Índice de bienestar evitando escalado y ponderaciones
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17981/cultedusoc.12.2.2021.11Palabras clave:
Índice de bienestar, Significado geométrico, Prueba de inversión de tiempo, Indices de cadenaResumen
Las medidas de bienestar existentes difieren en términos de número y formato de elementos, factores que se miden, métodos de agregación y no son comparables. Una medida de bienestar implica combinar un número n de indicadores y la calidad de la medida depende de las propiedades de los procedimientos de combinación adoptados. El artículo propone dos métodos de agregación sin supuestos para satisfacer las propiedades deseadas de un índice en términos de similitud de coseno y Media Geométrica (GM), evitando problemas asociados con el escalado de datos brutos y la elección de pesos. Se proporciona una ilustración empírica sobre la aplicación de las medidas propuestas. Los índices propuestos brindan una mejor admisibilidad de las operaciones y satisfacen propiedades como la prueba de inversión del tiempo, la formación de índices en cadena, el cálculo de la media del grupo y las pruebas estadísticas para la comparación en el tiempo y el espacio. El índice preferido se puede construir incluso para datos longitudinales asimétricos y ayuda a reflejar la trayectoria de mejora registrada por un país/región a lo largo del tiempo. Se prefiere el índice basado en GM debido a áreas de aplicación más amplias. El índice se puede utilizar además para clasificar países, subgrupos e incluso personas con morbilidad en términos de valores generales de bienestar. Se sugieren estudios futuros.
Descargas
Citas
Alf, E. F. & Grossberg, J. M. (1979). The geometric mean: Confidence limits and significance tests. Perception &Psychophysics, 26(5), 419–421. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204171
Bastien, C. H., Vallieres, A. & Morin, C. M. (2001). Validation of the Insomnia Severity. Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Medicine, 2(4), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-9457(00)00065-4
Bailey, D. (2016). Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate. New Economics Foundation Report. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1892.2483
Becker, W., Saisana, M., Paruolo, P. & Vandecasteele, I. (2017). Weights and importance in composite indicators: Closing the gap. Ecological Indicators, 80, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056
Centra, L. (1998). New information about health-related quality of life. NACCHO News, 13(2).
Chakrabartty, S. N. (2020). Combining Likert items with different number of Response categories. Proceedings on Engineering Sciences, 2(3), 311–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.24874/PES02.03.010
Chakrabartty, S. N. (2019). Limitations of Insomnia Severity Index and possible remedies. JSM Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 5, 1–9. Available from https://www.jsmcentral.org/NeurologicalDisorders/jsmnds284798.pdf
Chakrabartty, S. N. (2019b). Alternate measure of disability intensity: Modified Rankin Scale. Journal of Stroke Medicine, 2(2), 111–118, https://doi.org/10.1177/2516608519870703
Chakrabartty, S. N. (2017). Composite Index: Methods and Properties. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 12(2), 31–41. Available: https://www.jaqm.ro/issues/volume-12,issue-2/2_SA.PHP
Chakravarty, S. R. (2003). A Generalized Human Development Index. Review of Development Economics, 7(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9361.00178
Clark, D. & Mark McGillivray, M. (2007). Measuring Human Well-being: Key Findings and Policy Lessons. Policy Brief 3, 1–8. Available: https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/PB2007-003.pdf
Cooke, P. J., Melchert, T. P. & Connor, K. (2016). Measuring well-being: A review of instruments. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(5), 730–757. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000016633507
Cummins, R., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J. & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 159–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024704320683
Finn, R. H. (1972). Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001316447203200203
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals: shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender & Development, 24(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1145895
Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M. & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(3), 61–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9
Herrero, C., Martinez, R. & Villar, A. (2010). Multidimensional social evaluation. An application to the measurement of human development. Review of Income and Wealth, 56, 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00375.x
International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index. [5 Ed.]. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life/Deakin University. Available from http://www.acqol.com.au/instruments#measures
Jacobs, R., Smith, P. & Goddard, M. (2004). Measuring performance: an examination of composite performance indicators. [CHE Technical Paper Series 29]. York: Centre for Health Economics. Available from https://www.york.ac.uk/che/pdf/tp29.pdf
Kasparian, J. & Rolland, A. (2012). OECD’s Better life index: can any country be well ranked? Journal of Applied Statistics, 39(10), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2012.706265
Kelley, A. (Dec. 1, 2012). Gross National Happiness in Bhutan: The Big Idea from a Tiny State That Could Change the World. theguardian. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/bhutanwealth-happinesscounts
Kovacevic, M. (2011). Review of HDI Critiques and Potential Improvements. The Human Development Research Paper, HDRP 2010/33. Vienna: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/review-hdi-critiques-and-potential-improvements
Layard, R. (2010). Measuring subjective well-being. Science, 327, 534–535. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1186315
Lee, J. A. & Souter, G. (2009). Is Schwartz’s Value Survey an Interval Scale and Does it Really Matter? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109348920
Lim, H.-E. (2008). The Use of Different Happiness Rating Scales: Bias and Comparison Problem? Social Indicators Research, 87, 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9171-x
Linton, M.-J., Dieppe, P. & Medina-Lara, A. (2016). Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: Exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open, 6(7), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010641
Mazziotta, M. & Pareto, A. (settembre 2007). Un indicatore sintetico di dotazione infrastrutturale: il metodo dellepenalità per coefficiente di variazione. In: Atti della XXVIII Conferenza Italiana di Scienze Regionali. AISRe, Bolzano, Italia. Recuperato da https://aisre.it/images/old_papers/Mazziotta-Pareto.pdf
Michalos, A., Smale, B., Labonté, R., Muharjarine, N., Scott, K., Moore, K., Swystun, L., Holden, B., Bernardin, H., Dunning, B., Graham, P., Guhn, M., Gadermann, A.M., Zumbo, B.D., Morgan, A., Brooker, A.-S. & Hyman, I. (2011). The Canadian Index of Wellbeing. [Technical Report 1.0]. Waterloo: CIW. Available from https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-index-wellbeing/sites/ca.canadian-index-wellbeing/files/uploads/files/Canadian_Index_of_Wellbeing-TechnicalPaper-FINAL.pdf
Mikulić, J., Kožić, I. & Krešić, D. (2015). Weighting indicators of tourism sustainability: A critical note. Ecological Indicators, 48, 312–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.026
Mizobuchi, H. (2014). Measuring world better life frontier: a composite indicator for OECD better life index. Social Indicators Research, 118(3), 987–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0457-x
OECD. (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and User Guide. Paris: OECD. Available: https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/handbookonconstructingcompositeindicatorsmethodologyanduserguide.htm
Pinar, M. (2019). Multidimensional Wellbeing and Inequality Across the European Regions with Alternative Interactions Between the Wellbeing Dimensions. Social Indicators Research, 144, 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2047-4
Preston, C. C. & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
Ranis, G., Stewart, F. & Samman, E. (2006). Human Development: Beyond the Human Development Index. Journal of Human Development, 7(3), 323–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880600815917
Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear Statistical Inference and its Application. [2 Ed.]. New Delhi: Wiley.
Rath, T. & Harter, J. (2010). The economics of wellbeing. Washington, DC: Gallup Press. Available: https://www.gallup.com/services/177050/economics-wellbeing.aspx
Ray, A. K. (2008). Measurement of social development: An international comparison. Social Indicators Research, 86(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9097-3
Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
Saisana, M. & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development. [EUR20408 EN]. Ispra: European Commission/ Joint Research Centre. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1505.1762
Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Seth, S. & Villar, A. (2017). Measuring human development and human deprivations. [OPHI Working Paper 110]. Oxford: University of Oxford. Available from https://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHIWP110.pdf
Sharpe, A. (2004). Literature review of frameworks for macro-indicators. [CSLS Research Report 2004-03]. Ottawa: Centre for the Study of Living Standards. Available from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7033316.pdf
SPRG. (2001). Report of the Scientific Peer Review Group on Health Systems Performance Assessment. [Scientific Peer Review Group (SPRG)]. Geneva: WHO. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/68352
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. París: CMEPSP. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/8131721/8131772/Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Commission-report.pdf
UNDP. (2007). Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. [Human development report 2007/2008]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-20078
Venkatesh, A. K. & Bernheim, S. M. (Dir.) (2016). Overall hospital quality star ratings on hospital compare. [Methodology report (v2.0)]. New Haven: YNHH SC/CORE. Available from https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/c/28860/files/2016/08/Star_Rtngs_CompMthdlgy_052016-148w094.pdf
Ware Jr, J. E. & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1593914/
Yang, L. (2018). Measuring individual well-being: A multidimensional index integrating subjective well-being and preferences. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 19(4), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2018.1474859
Zarzosa, P. Z. & Somarriba, N. (2012). An Assessment of Social Welfare in Spain: Territorial Analysis Using a Synthetic Welfare Indicator. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0005-0
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Creative Commons 2020 CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObrasDerivadas 4.0.
Los artículos publicados son de exclusiva responsabilidad de sus autores y no reflejan necesariamente las opiniones del comité editorial.
La Revista CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD respeta los derechos morales de sus autores, los cuales ceden al comité editorial los derechos patrimoniales del material publicado. A su vez, los autores informan que el presente trabajo es inédito y no ha sido publicado anteriormente.
Todos los artículos están bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional.
English
Español (España)
_12.53_.27_p_. m_._3.png)
_12.57_.35_p_. m_._3.png)
_12.50_.37_p_. m_._3.png)
