Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In quality of life (QOL) studies, importance weighting generally refers to the incorporation of perceived importance as a weighting factor into measures of QOL. Although there are issues with multiplicative scores (multiplying satisfaction and importance scores), the use of multiplicative scores as a method of non-normalized importance weighting remains common. In addition, researchers have suggested assessing importance weighting by inspecting life domains individually (i.e., within-domain perspective). Analyzing survey data from a sample of 328 Chinese adults, we (1) compared the non-normalized importance weighting method (multiplicative scores) and the normalized linear importance weighting method and showed that they not only represented different concepts but also produced different empirical results for importance weighting, (2) provided empirical evidence demonstrating the problems of assessing importance weighting from a within-domain perspective, and (3) presented the alternative variables to be included in regression analysis to assess normalized liner importance weighting.

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

  • Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckie, T. M., & Hayduk, L. A. (2004). Using perceived health to test the construct-related validity of global quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 65, 279–298.

    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 

  • Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2809–2818.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, L., & Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (2019). Eliciting, applying and exploring multidimensional welfare weightings: Evidence from the field. Review of Income and Wealth. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagell, P., & Westergren, A. (2006). The significance of importance: An evaluation of Ferrans and Powers’ quality of life index. Quality of Life Research, 15, 867–876.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2015). The often overlooked issue of statistical power: This and other issues regarding assessing importance weighting in quality of life measurements. Social Science Research, 50, 303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. M. (2018). Importance of health and relative importance of satisfaction with one’s own health: A case of frail immigrant older adults. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1973-5.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, A. B., & Schkade, D. A. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1833–1845.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalos, A. C. (2004). Social indicators research and health-related quality of life research. Social Indicators Research, 65, 27–72.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1980). Test for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taillefer, M. C., Dupuis, G., Roberge, M.-A., & LeMay, S. (2003). Health-related quality of life models: Systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 64, 293–323.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., Yang, C. T., & Huang, L. N. (2014). On the predictive effect of multidimensional importance-weighted quality of life scores on overall subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 115, 933–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006). 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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant Number 14BSH080) to the third author.

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, 60607-7134, USA

    Chang-ming Hsieh

  2. Xi’an Jiaotong University City College, Xi’an, China

    Qiguang Li

  3. Southwest University, Chongqing, China

    Houchao Lyu

Authors
  1. Chang-ming Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiguang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Houchao Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang-ming Hsieh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsieh, Cm., Li, Q. & Lyu, H. A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement. Soc Indic Res 152, 637–651 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation