A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement
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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Social indicators research 2020-11, Vol.152 (2), p.637-651 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 651 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 637 |
| container_title | Social indicators research |
| container_volume | 152 |
| creator | Hsieh, Chang-ming Li, Qiguang Lyu, Houchao |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2561656636</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2561656636</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e82f2f3d286f298f8f71bf5a4bdfed4c430215cdb8e4abe6904c065318564b13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsD7-gKsB19E7z6ZLKT4KVREFl8MkuVOnNJM4k0irf95oBV25uNwH5zsXDiEnDM4YwPg8McZBZcBhKKnG2XqHjJgaiwwmnO2SEQgQWS4A9slBSksAUFLJEfm4oNOmbm30qQm0cfSuibVd-XesqA3VsIbsz-m2X3W-XfnSdv4N6WNfLLH8Hmd128TOhhLpM_rFS-fDgvpAH_oB7TZf1nPvkN6iTX3EGkN3RPacXSU8_umH5Onq8ml6k83vr2fTi3lWilx1GebccScqnmvHJ7nL3ZgVTllZVA4rWUoBnKmyKnKUtkA9AVmCVoLlSsuCiUNyurVtY_PaY-rMsuljGD4arjTTSmuhBxXfqsrYpBTRmTb62saNYWC-MjbbjM2QsfnO2KwHSGyhNIjDAuOv9T_UJyXlgZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2561656636</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Hsieh, Chang-ming ; Li, Qiguang ; Lyu, Houchao</creator><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Chang-ming ; Li, Qiguang ; Lyu, Houchao</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0303-8300</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Human Geography ; Measurement ; Microeconomics ; Original Research ; Public Health ; Quality of life ; Quality of Life Research ; Regression analysis ; Social Sciences ; Sociology ; Weighting</subject><ispartof>Social indicators research, 2020-11, Vol.152 (2), p.637-651</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2020</rights><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e82f2f3d286f298f8f71bf5a4bdfed4c430215cdb8e4abe6904c065318564b13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e82f2f3d286f298f8f71bf5a4bdfed4c430215cdb8e4abe6904c065318564b13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5737-5757</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27344,27924,27925,33774,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Chang-ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Qiguang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyu, Houchao</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement</title><title>Social indicators research</title><addtitle>Soc Indic Res</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Human Geography</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Microeconomics</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Weighting</subject><issn>0303-8300</issn><issn>1573-0921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsD7-gKsB19E7z6ZLKT4KVREFl8MkuVOnNJM4k0irf95oBV25uNwH5zsXDiEnDM4YwPg8McZBZcBhKKnG2XqHjJgaiwwmnO2SEQgQWS4A9slBSksAUFLJEfm4oNOmbm30qQm0cfSuibVd-XesqA3VsIbsz-m2X3W-XfnSdv4N6WNfLLH8Hmd128TOhhLpM_rFS-fDgvpAH_oB7TZf1nPvkN6iTX3EGkN3RPacXSU8_umH5Onq8ml6k83vr2fTi3lWilx1GebccScqnmvHJ7nL3ZgVTllZVA4rWUoBnKmyKnKUtkA9AVmCVoLlSsuCiUNyurVtY_PaY-rMsuljGD4arjTTSmuhBxXfqsrYpBTRmTb62saNYWC-MjbbjM2QsfnO2KwHSGyhNIjDAuOv9T_UJyXlgZA</recordid><startdate>20201101</startdate><enddate>20201101</enddate><creator>Hsieh, Chang-ming</creator><creator>Li, Qiguang</creator><creator>Lyu, Houchao</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5737-5757</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201101</creationdate><title>A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement</title><author>Hsieh, Chang-ming ; Li, Qiguang ; Lyu, Houchao</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e82f2f3d286f298f8f71bf5a4bdfed4c430215cdb8e4abe6904c065318564b13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Human Geography</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Microeconomics</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Weighting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Chang-ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Qiguang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyu, Houchao</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Social indicators research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hsieh, Chang-ming</au><au>Li, Qiguang</au><au>Lyu, Houchao</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement</atitle><jtitle>Social indicators research</jtitle><stitle>Soc Indic Res</stitle><date>2020-11-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>152</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>637</spage><epage>651</epage><pages>637-651</pages><issn>0303-8300</issn><eissn>1573-0921</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5737-5757</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0303-8300 |
| ispartof | Social indicators research, 2020-11, Vol.152 (2), p.637-651 |
| issn | 0303-8300 1573-0921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2561656636 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals; Sociological Abstracts; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Human Geography Measurement Microeconomics Original Research Public Health Quality of life Quality of Life Research Regression analysis Social Sciences Sociology Weighting |
| title | A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T01%3A52%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%20Normalized%20and%20Non-Normalized%20Multiplicative%20Subjective%20Importance%20Weighting%20in%20Quality%20of%20Life%20Measurement&rft.jtitle=Social%20indicators%20research&rft.au=Hsieh,%20Chang-ming&rft.date=2020-11-01&rft.volume=152&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=637&rft.epage=651&rft.pages=637-651&rft.issn=0303-8300&rft.eissn=1573-0921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11205-020-02457-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2561656636%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2561656636&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |