Historically, well-being has been associated with the absence of illness (Crisp, 2008) and broadly defined as welfare from a social and psychological perspective (Allardt, 1989). The terms well-being, happiness, and quality of life are often used interchangeably (Veenhoven, 2007). Well-being is classified into objective (quantifiable aspects like physical health) and subjective (personal feelings and experiences) dimensions (Nieboer et al., 2005). This study focuses on pupils' subjective well-being at school.

Traditional school assessments emphasize academic outcomes, but well-being and engagement significantly impact learning (Engels et al., 2000; Laevers et al., 2003). Research indicates that school well-being correlates with academic achievement, ambition, motivation, and social-emotional skills (Huebner, 1991; Taylor et al., 2017). Schools that prioritize well-being foster both academic success and personal development (Javornik & Mirazchiyski, 2023).

Despite its importance, school well-being remains under-researched, with existing measurement tools often lacking theoretical depth (Konu et al., 2002). Huebner’s (1994) model evaluates well-being across life domains but lacks a school-specific focus. Kanonire (2020) proposes a five-component framework, while Engels et al. (2000) present a comprehensive but impractical tool. Konü and Rimpelä’s (2002) school well-being model, based on Allardt’s framework, is closely aligned with this study’s objectives.

Schools play a crucial role in preventing mental health issues (Currie et al., 2012). To enhance school well-being in Flanders, valid and practical instruments are needed for periodic assessment. A user-friendly, widely applicable tool is essential to ensure effective implementation in educational settings.

The research is comprised of three phases.

The preliminary phase of the study involved a Delphi study to clarify the concepts that are important for the school well-being of pupils. The study included 40 respondents, representing both academic and practical backgrounds. Secondly, one-to-one language tests were conducted with 20 pupils. Finally, factor analysis was performed to confirm the predetermined factor structure. In the initial factor analysis, data were gathered from 163 secondary school across Flanders. In order to optimise the instrument for practical use, evaluations were conducted with the participating schools at different stages of the implementation process.

The instrument, Appwel, can be utilised to delineate the concept of well-being at school. The existing models are refined, resulting in the identification of four factors that align with the context in which the instrument is employed. The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) exhibited a range from 0.61 to 0.85.

Appwel is now widely used in the educational field, supporting schools at three levels: (1) policy level, by using well-being data for school policy and professional development; (2) classroom level, by providing teachers with insights into their students' well-being; and (3) individual level, where student counselors use the instrument for targeted interventions.

This study highlights that school well-being is a crucial component of academic success and personal development. Appwel provides schools with a practical and scientifically validated tool to systematically monitor and improve student well-being.

The development of a concept version of the survey was undertaken, and this was then linguistically tested with a group of students. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to validate the instrument. The usability of the survey was then tested by early adopter schools through focus groups.

This study was conducted in Flemish secondary schools, involving students aged 12 to 18. To ensure the integrity of the data, records exhibiting implausibly short or long completion times were excluded. The sample, obtained through voluntary participation, may not be fully representative but is sufficiently large for meaningful analysis. The objective was to develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure school well-being through three research components: concept validation, construct validation, and ecological validation. Concept validation – Delphi study To identify key concepts of school well-being, a Delphi study was conducted with 40 experts (academics and teachers). Over two rounds, essential factors were selected and refined. The primary factors identified included peer relationships, teacher-student relationships, academic self-concept, emotional state, autonomy, stress experiences, and school satisfaction. The final selection was based on the School Well-being Model by Konu and Rimpelä (2002), adapted for the Flemish educational context. This model conceptualises school well-being through four dimensions: school conditions, social relationships, means for self-fulfillment, and health status. The study excluded health-related questions in order to focus exclusively on the school environment. Construct validation – Language testing and Factor Analysis To ensure that students comprehended the questionnaire accurately, one-on-one language testing was conducted with 16 first-year secondary students from both general and vocational tracks. Difficult terms were clarified, and negatively worded questions were adjusted for better comprehension. Next, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on a dataset of Flemish students. Promax rotation was applied to determine the underlying factor structure. The Kaiser criterion and scree plot were used to establish the number of factors. Items with high cross-loadings (>0.30) were removed. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then conducted on a second dataset to validate the factor structure. Ecological validation The instrument was tested in schools and evaluated by student counselors and teachers through focus groups. Additionally, a digital dashboard was developed to allow schools to analyze results at student, class, and school levels and plan interventions accordingly. The results demonstrate that Appwel is a valid and reliable instrument with practical applicability in Flemish secondary education.

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed that the questionnaire could be summarised into four key factors:1. Classroom climate and engagement (α = 0.87) – includes aspects such as teacher-student relationships, teaching methods, and motivation.2. Authenticity and support (α = 0.70) – the extent to which students feel accepted and supported.3. Peer relationships (α = 0.64) – the quality of social interactions, including bullying and peer support.Academic self-concept (α = 0.66) – students' perception of their own academic abilities.The Cronbach's alpha values (ranging from 0.61 to 0.87) indicate high internal consistency across factors. The convergent validity was confirmed by a correlation of 0.615 between the total score and a self-reported well-being score, which falls within the expected range. The confirmatory factor analysis is currently being conducted, and the coding of the evaluation conversations is in progress.The language testing revealed that certain terms, such as 'passion' and 'being taken seriously,' were difficult for students to understand, particularly in vocational education tracks. These were revised with additional clarifications. The ecological validity of the Appwel instrument was evaluated through its implementation in schools. Schools reported using Appwel at three levels: • School level: informing school policy decisions based on aggregated well-being data. • Class level: helping teachers to tailor interventions to improve classroom well-being. • Individual level: enabling student counsellors to provide targeted support to at-risk students. Since 2019, Appwel has been extensively adopted in Flemish secondary education, and it has been proven to be a scientifically validated instrument for monitoring and enhancing school well-being.

Allardt, E. (1989). An updated indiator system: having, loving, being. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Crisp, R. (2008). Well-Being. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encylopedia of philosophy. Geraadpleegd op 4 juli 2024 op https://plato.stanford.edu Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). The importance of autonomy for development and well-being. Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and developmental dimensions of human conduct, 19-46. De Fraine, B. (2003). Cognitieve en niet-cognitieve effecten van prestatiegericht klimaat, gemeenschapsgericht klimaat en groepssamenstelling in klassen en scholen. Verkenning met het multiniveaumodel (Doctoral dissertation). Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Engels, N., Aelterman, A., Van Petegem, K., Schepens, A., & Deconinck, E. (2004). Graag naar school. Een meetinstrument voor het welbevinden van leerlingen secundair Onderwijs. VUB Press. Hascher, T. (2010). Wellbeing. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 732–738). Oxford: Elsevier. Hascher, T. (2012). Well-Being and learning in school. In Springer eBooks (pp. 3453–3456). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1832 Hird, S. (2003). What is Wellbeing? A brief review of current literature and concepts. Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland Report. Kanonire, T., Federiakin, D. A., & Uglanova, I. L. (2020). Multicomponent framework for students’ subjective well-being in elementary school. School Psychology, 35(5), 321–331. Konu, A., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Well-being in schools: a conceptual model. Health Promotion International, 17(1), 79–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45152620 Konu, A., Alanen, E., Lintonen, T., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Factor structure of the School Well-being Model. Health Education Research, 17(6), 732–742. Laevers, F., Daems, M., Declercq, B., Goudeseune, I., Laureijssen, J., Vadneplas, C., & Verstevens, K. (2003). Wat vind ik van mijn school? Leuven: Centrum voor Ervaringsgericht Onderwijs. Laevers, F. (2016). Welbevinden en betrokkenheid als toetsstenen voor kwaliteit in de kinderopvang. Implicaties voor het monitoren van kwaliteit. McDowell, I. and Newell, C. (1996) Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New York. Van Damme, J., Meyer, J., De Troy, A., & Mertens, W. (2001). Succesvol middelbaar onderwijs? Een antwoord van het LOSO-project. Leuven: Acco. Veenhoven, R. (2007). Subjective Measures of Well-being. In M. McCillivray & A. Shorrocks (Eds), Human Well-being: Concept and Measurement (pp. 214-239). London: Palgrave. Vettenburg, N., Vyverman, V., & Brondeel, R. (2009). Het schoolwelbevinden in het secundair onderwijs. Diversiteit in beïnvloedende factoren. In N. Vettenburg, J. Deklerck, & J. Siongers (Eds.), Jongeren binnenstebuiten. Thema’s uit het jongerenleven onderzocht (pp. 51–76). Leuven: Acco.