The Measurement of Subjective Wellbeing: Item-Order Effects in the Personal Wellbeing Index—Adult
When multi-item questionnaires are included in psychological research, many factors can influence the response given. One such factor that has traditionally been overlooked is the potential impact of item-order effects. This paper extends upon the work of Kaplan et al. (J Happiness Stud 14:1443–1458, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9388-5) who explored item-order effects in measures of job satisfaction, and applies similar principles to the measurement of life satisfaction, or subjective wellbeing, by exploring item-order effects within the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI; IWBG in Personal Wellbeing Index, 5th edn. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, Melbourne, 2013. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/intruments/wellbeing-index/index.php). In a preliminary study, participants completed the PWI in its standard format (general-specific) and psychometric properties were compared to those who completed the PWI in an alternate format (specific-general). Analyses revealed that the PWI performed adequately for both groups, though there were subtle indications of item-order effects. In a second study, the order of the PWI domains was randomised (random-order) and compared to the standard format (fixed-order). Results revealed lower mean scores and more variation in scores when items were randomised. Overall, the PWI performed as expected for most interrogative analyses. It achieved a single factor solution, no matter the order of items, and the same domains emerged as significant unique predictors of general life satisfaction. The study highlights the importance of exploring item-order effects as part of the psychometric validation procedure, and it is recommended that all new scales be subject to this investigation to reduce measurement error and improve accuracy in psychological assessment.
KeywordsSubjective wellbeing Measurement Psychometric testing Order effects
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Household use of information technology, Australia, 2014–2015, cat no. 8146.0. Canberra, Australia: ABS.Google Scholar
- Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. In Proceedings of the second international conference on quality of life in cities (pp. 74–93). National University of Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
- Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Weinberg, M., Collard, J., Hartley-Clark, J., Horfiniak, K., et al. (2013). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 30.0: The wellbeing of Australians—social media, personal achievement and work. Melbourne, Australia: Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. http://www.acqol.com.au/reports/auwbi.php.
- Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 225–242). New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
- IBM. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
- International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index (5th ed.). Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. Retrieved from: http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/intruments/wellbeing-index/index.php.
- Lau, A. L. D., & Cummins, R. A. (2005). Test–retest reliability of the Personal Wellbeing Index. Unpublished research report, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2013). Guidelines on measuring subjective wellbeing. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/statistics/Guidelines%20on%20Measuring%20Subjective%20Well-being.pdf.
- Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 97–123). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording and context. Amherst, MA: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 217–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- World Health Organization. (2013). Joint meeting of experts on targets and indicators for health and well-being in Health 2020. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar