Using Concept Mapping to Assess the Theoretical Congruence and Content Validity of Existing Child Well-Being Measurements Based on the Two Sources Theory

Background: The notion of child well-being (CWB) involves a transition from a deficit-oriented focus on adversity to a more holistic framework that prioritizes positive development outcomes. However, purported measures of CWB capture a range of both positive as well as negative child outcomes, which suggests that these measures are largely atheoretical. One key theory that informs CWB is the Two Sources Theory (TST), which offers a developmentalist perspective on well-being through four key domains, grouped into two “sources” that both must be satisfied for a child to fare well. Specifically, Source 1 captures development-oriented constructs (e.g., stage-appropriate capacities, future success, and environment), while Source 2 addresses immediate, subjective child experiences (e.g., play). This study novelly applies the TST as a theoretical framework and employs concept mapping to examine the theoretical congruence and content validity of existing CWB measures, and to inform future measurement development.

Methods: We drew on 82 CWB measures from a prior scoping review, extracting their domains and indicators and organizing them into a “parking lot” for further classification. Six categories and a codebook were developed for facilitating the coding process: TST well-being (WB; four elements), Non-TST WB, and WB-adjacent constructs. Concept mapping was used to systematically code 540 domains based on relevance to these six categories. We followed Davies’s procedure for constructing a Novakian map, beginning with a declarative focus question: “What domains of child well-being are captured in existing measures, and how do they align with the four TST domains?” Three researchers independently conducted iterative coding and validation. Discrepancies were resolved by a senior member of the team and then reviewed by two additional two experts for evaluation and finalization.

Results: A Novakian map was developed, along with a recommended set of domains and indicators for those selecting or designing CWB measures. The map visualized the variety of CWB domains and their links to TST’s four domains. Many measures employed domains outside children’s immediate experiences, focusing instead on developmental milestones or deficit-oriented outcomes. We also identified significant conceptual conflation between well-being and ill-being, with several items labeled as “well-being” actually capturing adversity. Overall, most measures did not fully reflect TST’s dual nature of well-being, as domains frequently straddled multiple categories. This partial alignment suggests that existing CWB measurements lack strong theoretical congruence and may insufficiently capture children’s lived experiences. Recommendations were generated to guide future measure development and selection processes grounded in a coherent theoretical framework.

Conclusions and Implications: This study reveals a gap between existing CWB measures and TST’s dual emphasis on developmental capacities and immediate, child-centered experiences. Future research should integrate both “sources” of well-being, ensure conceptual clarity, and adopt child-appropriate indicators informed by theory. Theoretical alignment underscores the reciprocal relationship between theory and measurement: a sound framework guides measure development, while ongoing assessment refines theory. Engaging children directly in defining well-being enhances the legitimacy, relevance, and utility of future CWB instruments.