Subjective Well-Being of the Malaysian Citizen: Preliminary Development of Survey Instrument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/0crpka28Keywords:
Subjective Well-Being,, Measurement Instrument,, Operationalization Definition, Dimensions and Indicators of Subjective Well-Being, Rating Scale,, Content Validity.Abstract
A questionnaire is a well-known measurement instrument used by most of the researchers when conducting a survey. It is a powerful tool for collecting data in survey research. It should be noted that the quality of a measurement instrument used plays a key role in ensuring the quality of data gained in the survey. Therefore, it has become essential for the researchers to carefully design their questionnaire so that the quality of the data obtained can be preserved. Then, it is also vital for the researchers to assess the quality of the data obtained before it can be successfully used for further analysis. This article discussed an early process involved in development of the survey instrument for the purpose of assessing subjective well-being of the Malaysian citizen. These include operationalization of definition, identification of the important dimension and indicators of subjective well-being, rating scale and content validity of the items with the experts.
Downloads
References
1. Allahyari, E., Jafari, P., & Bagheri, Z. (2016). A Simulation Study to Assess the Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Power of Ordinal Logistic Regression for Differential Item Functioning Analysis in Rating Scales. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2016, 1-7.
2. Andrew, J. (2009). Happiness and Productivity. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), 789–822.
3. Azizan, N. H., Mahmud, Z., & Rambli, A. (2018). Measurement Instrument and Indicators of Subjective Well-Being: A Review Paper. Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies, 3(11), 22–33.
4. Boynton, P. M. (2004). Administering, analysing, and reporting your questionnaire. British Medical Journal, 328(7452), 1372–1375.
5. Cicchetti, D., Showalter, D., & Tyrer, P. (1985). The effect of number of rating scle categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied Psychol Measure, 9(1), 31–36.
6. Clark, A. E., Kristensen, N., & Westergård-Nielsen, N. (2009). Economic satisfaction and income rank in small neighbourhoods. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 519–527.
7. Daher, A. M., Ahmad, S. H., Winn, T., & Selamat, M. I. (2015). Impact of rating scale categories on reliability and fit statistics of the Malay Spiritual well-being Scale using Rasch analysis. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 22(3), 48–55.
8. Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy People Live Longer: Subjective Well-Being Contributes to Health and Longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1-43.
9. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. (2012). Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and Life Satisfaction. In The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 63-73.
10. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2015). National accounts of subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 70(3), 234–242.
11. Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being: A general overvie. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 391–406.
12. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40(1/2), 189–216.
13. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25-41.
14. Eutsler, J., & Lang, B. (2015). Rating Scales in Accounting Research: The Impact of Scale Points and Labels. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 27(2), 35–51.
15. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a response to underemployment inequity: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.
16. Kuyken, W. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409.
17. Maydeu-Olivares, A., Kramp, U., Garcia-Forero, C., Gallardo-Pujol, D., & Coffman, D. (2009). The effect of varying the number of response alternatives in rating scales: Experimental evidence from intra- individual effects. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 41(2), 295–308.
18. Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological well- being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(9), 1236–1244.
19. Osteras, N., Gulbrandsen, P., Garratt, A., Benth, J. S., Dahl, F. A., Natvig, B., & Brage, S. (2008). A randomised comparison of a four- and a five-point scale version of the Norwegian Function Assessment Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 1–9.
20. Power, M., & Kuyken, W. (1998). the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (Whoqol): Development and General Psychometric Properties* the Whoqol Group{. Social Science and Medicine, 46(12), 1569–1585.
21. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Journal of Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.
22. Radhakrishna, R. B. (2007). Tips for developing and testing questionnaires/instruments. Journal of Extension, 45(1), 1–4.
23. Revilla, M. A., Saris, W. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (2014). Choosing the Number of Categories in Agree- Disagree Scales. Sociological Methods and Research, 43(1), 73–97.
24. Saklofske, D. H., Schwean, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
26. Shultz, K. S., Whitney, D. J., & Zickar, M. J. (2013). Measurement theory in action: Case studies and exercises. Abingdon: Routledge.
27. Uchida, Y., & Oishi, S. (2016). The Happiness of Individuals and the Collective. Japanese Psychological Research, 58(1), 125–141.
28. Yamamura, E., Tsutsui, Y., Yamane, C., Yamane, S., Powdthavee Cep, N., & Powdthavee Miaesr, N. (2015). Trust and Happiness: Comparative Study Before and After the Great East Japan Earthquake. Social Indicators Research, 123, 919–935.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
