IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v115y2014i3p933-943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Predictive Effect of Multidimensional Importance-Weighted Quality of Life Scores on Overall Subjective Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Huei Wu
  • Cheng-Ta Yang
  • Li-Na Huang

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of importance weighting in predicting outcome variables in a hierarchical and multidimensional measurement context. A total of 146 undergraduate students (female = 76; mean age = 20.25) from two universities in Taiwan and China participated in this study. They evaluated their quality of life on 22 facets from the WHOQOL-BREF scale, which covers four domains (i.e., physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health). They were also asked to rate the importance of these 22 facets and items for three general subjective well-being indices, including overall quality of life, general health, and life satisfaction. A multiplicative formula was used to create importance-weighted scores for each facet, and four domain scores were obtained by averaging facet scores under specific domains. Results of regression analysis revealed that after applying the weighting procedure, the four domain scores did not account for more variances in the three indices for overall subjective well-being, and predictive effects of the four domain scores became less differential. Our findings suggest that importance weighting did not have its expected benefits but instead may negatively impact the predictive effects. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Huei Wu & Cheng-Ta Yang & Li-Na Huang, 2014. "On the Predictive Effect of Multidimensional Importance-Weighted Quality of Life Scores on Overall Subjective Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 933-943, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:115:y:2014:i:3:p:933-943
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-013-0242-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11205-013-0242-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-013-0242-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shulamith Kreitler & Michal Kreitler, 2006. "Multidimensional Quality of Life: A New Measure of Quality of Life in Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 5-33, March.
    2. Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2007. "Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 189-202, November.
    3. Chia-Huei Wu & Ying-Mei Tsai & Lung Chen, 2009. "How do Positive Views Maintain Life Satisfaction?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 269-281, April.
    4. Lara Russell & Anita Hubley & Anita Palepu & Bruno Zumbo, 2006. "Does Weighting Capture What’s Important? Revisiting Subjective Importance Weighting with a Quality of Life Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 141-167, January.
    5. R. Wiggins & G. Netuveli & M. Hyde & P. Higgs & D. Blane, 2008. "The Evaluation of a Self-enumerated Scale of Quality of Life (CASP-19) in the Context of Research on Ageing: A Combination of Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 61-77, October.
    6. Sonja Lyubomirsky & Chris Tkach & M. DiMatteo, 2006. "What are the Differences between Happiness and Self-Esteem," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 78(3), pages 363-404, September.
    7. Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2006. "Do We Need to Weight Item Satisfaction by Item Importance? A Perspective from Locke’s Range-Of-Affect Hypothesis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 485-502, December.
    8. Chia-huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2007. "Importance has been Considered in Satisfaction Evaluation: an Experimental Examination of Locke’s Range-of-affect Hypothesis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 521-541, May.
    9. Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2006. "Do We Need to Weight Satisfaction Scores with Importance Ratings in Measuring Quality of Life?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 305-326, September.
    10. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2012. "Should We Give Up Domain Importance Weighting in QoL Measures?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 99-109, August.
    11. Grace Yao & Chia-huei Wu, 2009. "Similarities and Differences Among the Taiwan, China, and Hong-Kong Versions of the WHOQOL Questionnaire," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 79-98, March.
    12. The Whoqol Group, 1998. "The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(12), pages 1569-1585, June.
    13. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2004. "To Weight or not to Weight: The Role of Domain Importance in Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 163-174, September.
    14. Chia-Huei Wu, 2008. "Can We Weight Satisfaction Score with Importance Ranks Across Life Domains?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 469-480, May.
    15. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2003. "Counting Importance: The Case of Life Satisfaction and Relative Domain Importance," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 227-240, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chang-ming Hsieh & Qiguang Li & Houchao Lyu, 2020. "A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 637-651, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chia-Huei Wu & Lung Chen & Ying-Mei Tsai, 2009. "Investigating Importance Weighting of Satisfaction Scores from a Formative Model with Partial Least Squares Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 351-363, February.
    2. Ssu-Kuang Chen & Sunny Lin, 2014. "The Latent Profiles of Life Domain Importance and Satisfaction in a Quality of Life Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 429-445, April.
    3. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2014. "Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Evaluation of Domain Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurements," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 483-493, October.
    4. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2016. "Domain Importance in Subjective Well-Being Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 777-792, June.
    5. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2013. "Issues in Evaluating Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 681-693, January.
    6. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2018. "Importance Weighting in Client Satisfaction Measures: Lessons from the Life Satisfaction Literature," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 45-60, July.
    7. M. Joseph Sirgy & Min Young Kim & Mohsen Joshanloo & Dong-Jin Lee & Michael Bosnjak, 2020. "The Relationship Between Domain Satisfaction and Domain Importance: The Moderating Role of Depression," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2007-2030, August.
    8. Akinori Kitsuki & Shunsuke Managi, 2023. "Importance Weighting in Subjective Well-Being Measures: Using Marginal Utilities as Weights for Domain Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1101-1120, March.
    9. Chang-ming Hsieh & Qiguang Li, 2022. "Importance Weighting in the Domain-of-Life Approach to Subjective Well-Being: the Consideration of Age," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(2), pages 525-540, April.
    10. Chang-ming Hsieh & Qiguang Li & Houchao Lyu, 2020. "A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 637-651, November.
    11. Chia-Huei Wu, 2008. "Can We Weight Satisfaction Score with Importance Ranks Across Life Domains?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 469-480, May.
    12. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2012. "Should We Give Up Domain Importance Weighting in QoL Measures?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 99-109, August.
    13. Chang-Ming Hsieh, 2012. "Importance is Not Unimportant: The Role of Importance Weighting in QOL Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 267-278, November.
    14. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2022. "Are all Life Domains Created Equal? Domain Importance Weighting in Subjective Well-Being Research," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1909-1925, June.
    15. Jorge Guardiola & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2013. "Weighting life domains with Data Envelopment Analysis," Working Papers 1311, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    16. Tsung-Chi Cheng & Chao-Yin Lin & Shu-Chen Wang, 2023. "Exploring factors related to agreement between importance and satisfaction of subjective well-being indicators: evidence from Taiwan," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2811-2839, June.
    17. Alison Woodcock & Laura Camfield & J. McGregor & Faith Martin, 2009. "Validation of the WeDQoL-Goals-Thailand Measure: Culture-Specific Individualised Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 135-171, October.
    18. Jorge Guardiola & Andrés Picazo-Tadeo, 2014. "Building Weighted-Domain Composite Indices of Life Satisfaction with Data Envelopment Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 257-274, May.
    19. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2019. "Importance of Health and Relative Importance of Satisfaction with One’s Own Health: A Case of Frail Immigrant Older Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 81-93, May.
    20. Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2007. "Examining the relationship between global and domain measures of quality of life by three factor structure models," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 189-202, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:115:y:2014:i:3:p:933-943. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.