Quality & Quantity

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 1025–1045 | Cite as

A simpler quality of e-life indicator: does the Internet have a positive impact on the quality of life in Taiwan

  • Te-Hsin LiangEmail author
  • Jia-ling Peng
  • Ching-Yun Yu


This research aims to restructure a Simpler Quality of e-Life Indicators (SEQOL) and use this simpler structure to understand whether the usage of computer and Internet will make impacts on quality of life in Taiwan. By using telephone interviews, 3,563 valid respondents, aged 15 and above with Taiwan nationality, were interviewed. After performing exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, reliability and validity assessment, a simpler factor structure of the SEQOL was formed. The new structure contains 24 items categorized into seven domains: Socioeconomic status, Selfesteem, Social competence, Life freedom, Community support, Psychological pressure and physical health. This research also found that gender divide on most domains did not exist. Those who are aged between 35 and 54 exhibit the highest satisfaction. Residents with university degree have the highest satisfaction on their quality of life and the residents of northern Taiwan have the lowest satisfaction. People who having computer at home show higher satisfaction on quality of life in dimensions of overall, Socioeconomic Status, Social Competence, Psychological Pressure, and Physical Health. On overall quality of life, there is no significant difference between Internet user and non user. But, People who having access to Internet show higher satisfaction on quality of life in dimensions of Socioeconomic Status, Social Competence, Psychological Pressure, and Physical Health, oppositely, have lower satisfaction on quality of life in dimensions of Life Freedom and Community Support.


e-life Quality of life Internet 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bobes J., Garcfa-Portilla P., Sfiiz P.A., Bascarfin T., Bousofio M.: Quality of life measures in schizophrenia. Eur. Psyc. 20, 313–317 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chan-Yeuan M., Law B., Sheung S.Y., Lam C.L.K.: Internal consistency, reproducibility, responsiveness, and construct validity of the Chinese (HK) version of the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Qual. Life Res. 10, 723–730 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen H., Cohen P., Kasen S. et al.: Construction and validation of a quality of life instrument for young adults. Qual. Life Res. 13, 747–759 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Communities federation of Canadian municipalities (The FCM quality of life system). (2004). Quality Of life in Canadian: growth, the economy and the urban environment (Theme Report #3).Google Scholar
  5. Cummins R.A.: Objective and subjective quality of life: an interactive model. Soc. Indicat. Res. 52(1), 55–72 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Groot J., Steg L.: Impact of transport pricing on quality of life, acceptability, and intentions to reduce car use: an exploratory study in five European countries. J. Trans. Geo. 14, 463–470 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delhey J., Bohnke P., Habich R., Zapf W.: Quality of life in a European perspective: the euromodule as a new instrument for comparative welfare research. Soc. Indicat. Res. 58(1–3), 161–175 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener E.: A value based index for measuring national quality of life. Soc. Indicat. Res. 31(2), 107–127 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener E., Suh E.M., Lucas R.E., Smith H.L.: Subjective wellbeing: three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 125(2), 276–302 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Felce D., Perry J.: Quality of life: its definition and measurement. Res. Develop. Disabil. 16(1), 51–74 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gravitas research and limit strategy: Quality Of life in New Zealand’s largest cities: residents” survey prepared for quality of life project team and ministry of social development, Gravitas, New Zealand (2005).Google Scholar
  12. Hair J.F. Jr, Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., Black W.C.: Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1998)Google Scholar
  13. Institute for Information Industry, ‘2004 yearbook of information national powers’, science and technology advisory group of executive Yuan, 2004, pp. 10–14.Google Scholar
  14. Kaiser H.F.: A second-generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika 35, 401–415 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaiser H.F.: Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and psychology measurement 34, 111–117 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keng C.J.: The quality of interactivity to WWW advertising. NTU Manag. Rev. 15(1), 23–48 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. Kim M., Cho K.O.: Quality of life among government employees. Soc. Indicat. Res. 62/63(1-3), 387–409 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimmel P., Levy N.B.: Psychology and rehabilitation. In: Daugirdas, J.T., Blake, P.G., Ing, T.S. (eds) Handbook of Dialysis, 3rd edn., pp. 413–419. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  19. Kreitler S., Kreitler M.: Multidimensional quality of life: a new measure of quality of life in adults. Soc. Indicat. Res. 76(1), 5–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee Y.J., Wu M.F.: Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei city. City and planning 32(4), 387–420 (2005) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. Liang W.M., Kuo H.W., Lin C.F. et al.: Factor construct of health-related quality of life in Taiwanese workers by WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. Mid-Taiwan J. Med. 10(3), 113–122 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. Lin R.D., Pai L., Yu C.T. et al.: The design and validation of a questionnaire for assessing health related quality Of life in patients on hemodialysis. Chin. J. Pub. Health (Taipei) 15, 333–345 (1996)Google Scholar
  23. Ling R. (2004) Report of literature and data review, including conceptual framework and implications for IST. Telenor Company. (SOCQUIT)Google Scholar
  24. Local Government Data Unit. (2006). Quality of life indicators definitions handbook—Wales 2005–2006. (Wales)Google Scholar
  25. Maslow A.H.: Motivation and personality. Harper, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  26. Marans R.W.: Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of Subjective and objective indicators. Lands. Urban Plan. 65(1–2), 73–83 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miyakita T., Ueda A.: Self-evaluation scores of hearing difficulties and quality of life components among retired workers with noise-related hearing loss. J. Sound Vibr. 250(1), 119–128 (2002). doi: 10.1006/jsvi.2001.3898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy B., Herrman H., Hawthorne G. et al.: Australian WHOQOL instruments: user’s manual and interpretation guide. Australian WHOQOL Field Study Centre, Melbourne, Australia (2000)Google Scholar
  29. National information and communication initiative, ‘Introduction of e-Taiwan program’,, 2005.
  30. Nunnally J.L.: Psychometric theory. Mcgraw-Hill, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  31. Ormel J., Lindenberg S., Steverink N., Vonkorff M.: Quality of life and social production functions: a framework for understanding health effects. Soc. Sci. Med. 45(7), 1051–1063 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peter J.P.: Construct Validity: A Review of psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing Research 16, 6–17 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peter J.P.: Construct validity: a review of basic issue and marketing practices. J. Market. Res. 18, 133–145 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ronen G.M., Streiner D.L., Rosenbaum P.: Health-related quality of life in childhood epilepsy: moving beyond seizure control with minimal adverse effects. Health quality life outcome 1, 36 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ronette L.K, Crosby R.D., Kosloski K.D., Williams G.R.: Development of a brief measure to assess Quality of life in obesity. Obesity Res. 9(2), 102–111 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salzburg D.J., Hanes D.S.: Quality of life and rehabilitation in dialysis patients. In: Henrich, W.L. (eds) Principles and practice of dialysis, 3rd edn., pp. 662–672. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2004)Google Scholar
  37. Sharma S.: Applied multivariate techniques. Wiley, New York, NY (1996)Google Scholar
  38. Taiwan Institute of Economic Research, the survey of quality of e-life indicators and easurement system-concise report on researches entrusted By Institute for Information Industry, 2006,12,31Google Scholar
  39. The audit commission. (2005). Local quality of life indicators—supporting local communities to become sustainable: a guide to local monitoring to complement the indicators in the UK government sustainable development strategy, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. The economist intelligence nit. (2006). The economist intelligence unit’s quality-of-life index. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from
  41. The WHOQOL Group: Development of the WHOQOL: rationale and current status. Int. J. Mental Health 23, 24–56 (1994)Google Scholar
  42. The WHOQOL Group: The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc. Sci. Med. 41, 1403–1409 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. The WHOQOL Group: Development of the world health organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol. Med. 28, 551–558 (1998a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. The WHOQOL Group: The world health organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc. Sci. Med. 46, 1569–1585 (1998b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. The WHOQOL Group: Spirituality, religiousness and personal beliefs (SRPB) field-test instrument: the WHOQOL-100 QUESTIONS PLUS 32 SRPB QUESTIONS. Mental health: evidence and research, The WHOQOL Group, Department of Mental Health and substance dependence world health organization Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  46. The WHOQOL-Taiwan Groups. (2000) Introduction to the development of the WHOQOL-Taiwan version. Taiwan Journal of Public Health 19(4):315–324 (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  47. The WHOQOL-Taiwan Groups. (2006). The Questionnaire of WHOQOL-100 Taiwan Version. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from
  48. Wang J.D., Yu C.F. et al.: Evaluation Of Effectiveness of Health service in the 21th century: quality of life and quality adjusted survival analysis. formosan J. Med. 4, 65–74 (2000) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  49. Yam W.K.L, Ma D.K.H., Cherk S.W.W.: Factor structure and construct validity of the Chinese Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Youth with Epilepsy. Epi. Behav. 9, 606–618 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang S.S., Huang F.F., Chuang M.H., Lee C.C.: Assessment the health-related quality of life in the elderly. Taipei City Med. J. 3(7), 693–701 (2006)Google Scholar
  51. Yang S.C., Kuo P.W., Wang J.D., Lin M.L., Su S.: Development and psychometric properties of the dialysis module of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version. Formos Med. Assoc. 105(4), 299–309 (2006) (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fu Jen Catholic UniversityNew Taipei CityTaiwan
  2. 2.Trendgo Consultant Co., Ltd.Taipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations