Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Latent Profiles of Life Domain Importance and Satisfaction in a Quality of Life Scale

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study aimed to use a latent profile analysis to distinguish between populations in terms of life domain importance and satisfaction profiles. Then, a multinomial logistic regression was used to determine how background variables (e.g., gender, living areas, and school levels) and self-perceived health predict each latent quality of life (QoL) profile. We also investigated how the latent groups of adolescents predicted negative and positive well-being indicators (e.g., problem behaviors and overall life satisfaction). The sample consisted of 720 Taiwanese secondary school students. Three latent groups were established as follows: “unimportant-unsatisfied,” “important-unsatisfied,” and “important-satisfied.” The results indicate the following: (a) boys were more likely to fall into the “unimportant-unsatisfied” group than were girls; (b) better health increased the likelihood of being in the “important-satisfied” group; (c) high school students were more likely to be in the “unimportant-unsatisfed” group than were middle school students; and (d) no relationship was found between latent groups and living areas. The function of importance rating was not present when evaluating the importance-satisfaction profiles and their relationship with problem behaviors and overall life satisfaction. The problems of the “unimportant-unsatisfied” profile among youth are discussed.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332. doi:10.1007/BF02294359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2004). Self-rated oral health as an independent predictor of self-rated general health, self-esteem and life satisfaction. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 1109–1116. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.12.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, R., Rutherford, D. L., & John, A. (2002). Quality of life in young people: Ratings and factor structure of the quality of life profile-adolescent version. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 261–274. doi:10.1006/yjado/469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. K., Hwang, F. M., & Lin S.S.J. (2011) Satisfaction ratings of QOLPAV: Psychometric properties based on the graded response model. Social Indicators Research, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9935-1.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldbeck, L., Schmitz, T. G., Besier, T., Herschbach, P., & Henrich, G. (2007). Life satisfaction decreases during adolescence. Quality of Life Research, 16, 969–979. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9205-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, K. C., Ostrander, R., Walkup, J. T., Silva, S. G., & March, J. S. (2007). Empirically derived subtypes of adolescent depression: Latent profile analysis of co-occurring symptoms in the treatment for adolescents with depression study (TADS). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 716–728. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. Y., Cheung, F. M., & Cheung, S. F. (2010). The role of meaning in life and optimism in promoting well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 658–663. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. (2008). The relative importance of health. Social Indicators Research, 87, 127–137. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9162-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. (2011). Issues in evaluating importance weighting in quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-011-9951-1/fulltext.html

  • Hsieh, C. (2012a). Importance is not unimportant: The role of importance weighting in QOL measures. Social Indicators Research, 109, 267–278. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9900-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. (2012b). Should we give up domain importance weighting in QoL measures? Social Indicators Research, 108, 99–109. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9868-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, E. S., Valois, R. F., Suldo, S. M., Smith, L. C., McKnight, C. G., Seligson, J. L., et al. (2004). Perceived quality of life: A neglected component of adolescent health assessment and intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 270–278. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00285-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, Y., Mendell, N., & Rubin, D. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767–778. doi:10.1093/biomet/88.3.767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2004). Latent class models. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412986311.n10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, D. (2003). The person approach: Concepts, measurement models, and research strategy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2003, 3–23. doi:10.1002/cd.79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, D., & Cairns, R. B. (1996). Developmental science: Toward a unified framework. In R. B. Cairns & G. H. Elder Jr (Eds.), Developmental science. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development (pp. 7–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleners, L. B., & Lee, A. H. (2005). Quality of life profile–adolescents: Assessing the relationship of covariates to scale scores using structural equation modeling. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1057–1063. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-2573-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meuleners, L. B., Lee, A. H., Binns, C. W., & Lower, A. (2003). Quality of life for adolescents: Assessing measurement properties using structural equation modeling. Quality of Life Research, 12, 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. O. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus User’s Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, D., Rukholm, E. B., Hill-Bailey, P., & Donato, E. (1996). The quality of life profile-adolescent version: Background, description, and initial validation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 366–375. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(96)00080-8.

    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. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_2.

    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, 141–167. doi:10.1007/s11205-004-2528-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 333–343. doi:10.1007/BF02294360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487. doi:10.1002/jclp.20593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orientations and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and Instruction, 18, 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, J. L., Schmitt, M., & Koot, H. M. (2001). Quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: Issues, instruments, and applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 571–585. doi:10.1002/jclp.1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wekipedia. (n.d.). Educatoin in Taiwan. Retrieved Nov. 8, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Taiwan

  • 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. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9103-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H. (2008b). Can we weight satisfaction score with importance ranks across life domains? Social Indicators Research, 86, 469–480. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9180-9.

    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. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9264-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006a). 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. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-5666-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006b). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2007a). Importance has been considered in satisfaction evaluation: An experimental examination of Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 81, 521–541. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-0021-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2007b). Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models. Social Indicators Research, 84, 189–202. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-9082-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zekovic, B., & Renwick, R. (2003). Quality of life for children and adolescents with developmental disabilities: Review of conceptual and methodological issues relevant to public policy. Disability and Society, 18, 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zullig, K. J., Ward, R. M., & Horn, T. (2006). The association between perceived spirituality, religiosity, and life satisfaction: The mediating role of self-rated health. Social Indicators Research, 79, 255–274. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-4127-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the “Taiwan Student Physical and Mental Development Study” funded by the ROC National Academy of Educational Research (NAER-95-24-A-2-01-00-2-14). Additional support came from the ROC National Science Council through two projects: “The Net and Taiwan Adolescents’ Physical and Mental Development” (NSC 97-2631-S-009-001) and “Internet Use and Well-being of Taiwan Students: Longitudinal Analysis and the Extension of Fact Bank” (NSC-100-2631-S-009-001 and NSC-101-2631-S-009-001).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Education, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta-Hsueh Rd, Hsinchu, 300, Taiwan R.O.C

    Ssu-Kuang Chen & Sunny S. J. Lin

Authors
  1. Ssu-Kuang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sunny S. J. Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunny S. J. Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, SK., Lin, S.S.J. The Latent Profiles of Life Domain Importance and Satisfaction in a Quality of Life Scale. Soc Indic Res 116, 429–445 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0309-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0309-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation