Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life from a psychometric perspective by three different factor structure models. Three hundred and four students at National Taiwan University participated in this study. They completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, a global measurement for quality of life) and the WHOQOL-BREF (a domain-specific measurement for quality of life). Three models were specified to examine the relationships among scores of the SWLS and the WHOQOL-BREF. The first model was a common factor model in which scores of the SWLS and the WHOQOL-BREF were all influenced by a single factor. The second model was a correlated two-factor model in which scores of the SWLS were influenced by one factor and scores of the WHOQOL-BREF influenced by another factor, with these two factors being allowed to be correlated. The third model was a three-factor model, in which one factor (representing quality of life) influenced the scores of the SWLS and the WHOQOL-BREF, another factor (representing global approach) only influenced the scores of the SWLS, and yet another factor (representing domain approach) only influenced the scores of the WHOQOL-BREF. The results showed that the third model was the best, suggesting that global measures (the SWLS) and domain measures (the WHOQOL-BREF) did assess the same construct on quality of life, however, the measurement approaches they adopted (global or domain approach) also have substantial impact on the meaning of scores.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrindell, W. A., Heesink, J., & Feij, J. A. (1999). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Appraisal with 1700 health young adults in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 815–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrindell, W. A., Meeuwesen, L., & Huyse, F. J. (1991). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties in a non-psychiatric medical outpatients sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. L. (2003). Satisfaction with Life Scale: Analysis of factorial invariance across sexes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1255–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P. Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences (in press).

  • Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 41–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. H. (2000). A facet theory approach to examining overall and life facetsatisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 51, 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H., Morris, M. M., & Kraus, L. A. (1998). Relationship-specific and globalperceptions of social support: Associations with well-being and attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 468–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 

  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffin, R. D. Assessing the adequacy of structural equation models: Golden rules and editorial policies. Personality and Individual Differences (in press).

  • Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    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 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lance, C. E., Mallard, A. G., & Michalos, A. C. (1995). Tests of the causal directions of global-life facet satisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 34, 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. A., Shevlin, M. E., Bunting, B. P., & Joseph, S. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the satisfaction with life scale: Replication and methodological refinement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 304–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markland, D. The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences (in press).

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of Golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, C. N. Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modeling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett. Personality and Individual Differences (in press).

  • Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being. Social Indicators Research 28, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratwani, R. M., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2003). ‘Thinking graphically: Extracting local and global information. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsch (Eds.), 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Erlbaum.

    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 

  • Sachs, J. (2003). Validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in a sample of Hong Kong University students. Psychologia, 46, 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shevlin, M. E., Brunsden, V., & Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Satisfaction with Life Scale: Analysis of factorial invariance, mean structures and reliability. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 911–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shevlin, M. E., & Bunting, B. P. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis of the satisfaction with life scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1316–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • The WHOQOL Group (1998a). Development of the WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westaway, M. S., Maritz, C., & Golele, N. J. (2003). Empirical testing of the satisfaction with life scale: A South African pilot study. Psychological Reports, 92, 551–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006a). Do we need to weight satisfaction scores with importance ratings? 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. (2006c). Analysis of factorial invariance across genders in the Taiwan version of the satisfaction with life scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1259–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, K. H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Science Council (NSC 94-2413-H-002-018) and the National Health Research Institute (NHRI-EX94-9204PP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University, 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt RD., Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao

Authors
  1. Chia-Huei Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grace Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grace Yao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, CH., Yao, G. Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models. Soc Indic Res 84, 189–202 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9082-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9082-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation