European Survey Data for Monitoring and Researching the

Quality of Life

Heinz-Herbert Noll GESIS- Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences

Social Indicators Research Centre - ZSiMannheim 

ESAC Workshop „Measuring and Comparing the Quality of Life within Europe“, January 24-25, Brussels

Issue of Quality of Life Measurement not New!

At least 4 decades of research on conceptualization, measurement and analysis of Quality of Life in academic social research, particularly social indicators research

However, Quality of Life measurement rather new for Official Statistics at national and supra-national levels

Need to de-mystify the task!

Difficulties to find general agreement on QoL-Measurement may be due to the fact that QoL is a normative concept

Despite variety of different approaches of how to conceptualize and operatio- nalize QoL, there is at least consensus about

the multi-dimensionality of the QoL – Concept the need to include objective as well as subjective measures

Concepts and Basic Dimensions of Well-Being

Individual Wellbeing

Quality of Life

Living Conditions

Subjective Well-Being

Societal / Collective Wellbeing

Social Cohesion

Inequalities, Disparities, Exclusion

Social Relations, Ties, Inclusion (Social Capital)

Sustainability

Natural Capital

Human Capital

Intergenerational Equity

Life Domains

• Population, Household and Family• Mobility & Transportation• Leisure, Media & Culture• Participation & Integration• Income, Standard of Living & Consumption Patterns• Education and Vocational Training• Health• Housing• Labour Market & Working Conditions• Social Security• Public Safety & Crime• Environment• Total Life Situation

Usage of Objective and Subjective Indicators in QoL - Measurement

Objective Indicators

Measures unfiltered by perceptions and independent from personal evaluations

Subjective Indicators (not limited to SWB – indicators)

Measures expressing subjective states, perceptions, assessments, preferences, value orientations etc.

While there are different possibilities of objective measurement, subjective measurement is restricted to the survey method.

By generating subjective indicators, respondents are not only addressed as providers of information, but rather as subjects characterised by specific emotional states, opinions, value orientations, preferences etc.

Survey-Data for Comparative European Quality of Life Research

Research Driven Surveys

European Values Study (Consortium of Research Institutes)

- 4 waves of data collection: 1981; 1990; 1999; 2008 (47 countries, incl. EU-27 + 4 CC ) - Sample size: usually ca. 1500

.

European Social Survey (Consortium of Research Institutes)

- since 2002/2003; round 5 (2010/11) = 28 countries (incl. 6 non-EU; EU-countries missing: I, LU, MA, LV, RO);

- Sample size: 1000 – 3000; usually 1500-2000

Core Module + Rotating Modules, e.g.:

Family, Work and Well-being (Wave 2 & 5) Personal and Social Well-Being (Wave 3 & 6)

Policy Driven Surveys

Eurobarometer - EU Commission

- since 1973 Standard EB + Central and Eastern EB +CCEB; EU 27 + current CC; semi-annual surveys

- Sample size: ca. 1000, small countries: 500

European Quality of Life Survey - Eurofound

- 2003; 2007, 2011 (EU 27 + current CC)

- Sample size: 1000, few countries 1500, 2000

Commercial Survey

Gallup World Poll

- 2005/06; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 (96 countries, incl. EU 27 + 5 CC) - Sample size: 1000 in most countries; more cases in few large countries

Diverse well-being indices

e.g. used for OECD – Better Life Index

All Surveys except EQLS are covering QoL as one of several fields

Only EQLS specialized QoL – Survey

Large differences in coverage of QoL – issues (number and kind of relevant questions / variables)

Focus at subjective QoL – Indicators, however also some other relevant objective Indicators

Pronounced differences in survey quality

Criteria, e.g.

Country Coverage

Periodicity / Frequency Richness of Content

Validity / Reliability of Survey Instruments

Sample Quality

Timeliness

Source: Kohler 2008Source: Kohler 2008

Documentation SamplingProcess

RepresentativityExternal Criteria

RepresentativityInternal Criteria

SampleQuality

ESS 2002 3.90 1.80 1.13 1.28 2.88

EVS 1999 3.40 0.60 1.02 1.03 2.08

EQLS 2003 3.00 1.50 0.21 0.61 1.66

EB 62.1 (2004)

2.00 0.20 0.48 0.61 1.11

Source: Kohler 2008

Sample Quality of Survey Programmes

EVS ESS EB EQLS Gallup WP

Strengths number of countries

concept driven

measurement

data access

methodolo-gical rigour

concept driven

measurement

data access

time period covered

variety of inter- esting indicators

semi-annual surveys

complete coverage of EU-countries + CC

focus on QoL–issues

complete coverage of

EU-countries + CC

number of countries

worldwide & Europe, incl.

EU 27

variety of well-being

indices

Weaknesses sample size periodicity ( 5

to 10 years)

country coverage

sample size

sample quality

weak methodological

standards

sample size

sample quality

periodicity (4 years)

sample size

Advantagesof non-official

compared to official surveys

Disadvantagesof non-official

compared to official surveys

Concept driven (example: well-being module ESS)

Input-harmonization = improved compara-bility

Attention payed to equalivalence and translation issues

More innovative

Smaller sample size (limited breakdowns; larger error margins)

Eventually Sample bias

Country Coverage

Lower response rates

High item non re-sponse for certain variables (e.g. income)

Effective harmonization strategy generally of crucial importance, but in- dispensible when it comes to subjective perceptions and assessments!

Several potential effects to take into account, e.g.

- question wording- answering scales- questionnaire context / question order

Output harmonization insufficient!

Example EU-SILC „Making Ends Meet“ - Question German Speaking Countries

Germany 2005 Germany 2006 Germany 2010

Wie kommt der Haushalt mit dem mo-natlichen Nettoeinkommen zurecht? Betrachten Sie bitte das gesamte Mo-natseinkommen aus allen Einkom-mensquellen aller Haushaltsmit-glieder.

Der Haushalt hat große finanzielle Schwierigkeiten (1). Der Haushalt hat finanzielle Schwierigkeiten (2)Der Haushalt kommt gerade so mit dem Einkommen zurecht (3)Der Haushalt kommt relativ gut mit dem Einkommen zurecht (4)Der Haushalt kommt gut mit dem Einkommen zurecht (5)Der Haushalt kommt sehr gut mit dem Einkommen zurecht (6)

Wie kommt Ihr Haushalt mit dem monatlichen Einkommen zurecht?

Bitte nur ein Kreuz machen.

Sehr gut (1)Gut (2) Relativ gut (3)Relativ schlecht (4)Schlecht (5) Sehr schlecht (6)

Wie kommt Ihr Haushalt mit dem monatlichen Einkommen zurecht ? Beziehen Sie bitte die Einkommen aller Haushaltsmitglieder mit ein.Kreuzen Sie bitte nur eine Antwort an.Sehr schlecht (1)Schlecht (2)Relativ schlecht (3)Relativ gut (4)Gut (5)Sehr gut (6)

Austria 2006 Austria 2010 Switzerland 2010

Wenn Sie an Ihr Netto-Haus-haltseinkommen denken, wie kommt Ihr Haushalt mit diesem Einkommen aus?

gelbe LISTE 4 vorlegen( 6 ) Sehr leicht( 5 ) Leicht( 4 ) Eher leicht( 3 ) Mit einigen Schwierigkeiten( 2 ) Mit Schwierigkeiten( 1 ) Mit großen Schwierigkeiten

Wie kommt Ihr Haushalt mit diesem Einkommen aus? (Alle Einkünfte aller Haushaltsmitglieder: Erwerbseinkom-men, Pensionen, Sozialleistungen (z.B. Familienbeihilfe), regelmäßige private Geldleistungen usw. VOR Ab-zug allfälliger Ausgaben wie Miete etc.)

(INT: LISTE 4 vorlegen)( 1 ) Mit großen Schwierigkeiten( 2 ) Mit Schwierigkeiten( 3 ) Mit einigen Schwierigkeiten( 4 ) Eher leicht( 5 ) Leicht( 6 ) Sehr leicht

Question Order Changed (Household Income Question now prior to making ends meet question

Wenn Sie alle Einkommen in Ihrem Haushalt pro Monat zusam-menzählen und alle monatlich notwendigen Ausgaben abzählen, wie kommen Sie dann bis zum Monatsende finanziell über die Runden? Ist das

1: sehr schwierig2 : schwierig3 : eher schwierig4 : ziemlich einfach5 : einfach6 : sehr einfach?

EU – SILC Problems of Output Harmonization

Austria, Germany, Switzerland 2010:

- 3 different questions- 3 different answering scales- A: different question order

Germany 2005, 2006, 2010

- 3 different questions- 3 different answering scales

Austria 2006, 2010

- Slightly different questions- categories in answering scale reversed- question order changed

Did not check for countries with different languages!

Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

SubgroupsEU–SILC 2010 EQLS 2007 ESS 2010

Germany Portugal Germany Portugal Germany Portugal

Unemployed 1.160 859 136 66 161 206

In Education / Training 1.533 744 125 46 321 157

Single Mothers 69 21

Persons < 25 years 2.150 1.189 177 148 464 201

Lowest Income Quintile 4.081 2.520 327 87 420 n.a.

Lowest Income Decile 1.897 1.222 154 42 182 n.a.

Total Sample 23.531 11.380 2.008 1.000 3.031 2.150

Number of Cases in Selected Subgroups – EU-SILC / EQLS / ESS

0,1 – 0,3

Confidence Intervals ‚Life Satisfaction ESS 2010 – TotalScale 0-10

Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction EQLS 2007 – TotalScale 1-10

0,1 – 0,4

Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

0,4 – 1,4

Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction‘ ESS 2010 – UnemployedScale 0-10

Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

0,7 – 2,0

Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction‘ EQLS 2007 – UnemployedScale 1-10

Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

ESS - 2008: Household Income - % Missing Values(10 Income Classes)

0.2

.4.6

.81

An

teil

mis

sin

g va

lue

s

SK CY BG PT GR ES CZ IL HR CH HU UA SI RO PL LV DE RU GB EE DK IE NL FR BE TR FI SE NO

Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

Summary

Long tradition of measuring Quality of Life in academic research

Variety of non-official data sources for monitoring and re- searching the Quality of Life in Europe

Pronounced differences in content and data quality across non-official surveys

Advantages and disadvantages of non-official compared to official surveys