Abstract
The effect of relative domain importance as a weighting mechanism in quality of life (QoL) measures has been a topic of debate for decades. Studies investigating the role of domain importance in QoL measures have produced mixed results. The mixed results may very well be the consequences of a limited choice of global satisfaction or QoL measures, measurements of domain satisfaction, measurements of domain importance and weighting approaches applied to date. This study investigated the effect of importance weighting without assigning any arbitrary weighting function of domain importance. A cluster analysis was first used to classify individuals into groups, based on their perceived importance of various life domains, and then the relationship between global life satisfaction measure and the composite of domain satisfaction scores between these groups was compared. Results of this study showed that the relationship between global life satisfaction and composite of satisfaction scores did not remain consistent for respondents with different importance rankings of major life domains, which suggested an important effect of domain importance in QoL measures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Beatty, P., & Tuch, S. A. (1997). Race and life satisfaction in the middle class. Sociological Spectrum, 17, 71–90.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. NY: Russel Sage.
Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the tale of gold standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200.
Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–74.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.
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.
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.
Hsieh, C. M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61, 227–240.
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.
Hsieh, C. M. (2006). Using client satisfaction to improve case management services for the elderly. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 605–612.
Inglehart, R. (1978). Value priorities life satisfaction, and political dissatisfaction among western publics. Comparative Studies in Sociology, 1, 173–202.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336.
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.
Locke, E. A. (1984). Job satisfaction. In M. Gruneberg & T. Wall (Eds.), Social psychology and organizational behavior (pp. 93–117). London: Wiley.
Mastekaasa, A. (1984). Multiplicative and additive models of job and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 14, 141–163.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50, 159–179.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1987). Methodology review: Clustering methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 329–354.
Mookherjee, H. N. (1992). Perceptions of well-being by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations in the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 513–524.
Rojas, M. (2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: Is it a simple relationship? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 467–497.
Russell, L. B., & Hubley, A. M. (2005). Importance ratings and weighting: Old concerns and new perspectives. International Journal of Testing, 5, 105–130.
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.
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.
Skalli, A., Theodossioub, I., & Vasileioua, E. (2008). Jobs as lancaster goods: Facets of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1906–1920.
Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Steinley, D. (2003). Local optima in K means clustering: What you don’t know may hurt you? Psychological Methods, 8, 294–304.
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.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize and objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.
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.
Wu, C. H. (2008b). Can we weight satisfaction score with importance ranks across life domains? Social Indicators Research, 86, 468–480.
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.
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.
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.
Zabinski, M. F., Norman, G. J., Sallis, J. F., & Calfas, K. J. (2007). Patterns of sedentary behavior among adolescents. Health Psychology, 26, 113–120.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hsieh, CM. Importance is Not Unimportant: The Role of Importance Weighting in QOL Measures. Soc Indic Res 109, 267–278 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9900-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9900-z