Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Issues in Evaluating Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measures

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For most empirical research investigating the topic of importance weighting in quality of life (QoL) measures, the prevailing approach has been to use (1) a limited choice of global QoL measures as criterion variables (often a single one) to determine the performance of importance weighting, (2) a limited option of weighting methods to develop importance weighting, and (3) a limited number of domains to construct the (formative-indicator) measures. Although limitations resulted from a limited choice of global QoL measures as criterion variables to determine the performance of importance weighting and a limited option of weighting methods to develop importance weighting have been recognized previously, little attention has been paid to the impact of non-comprehensive domains in QoL measures constructed based on the formative-indicator approach. Using empirical data, this article revealed the potential impacts of non-comprehensive domains on the evaluation of importance weighting in QoL measures. Results presented in this article showed that both of the two most popular methods of evaluating the performance of importance weighting in QoL measures, correlation and moderated regression analysis, could produce misleading results in the situation when QoL measures constructed using the formative-indicator approach did not include comprehensive domains. Issues discussed in this article are of great importance to research in the field of QoL, especially on the topic of importance weighting in QoL measures.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beatty, P., & Tuch, S. A. (1997). Race and life satisfaction in the middle class. Sociological Spectrum, 17, 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russel Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the tale of gold standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A., McCabe, M. P., Romeo, Y., & Gullone, E. (1994). The comprehensive quality of life scale: Instrument development and psychometric evaluation on tertiary staff and students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 372–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A. (2006). The error term in formative measurement models: Interpretation and modeling implications. Journal of Modeling in Management, 1, 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1201–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. R. (1994). Enhancing quality of life in the population at large. Social Indicators Research, 33, 47–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J., Bodner, T. E., Jacobs, J. F., Miles, M., & Tan, V. (1995). Integrating top-down and bottom-up structural models of subjective well-being: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrans, C., & Powers, M. (1985). Quality of life index: Development and psychometric properties. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, L. K., & Bearon, L. B. (1980). Quality of life in older persons: Meaning and measurements. New York: Human Sciences Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferris, A. L., Land, K. C., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., et al. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55, 1–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R., & Land, K. C. (2007). Constructing summary indices of quality of life: A model for the effect of heterogeneous importance weights. Sociological Methods and Research, 35, 455–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, A. M., Chang, J. C., Fuller, M. A., & Torkzadeh, G. (2011). Formative measurement and academic research: In search of measurement theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 281–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61, 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2006). Using client satisfaction to improve case management services for the elderly. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 605–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2011a). Importance is not unimportant: The role of importance weighting in QoL measures. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9900-z.

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2011b). Should we give up domain importance weighting on QoL measures? Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9868-8.

  • Inglehart, R. (1978). Value priorities life satisfaction, and political dissatisfaction among western publics. Comparative Studies in Sociology, 1, 173–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. (2000). Social indicators. In E. F. Borgatta & R. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (revised ed.). New York: Macmillan.

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F. (2011). Perceptions of links between quality of life areas: Implications for measurement and practice. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9795-8.

  • Mastekaasa, A. (1984). Multiplicative and additive models of job and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 14, 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mookherjee, H. N. (1992). Perceptions of well-being by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations in the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neugarten, B., Havighurst, R., & Tobin, S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16, 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, E. J., Merluzzi, T. V., Peterman, A., & Cronk, L. B. (2009). Measurement accuracy in assessing patient’s quality of life: To weight or not to weight domains of quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 18, 775–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas, M. (2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: Is it a simple relationship? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 467–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, L. B., & Hubley, A. M. (2005). Importance ratings and weighting: Old concerns and new perspectives. International Journal of Testing, 5, 105–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 146–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryff, C. D., & Essex, M. J. (1992). The interpretation of life experience and well-being: The sample case of relocation. Psychology and Aging, 7, 507–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano, J. P., Latorre, J. M., Gatz, M., & Montanes, J. (2004). Life review therapy using autobiographical retrieval practice for older adults with depressive symptomatology. Psychology and Aging, 19, 272–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagnild, G. (2003). Resilience and successful aging: Comparison among low and high income older adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 29(12), 42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, V., Wylie, M., & Sheafor, B. (1969). An analysis of a short self-report measure of life satisfaction: Correlation with rater judgments. Journal of Gerontology, 24, 456–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H. (2008a). Examining the appropriateness of importance weighting on satisfaction score from range-of-affect hypothesis: Hierarchical linear modeling for within-subject data. Social Indicators Research, 86, 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H. (2008b). Can we weight satisfaction score with importance ranks across life domains? Social Indicators Research, 86, 468–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., Chen, L. H., & Tsai, Y. M. (2009). Investigating importance weighting of satisfaction scores from a formative model with partial least squares analysis. Social Indicators Research, 90, 351–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006a). Do we need to weight satisfaction scores with importance ratings in measuring quality of life? Social Indicators Research, 78, 305–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006b). Do we need to weight item satisfaction by item importance? A perspective from Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 79, 485–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2007). Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models. Social Indicators Research, 84, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 West Harrison Street (M/C 309), Chicago, IL, 60607-7134, USA

    Chang-ming Hsieh

Authors
  1. Chang-ming Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang-ming Hsieh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hsieh, Cm. Issues in Evaluating Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measures. Soc Indic Res 110, 681–693 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9951-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9951-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation