Skip to main content
Log in

Investigating the Dimensions of Youth Wellbeing: An Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling Approach Applied to Palestine

  • Published:
Child Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper illustrates the “Sen-Nussbaum-type” capability approach to the measurement of youth wellbeing using the newly developed Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM). It offers insights into how the capability to achieve wellbeing can be measured in a conflict-affected and resource-constrained setting. The methodology is applied to nationally representative data taken from the Palestinian Family Survey. The population of interest is youth aged 15 to 29. Three capability dimensions are identified: health awareness, knowledge and living conditions. Results show an interrelation between capability dimensions. It is especially important to note the effect of knowledge capabilities on both health awareness and living conditions indicators. Results also confirm the importance of some (exogenous) factors such as the education of the household head in the conversion of capabilities into achievements. Capabilities are shown to be highest in the West Bank for both knowledge and living conditions compared to the Gaza Strip.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A notable exception is the study of Krishnakumar and Ballon (2008).

References

  • Abu-Zaineh, M., Mataria, A., Moatti, J.-P., & Ventelou, B. (2011). Measuring and decomposing socioeconomic inequality in healthcare delivery: a microsimulation approach with application to the palestinian conflict-affected fragile setting. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkire, S. (2008). Choosing dimensions: the capability approach and multidimensional poverty. MPRA Paper 8862.

  • Alkire, S. (2010). Using the capability approach: prospective and evaluative analyses. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: concepts, measures and applications (Ch. 1, pp 26-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Alkire, S. (2015). The capability approach and wellbeing measurement for public policy. OPHI Working Paper N° 94.

  • Anand, P. (2005). Capabilities and health. Journal of Medical Ethics, 3, 299–303.

  • Asparouhov, T. & Muthen, B. (2006). Robust Chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. 26 May. Accessed 04 19, 2016. https://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote10.pdf.

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballon, P. (2013). The selection of functionings and capabilities: a survey of empirical studies. Working Papers PMMA 2013–09.

  • Batniji, R., Rabaia, Y., Nguyen-Cillham, V., Giacaman, R., Sarraj, E., Punamaki, R.-L., Saab, H., & Boyce, W. (2009). Health as human security in the occupied Palestinian territory. The Lancet, 373(9669), 113–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, J., & Banerjee, S. (2012). Women empowerment as multidimensional capability enhancement: an application of structural-equation-modelling. Occassional Paper: Institute of Development Studies Kolkota.

  • Biggeri, M., & Mehrota, S. (2011). Child poverty as capability deprivation: How to choose domains of child wellbeing and poverty. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 46–75). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt, H., & Quiggin, J. (2013). Capabilities as menus: a Non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation. Journal of Health Economics, 32, 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 605–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, E. R. (2003). The impact of Israeli border policy on the palestinian labor market. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51(3), 657–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, K., & Duraiappah, A. K. (2008). Operationalizing Capabilities in a Segmented Society: The Role of Insittutions. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: concepts, measures and applications (pp. 362–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Coast, J., Smith, R., & Lorgelly, P. (2008). Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Health Economics, 17, 667–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and teh internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. (2005). Health, wealth, and fairness. Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, 7(2), 253–284.

  • Giacaman, R., Khatib, R., Shabaneh, L., Ramlawi, A., Sabri, B., Sabatinelli, G., Khawaja, M., & Laurance, T. (2009). Health status and health services in the occupied palestinian territory. The Lancet, 373(9666), 837–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glomm, G., & Ravikumar, B. (1992). Public versus private investment in human capital: engodenous growth and income inequality. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 818–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, N., Patel, P. & Perry, P. (2014). The global youth wellbeing index. Washington DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies and International Youth Foundation.

  • Goldmand, R. D. (2013). Caffeinated energy drinks in children. Canadian Family Physician, 59(9), 947–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (2002). Structural equations modeling with ordial variables using LISREL. http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ordinal.pdf. Accessed 2014

  • Krishnakumar, J. (2007). Going beyond functionings to capabilities: an econometric model to explain and estimate capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 8(1), 39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnakumar, J. & Ballon P. (2008). Estimating basic capabilities: a structural equation model applied to Bolivia. World Development, 36(6), 992–1010.

  • Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuklys, W. & Robeyns I. (2004). Sen’s capability approach to welfare economics. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0415, Cambridge University.

  • Lelli, S. (2008). Operationalising Sen’s capability approach: the influence of the selected technique. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: concepts, measures and applications (Ch.10: pp 310–361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Measurement invariance of Big-five factors overthe life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and La dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1194–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzisch, A., Alexandre, J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to Students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B. O., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2010). A New look at the Big five factor structure through explanatory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Parker, P., Morin, A. J. S., Carbonneau, N., Jowett, S., Bureau, J. S., Fernet, C., & Guay, F. (2013). Passion: does one scale fit all? construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psychometric invariance over different activities and languages. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 796–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mataria, A., Giancaman, R., Stefanini, A., Naidoo, N., Kowal, P., & Chatterji, S. (2009). The quality of life of palestinians living in chronic conflict: assessment and determinants. European Journal of Health Economics, 10, 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nussbaum, M. (1988). Nature, function and capability: aristotle on political distribution. Oxford studies in ancient philosophy, 6(Supplementary Volume), 145–184.

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. 1e. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9, 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Final Report of the Palestinian Family Survey 2010. Ramallah: State of Palestine.

  • Paulik, E., Ferenc, B., Aranka, K., Sándor, B., & László, N. (2010). Determinants of health-promoting lifestyle behaviour in the rural areas of hungary. Health Promotion International, 25(3), 277–288. doi:10.1093/heapro/daq025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, T. W. (1960). Capital formation by education. Journal of Political Economy, 68(6), 571–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (ed.), Tanner Lectures on Human Values, (196–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.

  • Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Russell Sage Foundation, New York and Clarendon Press.

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford India paperbacks, Oxford Universtiy Press.

  • Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siefert, S. M., Schaechter, J, L., Hershorin, E. R. & Lipshultz, S. E. (2011). Health effects of energy drinks on children, adolescents, and young adults. Peadiatrics, 127(3), 511-528.

  • Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temple, J., & Johnson, P. A. (1998). Social capability and economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 965–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tommaso, M. L. D. (2007). Children capabilities: a structural equation model for india. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 436–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN. 2016. Sustainable development goals. Avril 13. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.

  • UNDP. (1990–2013). Human Development Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Wagle, U. (2005). Multidimensional poverty measuremeny with economic wellbeing, capability, and social inclusion: a case from Kathmandu, Nepal. Journal of Human Development, 6(3), 301–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2016). 100 Core Health Indicators. 04 18. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/indicators/2015/100CoreHealthIndicators_2015_infographic.pdf?ua=1.

  • Wirth, R. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 58–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woode, M. E. & Abu-Zaineh, M. (2015). A cross-country analysis of gender disparities in early childhood deprivation. AHEAD Working Paper Series N° 01/2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maame Esi Woode.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work has been carried out thanks to the support of the A*MIDEX project (no. ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02) funded by the “Investissements d’Avenir” French Government program, managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR).

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Fig. S1

(DOCX 115 kb)

Fig. S2

(DOCX 76 kb)

Table S1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Table S2

(DOCX 18 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1

Fig. 1
figure 1

ESEM in MIMIC model

Table 6 Item correlation
Table 7 Factor loadings with correlations

Appendix 2: Generalised ESEM

Following Asparouhov and Muthén (2009), assume there exists p dependent underlying unobserved variables, Y*, one for each categorical variable, Y and q independent variables X with m latent variables η. In addition, assume that there exists a set of parameters, τ, for each categorical variable such that Y = k if τ k  < Y* < τ k + 1. Then the generalised ESEM (GESEM) model is specified using the following two equations,

$$ \boldsymbol{Y}=\boldsymbol{\nu} +\boldsymbol{\varLambda} \boldsymbol{\eta} +\mathbf{K}\mathbf{X}+\varepsilon $$
(1)
$$ \boldsymbol{\eta} =\alpha +\mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\eta } +\varGamma \mathbf{X}+\zeta $$
(2)

Equation (1) represents the measurement part – also referred to as the Qualitative Response Model (QRM). The QRM specifies how the latent variables are related to the observed responses. ν is the vector of intercepts. Equation (2) represents the latent variable model or the structural simultaneous equation model (SEM), with Γ and B being the respective coefficient matrices and α a vector if intercepts. The latent variables, η, are made up of both explanatory factors and item factors (confirmatory). The respective error terms of the SEM and QRM vectors (ε and ζ) are assumed to be (i) with zero expectations, (ii) uncorrelated with each other (ζ uncorrelated with ε), but (iii) correlated within each. Formally,

$$ \boldsymbol{E}\left({\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}\right)=0,\ \boldsymbol{E}\left({\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}\right)=0;\ \boldsymbol{V}\left({\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}\right)=\boldsymbol{E}\left({\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}_{\boldsymbol{i}},\ {\overset{\prime }{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}\right)=\boldsymbol{\varPhi};\ \boldsymbol{V}\left({\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}\right)=\boldsymbol{E}\left({\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{\boldsymbol{i}},\ \overset{^{\prime }}{{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}}\right)=\boldsymbol{\varPsi} $$
(5)

where Ф and Ψ are the covariance matrices for the residuals in the QRM and the SEM equations, respectively; Ψ is assumed to be diagonal and Λ non-singular. Please see Figure S1 for a graphical representation of the GESEM model.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abu-Zaineh, M., Woode, M.E. Investigating the Dimensions of Youth Wellbeing: An Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling Approach Applied to Palestine. Child Ind Res 11, 57–78 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9420-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9420-0

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation