IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bot/rivsta/v73y2013i2p143-163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing weighting systems in the measurement of subjective well-being

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Angelini

    (Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna - Italy)

  • Cristina Bernini

    (Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna - Italy)

  • Andrea Guizzardi

    (Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna - Italy)

Abstract

There is a growing literature on the assessment of quality of life (QOL) and subjective well-being (SWB) through composite indicators (CI), obtained by aggregating subjective measures of people well-being. Besides the measurement of elementary indicators, the principal challenges in constructing SWB indicator are the aggregation and weighting system. To this respect, literature hasn’t actually reached a unique consensus. The paper investigates the effects that different weighting systems (equally, factorial and DEA weights) have on the rankings and score distributions of the SWB indicators. Data are provide by a sample survey on the quality of life conducted on the residents in the Romagna area during 2010. Results evidence that diverse weighting techniques produce different SWB score distributions while, to a some extent, rankings are maintained.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Angelini & Cristina Bernini & Andrea Guizzardi, 2013. "Comparing weighting systems in the measurement of subjective well-being," Statistica, Department of Statistics, University of Bologna, vol. 73(2), pages 143-163.
    • Handle: RePEc:bot:rivsta:v:73:y:2013:i:2:p:143-163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:bot:rivsta:v:73:y:2013:i:2:p:143-163. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Giovanna Galatà (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dsbolit.html .

    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.