Social Indicators Research

, Volume 126, Issue 3, pp 1355–1373 | Cite as

Reliability, Validity, and Variability of the Subjective Well-Being Questions in the 2010 American Time Use Survey

  • Yoonjoo LeeEmail author
  • Sandra L. Hofferth
  • Sarah M. Flood
  • Kimberly Fisher


Part of a wider range of investigations to produce generally acceptable standards for measuring affective well-being, time diary surveys have tested several approaches to measuring subjective well-being during diary days. As an alternative to the standard approach of asking a single question about each activity reported in time diary surveys, the 2010 module of the American Time Use Survey asked six emotion questions about three activities. The perception questions captured how happy, meaningful, sad, tired, stressed, or in pain respondents felt on a 7-point scale. To evaluate this approach, our research examined the reliability and validity of the six emotion questions, and assessed their variability across activities. Using principal component analysis, we assessed the associations among items and obtained two activity-level components with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.68 and 0.59 and two respondent-level components with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.74 and 0.65. To test validity, we regressed self-rated health on the underlying components and socio-demographic controls. Both of the respondent level components were significantly associated with better health (odds ratio 1.81, 1.27). Using each of the perceptions individually, we found that happiness, meaningfulness, and lack of fatigue, stress, and pain were related to better health, but none as strongly as the first component. Finally, we examined the coefficients of variation to assess the variability in the well-being measures across activities. Measurement implications and limitations of this study are discussed.


Subjective well-being Time use Health Methodology 



A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 35th International Association of Time Use Research (IATUR) Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2013. Support for this research was provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant number R01-HD053654, S. Hofferth, PI, and R24-HD041041, the Maryland Population Research Center).


  1. Abraham, K., Maitland, A., & Bianchi, S. (2006). Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey: Who is missing from the data and how much does it matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 676–703. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfl037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). American Time Use Survey. Accessed 9 July 2014.
  3. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Mello, L., & Tiongson, E. (2009). What is the value of (my and my family’s) good health? Kyklos, 62(4), 594–610. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2009.00453.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2014). Review of the day reconstruction method (DRM). Social Indicators Research, 116(1), 255–267. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0279-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drobnic, S., & Guillén, A. M. (Eds.). (2011). Work-life balance in Europe: The role of job quality. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Freedman, V., Conrad, F., Cornman, J., Schwarz, N., & Stafford, F. (2014). Dose time fly when you are having fun? A day reconstruction method analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 639–655. doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9440-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gershuny, J. (2013). National utility: Measuring the enjoyment of activities. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 996–1009. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcs077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haas, S. (2007). The long-term effects of poor childhood health: An assessment and application of retrospective reports. Demography, 44(1), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hektner, J., Schmid, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). The Experience sampling method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Hofferth, S., Flood, S. & Sobek, M. (2013). American Time Use Survey Data Extract System: Version 2.4. [Machine-readable database]. Maryland Population Research Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, and Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  13. Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1(2), 137–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x.Google Scholar
  14. Juster, T., Courant, P., Duncan, G., Robinson, J. & Stafford, F. (1975). Time use in economic and social accounts, 1975–1976. Accessed 9 July 2014.
  15. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. (2006). Development in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24. doi: 10.1257/089533006776526030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience—The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. doi: 10.1126/science.1103572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krueger, A., Kahneman, D., Fischler, C., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2009a). Time use and subjective well-being in France and the U.S. Social Indicators Research, 93(1), 7–18. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9415-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krueger, A., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2009b). National time accounting—The currency of life. In A. Krueger (Ed.), Measuring the subjective well-being of nations (pp. 9–86). Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krueger, A., & Schkade, D. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1833–1845. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Television and the quality of life: How viewing shapes everyday experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and methodology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Michelson, William. (1985). From sun to sun: Daily obligations and community structure in the lives of employed women and their families. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.Google Scholar
  24. Michelson, William. (2005). Time use: Expanding explanation in the social sciences. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council. (2012). The subjective well-being module of the American Time Use Survey: Assessment for its continuation. Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. O’Rourke, N., Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (2005). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for univariate and multiple statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute and Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. OECD (2013). Guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris, France: OECD. Accessed 3 March 2014.
  29. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  30. Patulny, R., & Fisher, K. (2012). Advancing wellbeing research: Would Americans be happier if they lived like Australians? Australian Journal of Social Issues, 47(1), 29–50.Google Scholar
  31. Robinson, J. (2013). As we (still) like it: Socializing, religion, kids remain our favourite daily activities. In Working paper No. PWP-MPRC-2013-024. Maryland Population Research Center. Accessed 31 Jan 2014.
  32. Robinson, J., & Martin, S. (2009). Comments on Krueger presentation and article. Social Indicators Research, 93(1), 27–30. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9366-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2013). Guidelines for harmonizing time-use surveys. Geneva, UNECE. Accessed 3 March 2014.
  34. Veenhoven, R. (2006). World Database of Happiness: Continuous register of scientific research on subjective appreciation of life. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Accessed 11 July 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoonjoo Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandra L. Hofferth
    • 1
  • Sarah M. Flood
    • 2
  • Kimberly Fisher
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Family Science, School of Public HealthUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Minnesota Population CenterUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Time Use ResearchUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations