Should We Give Up Domain Importance Weighting in QoL Measures?
- 214 Downloads
The purpose of this article is to examine the recent claims calling for abolishing domain importance weighting in quality of life (QoL) measures by considering the evidence conceptually and empirically. Based on a close review of evidence presented to date, it is suggested that using the range-of-affect hypothesis as a possible explanation of the poor performance of weighted satisfaction composite in predicting or correlating with global satisfaction or QoL measures can be beneficial to our understanding of the life satisfaction literature. However, given the conceptual focus and the empirical approach of the range-of-affect hypothesis presented in the life satisfaction context, using the range-of-affect hypothesis to argue against domain importance weighting raised more questions than answers. Calling for abolishing domain importance weighting in QoL measures, based on the evidence of range-of-affect hypothesis, is premature.
KeywordsDomain importance Relative importance Weighting Satisfaction Quality of life
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russel Sage.Google Scholar
- Ferrans, C. E. (1990). Development of a quality of life index for patients with cancer. Oncology Nursing Forum, 17(3), 15–19.Google Scholar
- Ferrans, C. E., & Powers, M. J. (1985). Quality of life index: Development and psychometric properties. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
- Inglehart, R. (1978). Value priorities, life satisfaction, and political dissatisfaction among western publics. Comparative Studies in Sociology, 1, 173–202.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. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A. (1984). Job satisfaction. In M. Gruneberg & T. Wall (Eds.), Social psychology and organizational behavior (pp. 93–117). London: Wiley.Google Scholar