The Stability and Validity of Quality of Life Measures

  • Tom Atkinson
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 26)


Effective social indicators must be stable when individual or societal characteristics are unchanged and dynamic when circumstances alter. Highly reliable measures may be poor indicators because they are insensitive to change. Little evidence is available on the sensitivity or validity of objective and subjective indicators. A lack of panel data has restricted the assessment of the stability of subjective measures.

This paper examines longitudinal data on a representative sample of 2162 Canadians interviewed in 1977 and again in 1979. Test-retest correlations of approximately 0.50 were obtained for satisfaction and self-anchoring ladder measures among respondents who reported no significant changes in their lives during the past two years. Correlations were substantially lower, as expected, for those reporting life changes. Comparisons of the absolute values of these subjective indicators show that very little change in quality of life measures occurs when stable circumstances are reported but the indicators rise or fall significantly when situations change with downward adjustments being more dramatic than upward modifications. Positive and negative life events had little effect on overall evaluations of life quality.

In general, these findings provide very strong evidence for the stability and validity of subjective indicators over time. These measures, with one exception, were constant in unchanging situations and sensitive to change when it occurred.


Life Satisfaction Social Indicator Subjective Indicator Social Indicator Research Housing Satisfaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, F. M. and Crandall, R.: ‘The validity of measures of self-reported well-being’, Social Indicators Research 3 (1976), pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, F. M. and McKennel, A. C.: ‘Measures of self-reported well-being: Their affective, cognitive and other components’, Social Indicators Research 8 (1980), pp. 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S.B.: Social Indicators of Well-Being: American’s Perceptions of Life Quality (Plenum, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  4. Bradburn, N.: The Structure of Psychological Weil-Being (Aldine, Chicago, 1969).Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., and Rodgers, W. L.: The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, Satisfactions (Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W.: ‘Convergent and discriminant validities by the multitrait-multimethod matrix’, Psychological Bulletin 56 (1959), pp. 81–105.Google Scholar
  7. Cantril, H.: The Pattern of Human Concerns (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J., 1965).Google Scholar
  8. Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, B.: ‘LISREL IV: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood’ (National Education Resources, Chicago, 1978).Google Scholar
  9. McKennell, A. C, Atkinson, T., and Andrews, F. M.: ‘Structural constancies in surveys of perceived well-being’, in Szalia, A. and Andrews, F. M. (eds.), Comparative Studies on the Quality of Life (Sage Publications, London, forthcoming).Google Scholar
  10. Murray, M. and Atkinson T.: ‘Gender differences in correlates of job satisfaction’, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  11. Rodgers, W. L. and Converse, P. E.: ‘Measures of the perceived overall quality of life’, Social Indicators Research 2 (1976), pp. 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Atkinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Behavioural ResearchYork UniversityToronto

Personalised recommendations