Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Domain Importance in Subjective Well-Being Measures

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In subjective well-being (SWB) studies, domain importance typically refers to the relative importance of various life domains. Although there appears to be a consensus that domain importance is an important topic, whether or not domain importance should be incorporated into measures of SWB remains contentious. Even though recent studies that examined the claims against incorporating domain importance, also known as domain importance weighting, into SWB measures found that both conceptual and empirical arguments have been far from sufficient, insufficient evidence against importance weighting does not mean there is evidence to support importance weighting. Conducting a secondary analysis, the current study investigates the role of domain importance in SWB measures without making any arbitrary assumptions regarding how domain importance weighting should function. Results of the study show that the relationship between global life satisfaction and the sum of domain satisfaction scores did not remain constant across groups of different domain importance rating patterns. The findings suggest that, when the research objective is to study variability of responses at the level of homogeneous subgroups, it is important to consider domain importance when using domain satisfaction to construct global SWB 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

  • Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1971). Quality of American Life, 1971 (Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1992-02-16. doi:10.3886/ICPSR03508.v1).

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, M. B., Cornell, J., Villanueva, M., & Retzlaff, P. J. (1992). Clinical validation of the Quality of Life Inventory: A measure of life satisfaction for use in treatment planning and outcome assessment. Psychological Assessment, 4, 92–101.

    Article  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 

  • 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. (2012a). Importance is not unimportant: The role of importance weighting in QoL measures. Social Indicators Research, 109, 206–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2012b). Should we give up domain importance weighting in QoL measures? Social Indicators Research, 108, 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2013). Issues in evaluating importance weighting in quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research, 110, 681–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2014). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: Evaluation of domain importance weighting in quality of life measurements. Social Indicators Research, 119, 483–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M., & Kenagy, G. P. (2014). Measuring quality of life: A case for re-examining the assessment of domain importance weighting. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9, 63–77.

    Article  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. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336.

    Article  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 

  • Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. (2002a). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2002b). Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2004). Latent class models. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for social sciences (pp. 175–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, A. L. (2002). Basic concepts and procedures in single- and multiple-group latent class analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 56–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1987). Methodology review: Clustering methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.

    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 

  • Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    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 

  • Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2013). Latent GOLD 5.0 upgrade manual. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize and objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

    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 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. (2006b). 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. (2007). Importance has been considered in satisfaction evaluation: An experimental examination of Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 81, 521–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabinski, M. F., Norman, G. J., Sallis, J. F., & Calfas, K. J. (2007). Patterns of sedentary behavior among adolescents. Health Psychology, 26, 113–120.

    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 (MC 309), Chicago, IL, 60607, 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsieh, Cm. Domain Importance in Subjective Well-Being Measures. Soc Indic Res 127, 777–792 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0977-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0977-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation