Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On the Predictive Effect of Multidimensional Importance-Weighted Quality of Life Scores on Overall Subjective Well-Being

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of importance weighting in predicting outcome variables in a hierarchical and multidimensional measurement context. A total of 146 undergraduate students (female = 76; mean age = 20.25) from two universities in Taiwan and China participated in this study. They evaluated their quality of life on 22 facets from the WHOQOL-BREF scale, which covers four domains (i.e., physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health). They were also asked to rate the importance of these 22 facets and items for three general subjective well-being indices, including overall quality of life, general health, and life satisfaction. A multiplicative formula was used to create importance-weighted scores for each facet, and four domain scores were obtained by averaging facet scores under specific domains. Results of regression analysis revealed that after applying the weighting procedure, the four domain scores did not account for more variances in the three indices for overall subjective well-being, and predictive effects of the four domain scores became less differential. Our findings suggest that importance weighting did not have its expected benefits but instead may negatively impact the predictive effects.

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

  • Cummins, R. A. (1997). Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale—Adult: Manual. Australia: Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psichologia, 27, 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkers, M. P. (2003). Individualization in quality of life measurement: Instruments and approaches. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, S3–S14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, M. B. (1992). Use of the Quality of Life Inventory in problem assessment and treatment planning for cognitive therapy of depression. In A. Freeman & F. Dattilio (Eds.), Comprehensive casebook of cognitive therapy. New York: Plenum Press.

    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. (2012a). Importance is not unimportant: The role of importance weighting in QOL measures. Social Indicators Research, 109, 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C.-M. (2011). Issues in evaluating importance weighting in quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9951-1.

  • Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, M. M. (2006). Multidimensional quality of life: A new measure of quality of life in adults. Social Indicators Research, 76, 5–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 32–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2006). What are the differences between happiness and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 78, 363–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, C., & Bedi, R. (2004). Why are we “weighting”? An assessment of a self-weighting approach to measuring oral health-related quality of life. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 32, 19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, N., Holloway, F., & Carson, J. (1995). Deconstructing quality of life. Journal of Mental Health, 4, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, L. B., & Hubley, A. (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, 141–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2003). Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The WHOQOL Group. (1998). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 1569–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trauer, T., & Mackinnon, A. (2001). Why are we weighting? The role of importance ratings in quality of life measurement. Quality of Life Research, 10, 579–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, R. D., Netuveli, G., Hyde, M., Higgs, P., & Blane, D. (2008). The evaluation of a self-enumerated scale of quality of life (CASP-19) in the context of research on ageing: A combination of exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Social Indicators Research, 89, 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.-H. (2008b). ). 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. (2009). Weight? Wait! Importance weighting of satisfaction scores in quality of life assessment. In L. B. Palcroft & M. V. Lopez (Eds.), Personality assessment: New research (pp. 109–139). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.-H., Chen, L. H., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2009b). Longitudinal invariance analysis of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 396–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.-H., Tsai, Y.-M., & Chen, L. H. (2009c). How do positive views maintain life satisfaction? Social Indicators Research, 91, 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.-H., & Yao, G. (2006a). Analysis of factorial invariance across gender in the Taiwan version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1259–1268.

    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. (2006c). 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. (2007a). 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., & Yao, G. (2007b). Importance has been considered in satisfaction evaluation : An experimental examination of Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 81, 521–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, G., Chung, C.-W., Yu, C.-F., & Wang, J.-D. (2002). Development and verification of validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 101, 342–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, G., & Wu, C.-H. (2009). Similarities and differences among the Taiwan, China, and Hong-Kong versions of the WHOQOL Questionnaire. Social Indicators Research, 91, 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from National Science Council (NSC 98-2410-H-006-118-MY2), Taiwan (R.O.C.), to the second author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia

    Chia-Huei Wu

  2. National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan City, 701, Taiwan, ROC

    Cheng-Ta Yang

  3. Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 18 Yuwan Road, Wanli, Nanchang City, 330004, Jiangxi, China

    Li-Na Huang

Authors
  1. Chia-Huei Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheng-Ta Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li-Na Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chia-Huei Wu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, CH., Yang, CT. & Huang, LN. On the Predictive Effect of Multidimensional Importance-Weighted Quality of Life Scores on Overall Subjective Well-Being. Soc Indic Res 115, 933–943 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0242-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0242-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation