Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Quality of Life: A Case for Re-Examining the Assessment of Domain Importance Weighting

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Domain importance weighting has long been a topic of debate in the study of quality of life (QoL). The purpose of this study is to examine the adequacy of popular approaches used to assess domain importance weighting with QoL measures that follow a formative-indicator approach. Using both empirical and simulation data, this study found that neither of the two popular methods of evaluating the performance of domain importance weighting in QoL measures, correlation and moderated regression analysis, was ideal in capturing the actual function domain importance weighting posited in the data. More specifically, results from the popular approaches used to assess domain importance weighting could be quite misleading when QoL measures were constructed using a formative-indicator approach. These findings call for a careful re-examination of results from previous studies using those popular approaches to assess domain importance weighting in QoL measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions. New York: Russel Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). ‘Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares’, pp. 307–341 in Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, edited by R. H. Hole. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Velez, C. N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations casual models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the tale of gold standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A., McCabe, M. P., Romeo, Y., & Gullone, E. (1994). The comprehensive quality of life scale: Instrument development and psychometric evaluation on tertiary staff and students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 372–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A. (2006). The error term in formative measurement models: Interpretation and modeling implications. Journal of Modeling in Management, 1, 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1201–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkers, M. P. (2003). Individualization in quality of life measurement: Instruments and approaches. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, S3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J., Bodner, T. E., Jacobs, J. F., Miles, M., & Tan, V. (1995). Integrating top-down and bottom-up structural models of subjective well-being: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrans, C., & Powers, M. (1985). Quality of Life Index: Development and psychometric properties. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R., & Land, K. C. (2007). Constructing summary indices of quality of life: A model for the effect of heterogeneous importance weights. Sociological Methods and Research, 35, 455–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferris, A. L., Land, K. C., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., et al. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55, 1–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, A. M., Chang, J. C., Fuller, M. A., & Torkzadeh, G. (2011). Formative measurement and academic research: In search of measurement theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 281–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61, 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2004). To weight or not to weight: The role of domain importance in quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research, 68, 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2012). Should we give up domain importance weighting on QoL measures? Social Indicators Research, 108, 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2013). ‘Issues in evaluating importance weighting in quality of life measures’, Social Indicators Research.

  • Inglehart, R. (1978). Value priorities, life satisfaction, and political dissatisfaction among western publics. Comparative Studies in Sociology, 1, 173–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lance, C. E., Lautenschlager, G. J., Sloan, C. E., & Varca, P. E. (1989). A comparison between bottom-up, top-down, and bidirectional models of relationships between global and life facet satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 57, 601–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalos, A. C. (2004). Social indicators research and health-related quality of life research. Social Indicators Research, 65, 27–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mookherjee, H. N. (1992). Perceptions of well-being by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations in the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, L. B., & Hubley, A. M. (2005). Importance ratings and weighting: Old concerns and new perspectives. International Journal of Testing, 5, 105–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, L. B., Hubley, A. M., Palepu, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2006). Does weighting capture what’s important? Revisiting subjective importance weighting with a quality of life measure. Social Indicators Research, 75, 146–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryff, C. D., & Essex, M. J. (1992). The interpretation of life experience and well-being: The sample case of relocation. Psychology and Aging, 7, 507–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherpenzeel, A., & Saris, W. (1996). Causal direction in a model of life satisfaction: The top-down/bottom-up controversy. Social Indicators Research, 38, 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skalli, A., Theodossioub, I., & Vasileioua, E. (2008). Jobs as Lancaster goods: Facets of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1906–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H. (2008a). Examining the appropriateness of importance weighting on satisfaction score from range-of-affect hypothesis: Hierarchical linear modeling for within-subject data. Social Indicators Research, 86, 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H. (2008b). Can we weight satisfaction score with importance ranks across life domains? Social Indicators Research, 86, 468–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006a). Do we need to weight satisfaction scores with importance ratings in measuring quality of life? Social Indicators Research, 78, 305–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006b). Do we need to weight item satisfaction by item importance? A perspective from Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 79, 485–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2007). Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models. Social Indicators Research, 84, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., Chen, L. H., & Tsai, Y. M. (2009). Investigating importance weighting of satisfaction scores from a formative model with partial least squares analysis. Social Indicators Research, 90, 351–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 West Harrison Street (M/C 309), Chicago, IL, 60607-7134, USA

    Chang-ming Hsieh

  2. American Medical Association, 515 N. State Street, Chicago, IL, 60654, USA

    Gretchen P. Kenagy

Authors
  1. Chang-ming Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gretchen P. Kenagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang-ming Hsieh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hsieh, Cm., Kenagy, G.P. Measuring Quality of Life: A Case for Re-Examining the Assessment of Domain Importance Weighting. Applied Research Quality Life 9, 63–77 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9215-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9215-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation