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

Präsentation zum Thema: "Heinz-Herbert Noll GESIS- Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences"—  Präsentation transkript:

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

2 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

3

4 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

5 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.

6 Survey-Data for Comparative European Quality of Life Research
Research Driven Surveys European Values Study (Consortium of Research Institutes) waves of data collection: 1981; 1990; 1999; 2008 (47 countries, incl. EU 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 Core Module + Rotating Modules, e.g.:  Family, Work and Well-being (Wave 2 & 5)  Personal and Social Well-Being (Wave 3 & 6)

7 - Sample size: 1000, few countries 1500, 2000 Commercial Survey
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 ; 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 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

8 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

9  Pronounced differences in survey quality
Criteria, e.g. Country Coverage Periodicity / Frequency Richness of Content Validity / Reliability of Survey Instruments Sample Quality  Timeliness

10 Sample Quality of Survey Programmes
Source: Kohler 2008 Source: Kohler 2008 Sample Quality of Survey Programmes Documentation Sampling Process Representativity External Criteria Internal Criteria Sample Quality 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 1.11 Source: Kohler 2008

11 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 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 periodicity (4 years)

12 of non-official compared to official surveys
Advantages of non-official compared to official surveys Disadvantages 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)   

13  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

14 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)

15 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) 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 schwierig 2 : schwierig 3 : eher schwierig 4 : ziemlich einfach 5 : einfach 6 : sehr einfach?

16 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 Austria 2006, 2010 Slightly different questions categories in answering scale reversed question order changed  Did not check for countries with different languages!

17 Number of Cases in Selected Subgroups – EU-SILC / EQLS / ESS
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 Total Sample 23.531 11.380 2.008 1.000 3.031 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

18 Confidence Intervals ‚Life Satisfaction ESS 2010 – Total
Scale 0-10 0,1 – 0,3 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

19 Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction EQLS 2007 – Total
Scale 1-10 0,1 – 0,4 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

20 Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction‘ ESS 2010 – Unemployed
Scale 0-10 0,4 – 1,4 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

21 Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction‘ EQLS 2007 – Unemployed
Scale 1-10 0,7 – 2,0 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

22 ESS - 2008: Household Income - % Missing Values
(10 Income Classes) Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

23 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