Yea-saying and mood-of-the-day effects in self-reported quality of life

Abstract

This paper focuses on some of the complications that may arise from errors of measurement in quality of life (QOL) scales based on self-report. It is argued that systematic errors as well as random errors (specifically in the shape of mood-of-the-day effects) will tend to suppress, mask or "wash out" statistical associations between "objective", sociologically relevant, indicators of well-being and self-reported quality of life. Results from a Norwegian sample of middle-aged and old participants in a health screening operation (N=610) are reported. The findings indicate that response acquiescence ("yea-saying") may be a source of systematic error even in balanced QOL-scales, and that this bias may lead one to underestimate QOL among the well-educated and overestimate it among older respondents. Utilizing over-time data we are able to show that self-reported QOL appears particularly vulnerable to mood-of-the-day effects among younger females. Implications for sociological research on subjective well-being are pointed out.