Can We Weight Satisfaction Score with Importance Ranks Across Life Domains?
- 215 Downloads
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of importance weighting when importance ranks were considered as the weighting values by (1) examining the range-of-affect hypothesis in the within-subject context and (2) comparing performances of weighted and unweighted satisfaction scores in predicting overall judgment of subjective well-being. Participants were 167 undergraduates at National Taiwan University. The mean age was 19.80 years (SD = 1.98). They were first asked to complete the measurements for global life satisfaction and overall QOL and then completed a QOL questionnaire for rating satisfaction, perceived have–want discrepancy on 12 life domains and ranking importance on these domains. Hierarchical linear modeling with a random-coefficients regression model was applied to examine the range-of-affect hypothesis in the within-subject context. Correlation analysis was applied to evaluate performances of weighted and unweighted satisfaction scores in predicting overall judgment of subjective well-being. Results of this study supported the range-of-affect hypothesis, showing that the relationship between item have–want discrepancy and item satisfaction is stronger for high importance items than low importance items for a given individual. Correlation analysis found that the four weighted satisfaction scores computed from the algorithms proposed by Hsieh (Social Indicators Research 61:227–240, 2003) were not superior to unweighted satisfaction score in predicting overall QOL and global life satisfaction. All these findings suggested that weighting satisfaction scores with importance ranks may not have theoretical basis and empirical contribution.
KeywordsWeighting Importance Satisfaction Hierarchical linear modeling Quality of life
- Chang, H. T., Yao, G., & Wu, C. H. (2007). Investigating quality of life related terms with multidimensional scaling. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Cummins, R. A. (1997). Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale – Adult: Manual. Deakin: University Australia.Google Scholar
- Ferrans, C., & Powers, M. (1985) Quality of Life Index: Development and psychometric properties. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 15–24.Google Scholar
- Frisch, M. B. (1992). Use of the Quality of Life Inventory in problem assessment, treatment planning for cognitive therapy of depression. In A. Freeman & F. M. Dattlio (Eds.), Comprehensive casebook of cognitive therapy. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc. (1999). SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc (2000). SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements, release 8.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
- The WHOQOL-Taiwan Group. (1999). The User’s manual of the development of the WHOQOL-100 Taiwan version (1st ed.). Taipei: National Taiwan University.Google Scholar
- Waters, L. K., & Roach, D. (1971). Comparison of unweighted and importance- weighted job satisfaction measures for three samples of female office workers. Psychological Reports, 28, 779–782.Google Scholar
- Wu, C. H. (in press). Examining the appropriateness of importance weighting on satisfaction score from range-of-affect hypothesis: Hierarchical linear modeling for within-subject data. Social Indicators Research.Google Scholar