Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Validation of the WeDQoL-Goals-Thailand Measure: Culture-Specific Individualised Quality of Life


The aim of this study was to validate an individualised measure of quality of life (WeDQoL-Goals-Thailand). Three hundred and sixty-nine Thai people completed the WeDQoL by interview. Respondents rated (0–2) the perceived necessity for wellbeing of 51 goals (goal necessity), then rated (0–3) their satisfaction with the same goals (goal satisfaction). Weighted goal attainment (possible range 0–6) was computed (necessity x satisfaction). Psychometric validation used frequency distributions, Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and Cronbach’s alpha. Analysis of variance, t-tests, Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, Spearman’s correlation and multiple regression explored socio-demographic, geographic and economic differences. Respondents were aged 15–89 (mean 45.7, SD 18.0); 169 men, 200 women. For weighted goal attainment scores, PCA found a 44-item scale (α = 0.91) and three subscales (community/social/health, α = 0.90; house and home, α = 0.80; nuclear family, α = 0.81). Thai Individualised Goal Attainment (TIGA) scale and the three subscales were computed as the mean of contributing weighted goal attainment scores, after excluding goals considered ‘not necessary’ to each individual. Unweighted and individualised scores differed significantly with socio-demographic, geographic and economic indicators. In multiple regression, both Thai Unweighted Goal Satisfaction (TUGS) and TIGA scale scores were predicted by being married, living in the South and in a non-urban location. TIGA scores were also predicted by being over 25 years old. WeDQoL-Goals-Thailand has excellent psychometric properties. Individualised scores reflect each person’s perspective on wellbeing and are sensitive to subgroup differences. However, unweighted satisfaction scores give a broadly similar picture and involve less complex computation.

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


  1. Bradley, C., Todd, C., Gorton, T., Symonds, L., Martin, A., & Plowright, R. (1999). The development of an individualised questionnaire measure of perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: The ADDQoL. Quality of Life Research, 8, 79–91. doi:10.1023/A:1026485130100.

  2. Calman, K. (1984). Quality of life in cancer patients—A hypothesis. Journal of Medical Ethics, 10, 124–127.

  3. Camfield, L. (2006). Why and how of understanding ‘subjective’ wellbeing: Exploratory work by the WeD group in four developing countries. WeD Working Paper 26, University of Bath.

  4. Clarke, R. (2006). Measuring wealth across seven Thai communities. WeD Working Paper 17, University of Bath, April 2006.

  5. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.

  6. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  7. Galloway, S. (2005). A literature review. Section 1 in well-being and quality of life: Measuring the benefits of culture and sport: Literature review and thinkpiece (pp. 4–97). Scotland: Scottish Executive Social Research.

  8. Hsieh, C. M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61, 227–240. doi:10.1023/A:1021354132664.

  9. 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. doi:10.1023/B:SOCI.0000025591.82518.ab.

  10. Jongudomkarn, D., & Camfield, L. (2006). Exploring the quality of life of people in North Eastern and Southern Thailand. Social Indicators Research, 78, 489–530. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-1947-2.

  11. Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. New York: Routledge.

  12. Macduff, C., & Russell, E. (1998). The problem of measuring change in individual health-related quality of life by postal questionnaire: Use of the patient-generated index in a disabled population. Quality of Life Research, 7, 761–769. doi:10.1023/A:1008831209706.

  13. McGee, H., O’Boyle, C. A., Hickey, A., O’Malley, K., & Joyce, C. R. B. (1991). Assessing the quality of life of the individual: The SEIQoL with a healthy and a gastroenterology unit population. Psychological Medicine, 21, 749–759.

  14. McGregor, J. A. (2007). Researching wellbeing: From concepts to methodology. In I. Gough & J. A. McGregor (Eds.), Wellbeing in developing countries: New approaches and research strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  15. McGregor, J. A., McKay, A., & Velazco, J. (2007). Needs and resources in the investigation of wellbeing in developing countries: Illustrative evidence from Bangladesh and Peru. Journal of Economic Methodology, 14, 109–133. doi:10.1080/13501780601170115.

  16. McMillan, C. V., Bradley, C., Woodcock, A., Razvi, S., & Weaver, J. U. (2004). Design of new questionnaires to measure quality of life and treatment satisfaction in hypothyroidism. Thyroid, 14, 916–925. doi:10.1089/thy.2004.14.916.

  17. Mitchell, J., Wolffsohn, J. S. W., Woodcock, A. J., Anderson, S. J., McMillan, C. V., Ffytche, T., et al. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of the MacDQoL individualised measure of the impact of macular disease on quality of life. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 3–25. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-25.

  18. Mulder, N. (2000). Inside Thai society: Religion, everyday life and change. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

  19. National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) (1999). Indicators of well-being and policy analysis. Newsletter of the National Economic and Social Development Board 3, January. Bangkok.

  20. Renwick, R., Brown, I., & Nagler, M. (1996). Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation: Conceptual approaches, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  21. Renwick, R., & Myerscough, T. (2007). QOL concepts: The quality of life model. http://www.utoronto.ca/qol/concepts.htm. Accessed 30 January 2007.

  22. Ring, L., Höfer, S., Heuston, F., Harris, D., & O’Boyle, C. A. (2005). Response shift masks the treatment impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs): The example of individual quality of life in edentulous patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 55. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-55.

  23. 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. doi:10.1007/s11205-004-2528-5.

  24. Ruta, D., Camfield, L., & Donaldson, C. (2007). Sen and the art of quality of life maintenance: Towards a working definition of quality of life. Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 397–423. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.004.

  25. Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of QOL. The patient generated index. Medical Care, 32, 1109–1126. doi:10.1097/00005650-199411000-00004.

  26. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russell-Sage.

  27. Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development (p. 309). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

  28. Sen, A. (1990). Development as capability expansion. In K. Griffin & J. Knight (Eds.), Human development and the international development strategy for the 1990s. London: Macmillan.

  29. Sen, A., & Nussbaum, M. (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  30. Skevington, S. M., OConnell, K., & The WHOQOL Group. (2004). Can we identify the poorest quality of life? Assessing the importance of quality of life using the WHOQOL-100. Quality of Life Research, 13, 23–34. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000015317.71791.be.

  31. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

  32. Thailand Human Development Report. (2007). Sufficiency economy and human development. Bangkok: UNDP.

  33. 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. doi:10.1023/A:1013159414364.

  34. White, S., & Pettit, J. (2005). Participatory approaches and the measurement of human wellbeing. In M. McGillivray (Ed.), Measuring human wellbeing. Oxford: WIDER/Oxford University Press.

  35. WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1403–1409. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K.

  36. Woodcock, A., & Bradley, C. (2006). Validation of the revised 10-item HIV treatment satisfaction questionnaire status version and new change version. Value in Health, 9, 320–333. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00121.x.

  37. Woodcock, A., Bradley, C., Plowright, R., Ffytche, T., Kennedy-Martin, T., & Hirsch, A. (2004). The influence of diabetic retinopathy on quality of life. Interviews to guide the design of a condition-specific, individualised questionnaire: The RetDQoL. Patient Education and Counseling, 53, 365–383. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2003.10.007.

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

  39. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006). Do we need to weight satisfaction scores with importance ratings in measuring quality of life? Social Indicators Research, 78, 305–326. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-0212-z.

  40. Yamamoto, J., Feijoo, A. R., Lazarte, A. (2008). Subjective wellbeing: An alternative approach. In J. Copestake (Ed.), Wellbeing and development in Peru: Local and universal views confronted (pp. 61–102). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Download references


The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. The work was part of the programme of the ESRC Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries. Many thanks to the Lead Researchers on QoL in the WeD Countries whose dedicated data collection made this paper possible: Jorge Yamamoto and Ana Rosa Feijoo in Peru, and Darunee Jongudomkarn and Malee Sabaiying in Thailand.

Author information

Correspondence to Alison Woodcock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woodcock, A., Camfield, L., McGregor, J.A. et al. Validation of the WeDQoL-Goals-Thailand Measure: Culture-Specific Individualised Quality of Life. Soc Indic Res 94, 135 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9357-x

Download citation


  • Wellbeing
  • Quality of life
  • Questionnaire
  • Validation
  • Thailand
  • Developing countries