The often overlooked issue of statistical power: This and other issues regarding assessing importance weighting in quality of life measures

被引:8
作者
Hsieh, Chang-ming [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
关键词
Subjective well-being; Multiplicative scores; Moderated regression; IMPORTANCE RATINGS; FORMATIVE MEASUREMENT; SATISFACTION SCORES; TOP-DOWN; MODEL; INDEXES; DOMAINS; SCALE;
D O I
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.009
中图分类号
C91 [社会学];
学科分类号
030301 ; 1204 ;
摘要
In the area of quality of life research, researchers may ask respondents to rate importance as well as satisfaction of various life domains (such as job and health) and use importance ratings as weights to calculate overall, or global, life satisfaction. The practice of giving more important domains more weight, known as importance weighting, has not been without controversy. Several previous studies assessed importance weighting using the analytical approach of moderated regression. This study discusses major issues related to how importance weighting has been assessed. Specifically, this study highlights that studies on importance weighting without considering statistical power are prone to type II error, i.e., failing to reject the null hypothesis of no significant weighting effect when the null hypothesis is actually false. The sample size required for adequate statistical power to detect importance weighting functions appeared larger than most previous studies could offer. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:303 / 310
页数:8
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [21] The significance of importance: An evaluation of ferrans and powers' quality of life index
    Hagell, Peter
    Westergren, Albert
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2006, 15 (05) : 867 - 876
  • [22] Constructing summary indices of quality of life - A model for the effect of heterogeneous importance weights
    Hagerty, Michael R.
    Land, Kenneth C.
    [J]. SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, 2007, 35 (04) : 455 - 496
  • [23] Quality of Life Indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research
    Hagerty, MR
    Cummins, RA
    Ferriss, AL
    Land, K
    Michalos, AC
    Peterson, M
    Sharpe, A
    Sirgy, J
    Vogel, J
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2001, 55 (01) : 1 - 96
  • [24] Formative Measurement and Academic Research: In Search of Measurement Theory
    Hardin, Andrew M.
    Chang, Jerry Cha-Jan
    Fuller, Mark A.
    Torkzadeh, Gholamreza
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2011, 71 (02) : 281 - 305
  • [25] TOP-DOWN VERSUS BOTTOM-UP THEORIES OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
    HEADEY, B
    VEENHOVEN, R
    WEARING, A
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 1991, 24 (01) : 81 - 100
  • [26] Issues in Evaluating Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measures
    Hsieh, Chang-ming
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2013, 110 (02) : 681 - 693
  • [27] Should We Give Up Domain Importance Weighting in QoL Measures?
    Hsieh, Chang-ming
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2012, 108 (01) : 99 - 109
  • [28] Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance
    Hsieh, CM
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2003, 61 (02) : 227 - 240
  • [29] To weight or not to weight: The role of domain importance in quality of life measurement
    Hsieh, CM
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2004, 68 (02) : 163 - 174
  • [30] James William, 1950, THE PRINCIPLES OF PS, V1