painted a more complicated picture between ecowellness and hypothetically related constructs. First, we anticipated that several facets of personality would be positively associated with ecowellness, based on prior work that has found positive associations between ecowellness and honesty-humility, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness (Holden et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref86">50</reflink>]). Whereas several similar relationship patterns held in this study, we also observed negative relationships between mental ecowellness and honesty-humility and between social ecowellness and conscientiousness. In addition, the positive relationships between anxiety and depression with social and mental ecowellness were unexpected. These findings conflicted with research suggesting that nature contact can serve as a protective factor against the development of mental health disorders (Engemann et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref87">10</reflink>]) and depression specifically (Bezold et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref88">5</reflink>]). Lastly, we found no relationship between ecowellness and general well-being. This finding is particularly astonishing given that we (Reese & Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref89">42</reflink>]) previously found significant relationships between factors of ecowellness and multiple domains of holistic wellness. It is possible that ecowellness simply did not have positive effects within Sample 2 b. Additional research is needed to determine whether ecowellness is useful only to a certain degree in promoting overall well-being and mitigating mental health symptoms.</p> <p>In Study 3, we conclude that the EI-15 possessed some evidence for convergent validity with related measures (e.g., resilience, self-efficacy, and self-esteem) in Sample 2a, but we interpret Sample 2 b findings with caution for several reasons. First, we collected Sample 2 b data during the Covid-19 pandemic, which may have influenced responses. Generally, we anticipated lower respondent ecowellness scores during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the mean scores across the ecowellness factors tended to be higher in Sample 2 b than in Sample 2a. A possible limitation of the EI-15 is that it may not detect <emph>state</emph> changes of ecowellness. The included items have a stronger emphasis on a respondent's lifestyle for experiencing ecowellness with less focus on the immediate experience of ecowellness (i.e., it is acting as a trait measure of ecowellness). People who have clear ecowellness tendencies may continue to maintain those preferences (i.e., even during a pandemic), thus impeding our ability to measure any possible changes in state ecowellness. This might serve as one possible explanation for the positive relationships between social and mental ecowellness with depression and anxiety within Sample 2 b.</p> <p>Moreover, mean depression scores for Sample 2 b fell within the category of "moderate depression" (Kroenke et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref90">25</reflink>]) and mean GAD-7 scores fell within the "mild" general anxiety category (Spitzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref91">49</reflink>]). Researchers previously found inflated mental health symptoms (e.g., major depression) in two samples of MTurk workers (Ophir et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref92">33</reflink>]). They suggested that inattentive and fake responses artificially increased depression rates, but even after removing the presumed fake responses, high rates of depression remained when they compared the MTurk samples to general population data. Lastly, participants in Sample 2 b may have inconsistently responded to EcoWellness items across subscales in comparison to Sample 2a, evidenced by relatively low internal consistency reliabilities. Collectively, these concerns bring into question the veracity of Sample 2 b findings; additional study is needed to clarify the degree to which the EI-15 subscales are associated with personality traits, depression, anxiety, and global well-being.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-42">General Discussion</hd> <p>We (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref93">39</reflink>]) developed the EI-61 for assessing the human-nature connection as part of holistic wellness in research and counseling settings. However, the EI-61's utility in applied settings has been limited given its length, large number of factors, and highly correlated subscales. With just three factors, strong model fit indices, and initial convergent validity evidence, the EI-15 provides a usable tool for assessing the human-nature connection in counseling and future research.</p> <p>The three factor structure of the EI-15 represents items from the original protection, preservation, community connectedness, and spirituality factors of the EI-61. In contrast, we dropped items from physical access, sensory access, and connection entirely. Interestingly, these three factors correlated with one another and the spirituality factor at or above.80 in our original validation study of the EI-61 (Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref94">39</reflink>]), possibly suggesting that the items within these particular facets assessed redundant traits as the items retained in the EI-15. Prior research suggested that the factors dropped from the EI-15 may contribute to an individual's experience of ecowellness. Time spent in nature had significant implications for physical and mental wellbeing (White et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref95">54</reflink>]). Accessing nature through one's visual and auditory senses demonstrated unconscious impacts on both stress reduction (Annerstedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>]) as well as attention restoration processes (Lackey et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref97">26</reflink>]). Additionally, perceptions of nature connectedness positively contributed to greater perceptions of wellness (Capaldi et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref98">8</reflink>]). Thus, additional research is needed to clarify how issues pertaining to access and connection with nature contribute to the development of ecowellness.</p> <p>While additional research is needed in exploring the construct and convergent validity of the EI-15, we believe counselors are uniquely equipped to help clients address ecowellness as part of holistic wellness. A growing body of research identified the importance of purposeful nature experiences (i.e., outdoor activities crafted with a specific therapeutic intent) in promoting indicators related to health and wellness. In these studies, activities such as watching and listening to aspects of nature contributed to greater nature connectedness (Richardson, Hamlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref99">44</reflink>]) and perceived mental health and well-being (Richardson, Passmore et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref100">45</reflink>]) above and beyond the amount of time spent in a natural setting. Similarly, the retained factor structure of the EI-15 suggests that to wholly benefit from nature contact, an individual must develop practices for achieving mental restoration in nature (i.e., mental ecowellness), an ethic of care for the natural world (i.e., environmental ecowellness), and engage in meaningful relationships with others in natural environments (i.e., social ecowellness).</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-43">Limitations</hd> <p>Our study has several limitations. Whereas one possible strength of our approach was that we replicated the EI-15 factor structure across multiple samples with varying ethnic and gender composition, our participants were not representative of the population in the United States. Relatedly, across studies, we used listwise deletion of incomplete cases. While this procedure can result in lost information, the data removed were primarily demographic, and we retained adequate sample sizes despite our decision to purge cases. Moreover, our response rate was low in Sample 3 (i.e., counselor education stakeholders), and we could not calculate a response rate in Sample 2 (i.e., MTurk workers), further impacting our ability to generalize our findings to a specific adult population. Second, in confirming the factor structure of the EI-15 in Study 2, participants completed the EI-61 in its entirety. Thus, given that participants might approach the EI-15 differently than the EI-61, it is possible that our inferences about the psychometric properties of the EI-15 might be attributable to the influence of the remaining items of the EI-61. Third, data within Sample 2 b in Study 3 were collected during the Covid-19 pandemic and findings conflict with prior research. Thus, additional research is needed to explore whether these findings are replicable outside a global pandemic or whether the relationships identified between the EI-15 and hypothetically related assessments were an artifact of this sample.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-44">Future Counseling Research</hd> <p>Confirmation of the EI-15 factor structure and replication of Study 3 (i.e., comparing the EI-15 with hypothetically related constructs) with representative samples of the United States population are necessary next steps in exploring the assessment's validity. Researchers should additionally investigate the utility of the EI-15 within counseling settings, particularly in clarifying whether developing scoring thresholds might add to the interpretation of scores. Moreover, researchers developing and studying nature-based counseling interventions may find the framework useful as it provides the ability to identify measurable, intermediate counseling objectives (i.e., improving the different facets of ecowellness) that can be linked with desired counseling outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-45">Implications for Counseling Practice</hd> <p>Counselors can administer and score the EI-15 in a matter of minutes. Given the novelty of the assessment and the lack of interpretation guidelines, clinicians should not subjectively interpret EI-15 scores. Rather, subscale scores can initiate dialogue with clients to inform treatment. For example, a client presenting with symptoms of depression or anxiety may decide that they would like to address mental ecowellness as part of their broader treatment plan. In cases where counselors are unable to administer the EI-15, they might consider informally asking questions from the assessment during intake processes.</p> <p>Organizations using nature-based counseling might also use the assessment as a screening tool to reduce the likelihood of counselors imposing their own nature worldview onto clients when addressing ecowellness. Whereas some clients might score low in some areas of ecowellness with the specific desire to address ecowellness in counseling, other clients might score low because of a lack of perceived interest or relevance. Thus, counselors might ask additional questions when administering the EI-15 to gauge the relevance and desirability of incorporating ecowellness in counseling. The following questions (though they have not been empirically evaluated) might be used:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How relevant is (social/environmental/mental) ecowellness to your overall wellness?</item> <p></p> <item> In the past two weeks what has been your overall satisfaction with your (social/environmental/mental) ecowellness.</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent would you like to address (social/environmental/mental) ecowellness as part of counseling?</item> </ulist> <p>We caution counselors against going outdoors with clients without proper training, expertise, and clear risk management procedures. Significant ethical and legal concerns exist for meeting with clients outdoors, including concerns about physical safety, client confidentiality, and maintaining appropriate boundaries (Reese, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref101">40</reflink>]). Relatively few counselor preparation programs offer specialized training in nature-based counseling approaches, and professional and training standards have yet to be developed within the profession. Thus, without leaving the office, the EI-15 enables counselors across settings to address ecowellness as part of counseling.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-46">Conclusion</hd> <p>We (Reese et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref102">39</reflink>]) developed the EI-61 to operationalize the ecowellness construct. Despite some validity evidence (Reese & Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref103">42</reflink>]), multiple issues with the assessment (i.e., length and high correlations between subscales) led us to exploring a factor structure of a shortened version of the EI with fewer items and associated factors. Our studies of the EI-15 provide initial evidence for a structurally sound and replicable three-factor structure of ecowellness. Additional validation studies of the EI-15 are needed, but we conclude that this tool may be useful in assessing the human-nature connection in professional counseling and research settings.</p> <hd id="AN0159762656-47">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>Ryan Reese is the founder and owner of EcoWellness Counseling & Consulting LLC, a company that integrates the natural environment into counseling and therapy.</p> <ref id="AN0159762656-48"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Annerstedt, M., Jönsson, P., Wallergård, M., Johansson, G., Karlson, B., Grahn, P., Hansen, Å., & Währborg, P. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest-results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 240 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref64" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91 (4), 340 – 345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref36" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baklien, B., Ytterhus, B., & Bongaardt, R. (2016). When everyday life becomes a storm on the horizon: families' experiences of good mental health while hiking in nature. Anthropology & Medicine, 23 (1), 42 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2015.1056056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref59" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18 (6), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.7275/qv2q-rk76</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bezold, C. P., Banay, R. F., Coull, B. A., Hart, J. E., James, P., Kubzansky, L. D., Missmer, S. A., & Laden, F. (2018). The relationship between surrounding greenness in childhood and adolescence and depressive symptoms in adolescence and early adulthood. Annals of Epidemiology, 28 (4), 213 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.01.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112 (28), 8567 – 8572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref98" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Capaldi, C., Dopko, R., & Zelenski, J. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (975), 976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref30" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dyg, P. M., & Wistoff, K. (2018). Wellbeing in school gardens – The case of the Gardens for Bellies food and environmental education program. Environmental Education Research, 24 (8), 1177 – 1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1434869</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engemann, K., Pedersen, C. B., Arge, L., Tsirogiannis, C., Mortensen, P. B., & Svenning, J. C. (2019). Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (11), 5188 – 5193. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807504116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ernst, J., & Burcak, F. (2019). Young children's contributions to sustainability: The influence of nature play on curiosity, executive function skills, creative thinking, and resilience. Sustainability, 11 (15), 4212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr, Lawler, J. J., Levin, P. S., Tandon, P. S., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K. L., & Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125 (7), 075001 https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenleaf, A. T., Bryant, R. M., & Pollock, J. B. (2014). Nature-based counseling: Integrating the healing benefits of nature into practice. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 36 (2), 162 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-013-9198-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guéguen, N., & Stefan, J. (2016). "Green altruism:" Short immersion in natural green environments and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48 (2), 324 – 342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514536576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haluza, D., Simic, S., Höltge, J., Cervinka, R., & Moshammer, H. (2014). Connectedness to nature and public (skin) health perspectives: Results of a representative, population-based survey among Austrian residents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11 (1), 1176 – 1191. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110101176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. A., Myers, J. E., & Sweeney, T. J. (2004). A factor structure of wellness: Theory, assessment, analysis, and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82 (3), 354 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00321.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7 (2), 191 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heun, R., Bonsignore, M., Barkow, K., & Jessen, F. (2001). Validity of the five-item WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in an elderly population. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 251 (S2), 27 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03035123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holden, C., Reese, R. F., & Seitz, C. (2020). Naturalness, personality traits, and mindfulness predict ecowellness: Implications for counseling practice. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 42 (4), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-020-09414-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hrabok, M., Delorme, A., & Agyapong, V. I. (2020). Threats to mental health and well-being associated with climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 76 (102295), 102295 – 102295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jax, K., Calestani, M., Chan, K. M., Eser, U., Keune, H., Muraca, B., O'Brien, L., Potthast, T., Voget-Kleschin, L., & Wittmer, H. (2018). Caring for nature matters: A relational approach for understanding nature's contributions to human well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 22 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamitsis, I., & Francis, A. J. (2013). Spirituality mediates the relationship between engagement with nature and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 136 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keenan, R., Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2021). Three good things in nature: A nature-based positive psychological intervention to improve mood and well-being for depression and anxiety. Journal of Public Mental Health, 20 (4), 243 – 250. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-02-2021-0029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16 (9), 606 – 613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lackey, N. Q., Tysor, D. A., McNay, G. D., Joyner, L., Baker, K. H., & Hodge, C. (2021). Mental health benefits of nature-based recreation: A systematic review. Annals of Leisure Research, 24 (3), 379 – 393. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2019.1655459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madzia, J., Ryan, P., Yolton, K., Percy, Z., Newman, N., LeMasters, G., & Brokamp, C. (2019). Residential greenspace association with childhood behavioral outcomes. The Journal of Pediatrics, 207, 233 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.10.061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Margalit, D., & Ben-Ari, A. (2014). The effect of wilderness therapy on adolescents' cognitive autonomy and self-efficacy: Results of a non-randomized trial. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43 (2), 181 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9234-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marselle, M. R., Warber, S. L., & Irvine, K. N. (2019). Growing resilience through interaction with nature: Can group walks in nature buffer the effects of stressful life events on mental health? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (6), 986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McSweeney, J., Rainham, D., Johnson, S. A., Sherry, S. B., & Singleton, J. (2015). Indoor nature exposure (INE): A health-promotion framework. Health Promotion International, 30 (1), 126 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moens, M. A., Weeland, J., Beute, F., Assink, M., Staaks, J. P., & Overbeek, G. (2019). A dose of nature: Two three-level meta-analyses of the beneficial effects of exposure to nature on children's self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65 (101326), 101326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12 (2), 303 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ophir, Y., Sisso, I., Asterhan, C. S., Tikochinski, R., & Reichart, R. (2020). The Turker blues: Hidden factors behind increased depression rates among Amazon's Mechanical Turkers. Clinical Psychological Science, 8 (1), 65 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619865973</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pett, M., Lackey, N., & Sullivan, J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Researchmatch.org. (2012). National Enrollment. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.researchmatch.org/">www.researchmatch.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resilience Research Centre Adult Resilience Measure. (RRC-ARM). (2013). User's manual for the Resilience Research Centre-Adult Resilience Measure (RRC-ARM). Dalhousie University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, R. F. (2013). EcoWellness: Construction and validation of the Reese ecowellness inventory. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (UMI 3568902).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, R. F. (2016). EcoWellness and guiding principles for the ethical integration of nature into counseling. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 38 (4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-016-9276-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, R. F., & Lewis, T. F. (2019). Greening counseling: Examining multivariate relationships between ecowellness and holistic wellness. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 58 (1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, R. F., Lewis, T. F., & Kothari, B. (2020). Nature connection changes throughout the lifespan: Generation and sex-based differences in EcoWellness. Adultspan Journal, 19 (2), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/adsp.12098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, R. F., Lewis, T. F., Myers, J. E., Wahesh, E., & Iversen, R. (2014). Nature relatedness and holistic wellness: An exploratory study. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 53 (1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2014.00050.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, R. F., & Myers, J. E. (2012). Ecowellness: The missing factor in holistic wellness models. Journal of Counseling and Development, 90 (4), 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00050.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, R. F., Myers, J. E., Lewis, T. F., & Willse, J. T. (2015). Construction and initial validation of the Reese Ecowellness Inventory. International Journal for the Enhancement of Counselling, 37 (2), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-014-9232-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, M., Hamlin, I., Butler, C. W., Thomas, R., & Hunt, A. (2021). Actively noticing nature (not just time in nature) helps promote nature connectedness. Ecopsychology, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2021.0023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, M., Passmore, H. A., Lumber, R., Thomas, R., & Hunt, A. (2021). Moments, not minutes: The nature-wellbeing relationship. International Journal of Wellbeing, 11 (1), 8 – 33. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i1.1267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35 – 37). NFER-NELSON.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, D. G., Martinelli, R., Besra, G. S., Illarionov, P. A., Szatmari, I., Brazda, P., Allen, M. A., Xu, W., Wang, X., Nagy, L., Dowell, R. D., Rook, G. A. W., Rosa Brunet, L., & Lowry, C. A. (2019). Identification and characterization of a novel anti-inflammatory lipid isolated from Mycobacterium vaccae, a soil-derived bacterium with immunoregulatory and stress resilience properties. Psychopharmacology, 236 (5), 1653 – 1670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-019-05253-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166 (10), 1092 – 1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swank, J. M., & Reese, R. F. (2021). Do counselors and other helping professionals use nature-based counseling? Advance online publication. The Journal of Creativity in Mental Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2021.1911725</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swank, J. M., Shin, S. M., Cabrita, C., Cheung, C., & Rivers, B. (2015). Initial investigation of nature-based child-centered play therapy: A single-case design. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93 (4), 440 – 450. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, K. L., Ray, D. C., & Lollar, S. (2021). Integrating humanistic counseling and ecotherapy. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 1 – 16. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2021.1949209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., Bone, A., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ryan Reese; Christopher J. Holden; Christian Hall and Twila Wingrove</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Ryan Reese is an assistant professor in the Counseling Academic Unit at Oregon State University-Cascades.</p> <p>Christopher J. Holden is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Appalachian State University.</p> <p>Christian Hall received his masters degree in Experimental Psychology from Appalachian State University.</p> <p>Twila Wingrove is Director of Research Design & Analysis in the Office of Research at Appalachian State University. She is also a Professor in the Department of Psychology.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref92"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1370147
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Replicability and Revision of the Ecowellness Inventory: Development of a Brief Measure of Ecowellness
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reese%2C+Ryan%22">Reese, Ryan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7716-5610">0000-0001-7716-5610</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holden%2C+Christopher+J%2E%22">Holden, Christopher J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6563-5822">0000-0001-6563-5822</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hall%2C+Christian%22">Hall, Christian</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7157-447X">0000-0002-7157-447X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wingrove%2C+Twila%22">Wingrove, Twila</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+and+Evaluation+in+Counseling+and+Development%22"><i>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</i></searchLink>. 2022 55(4):266-285.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ecology%22">Ecology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Wellness%22">Wellness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Structure%22">Factor Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goodness+of+Fit%22">Goodness of Fit</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Counseling%22">School Counseling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conservation+%28Environment%29%22">Conservation (Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Replication+%28Evaluation%29%22">Replication (Evaluation)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07481756.2021.2022984
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-1756<br />1947-6302
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: We examined the replicability of the 61-item EcoWellness Inventory (EI-61; Reese et al., 2015) and the factor structure of a brief form (i.e., EI-15). The EI-15 demonstrated excellent model fit and initial convergent validity evidence. The inventory serves as a potentially useful tool for assessing ecowellness in professional counseling practice and research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1370147
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1370147
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07481756.2021.2022984
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 266
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Ecology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Wellness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goodness of Fit
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Counseling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conservation (Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Replication (Evaluation)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Replicability and Revision of the Ecowellness Inventory: Development of a Brief Measure of Ecowellness
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reese, Ryan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holden, Christopher J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hall, Christian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wingrove, Twila
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-1756
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1947-6302
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1