DENIS F.

JOHNSTON

TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE 'QUALITY-OF-LIFE'

INDEX·

ABSTRACf. Any attempt to construct an overall measure of the quality-of-Iife

C'QOLj of a community, population group, or larger society must inevitably confront
the critical obstacle posed by the absence of a common 1UU7Iirairt. The diverse
elements that significantly affect the "QOL" of individuals and social groups are each
subject, at least in principle, to some form of measurement, but no satisfactory method
has yet been devised whereby these different measurements could be reduced to a
single metric.
The construct that is developed in this paper cannot claim to have overcome this
fundamental problem; nor does it settle the equally basic difficulties relating to what
specific indicators to include in the composite construct, and how to weigh their
individual values. However, it illustrates one possible approach toward the development
of a summary index value that provides some insight into both direction ("favorable" or
"unfavorablej and magnitude of observed year-to-year changes in a selected number of
fairly representative socioeconomic indicators for which measures were available for
the United States annually from 1969 to the present The information provided by this
index lacks explanatory power, but examination of the components of the observed
changes in the index does yield some useful insight into the relative contribution of
changes in different "areas of concern" to the overall changes observed in the "QOL" in
the United States during the 1969-1985 period.

INTRODUCTION

Attempts to construct an overall measure of the quality of life of a

-community, population group, or larger society are invariably con-
fronted by the critical obstacle posed by the absence of a common
numeraire. Unless the diverse factors and conditions that affect the
quality of life can be gauged in terms of a common metric, observed
changes in these factors cannot be evaluated in comparable terms, and
therefore no single overall measure of the quality of life can legitimately
be developed. Nevertheless, the notion that a society's overall quality-
'of-life might be expressed in summary index form continues to exert
considerable popular -appeal. It need hardly be added that similar
notions - such as the economists' search for a 'welfare function' -
have inspired a number of imaginative scientific efforts. Some of these
efforts have relied upon monetary units as a "universal quantifier" while
others have resorted to an even more universal dimension of human

SOCial Indicators Research 20 (1988) 473-496.

C 1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.
474 DENIS F. JOHNSTON

behavior, that of time-use. As theoretical exercises, these efforts are not

without merit; they at least provide examples of the extent to which
monetary or temporal units of measurement can be applied to diverse
phenomena. By the same token, however, they reveal the high levels of
abstraction entailed by such approaches. Given the present state of the
art, none of these attempts can be said to enjoy widespread use or
acceptance. l
The 'Quality-of-Life' (QOL) index described below does not involve
any such quantification, in terms of a single metric, of such diverse
aspects of "QOL" as health conditions, employment opportunities,
education, public safety, and the like. Instead, it is developed as a kind
of "chain index," deriving its successive values from observed year-to-
year percentage changes in the values of the indicators that are
included in the composite index. The resultant index, like a conven-
tional price index, can only reflect the direction and magnitude of
change in the "QOL" between successive observations, here taken at
annual intervals. The index does not provide a single measure of the
overall "QOL" of the population of the United States, but it does offer
a reasonably comprehensive assessment that general conditions in the
society are either "improving," "remaining static," or "deteriorating." In
addition, separate examination of observed changes in the principal
components of the composite. index indicates the relative contribution
of those components (i.e., the several "areas of social concern") to the
overall movement of the index.2

METHODOLOGY

The construction of this "QOL" index is simple in its methodology;

it does not entail elaborate data transformations or manipulations.
Its components (the individual indicators) could readily be changed,
adapted, or expanded to reflect conditions (or data limitations) in
different societies. The procedure can be described in four steps:
Step 1. A total of twenty-one statistical variables were selected as
representing prevailing conditions in nine major "areas of social con-
cern." The selection was made so as to ensure that each of these nine
areas was represented by at least two of the twenty-one indicators. As
shown in Table I, the health area is represented by three indicators;
 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX 475

public safety by two; education by two; employment by three; income

and earnings by two; poverty by two; housing by two; family stability by
two; and equality by three. In a relatively data-rich country such as the
United States, some additional "areas of social concern" might have
been included in the composite~ and many additional indicators might
have been added within each area in order to provide fuller coverage
of prevalent conditions and trends. However, once a decision was
made to begin the series by using 1969 values as a base~ the need to
have annu~ nationally-representative observations from 1969 onward
severely limited the number of indicators that might have been chosen.
At any rate, the raw data are provided in Table I, together with defini-
tions of the individual indicators and a listing of data sources. Discus-
sion of the limitations of these indicators is deferred until the final
section of the paper.
Step 2. Year-to-year percentage changes were calculated for each of
the indicators, covering the periods from 1969-70 to 1984-85 (for a
total of 16 changes). These calculations are shown in Table II.
Step 3. A set of "multipliers" was selected for each of the twenty-one
series of year-to-year percentage changes. Their function is to allow the
observed variability in. each of the indicators to be expressed in a
roughly comparable scale. As shown in Table ill, the multipliers, when
applied to the year-to-year percentage changes recorded in Table IT,
serve to express those changes along a common scale that extends from
a lower asymptote of -50 to an upper asymptote of +50. The selection
of the particular multipliers is purely pragmatic: the observed percen-
tage changes were first classified as either "favorable" (e.g., a rise in life
eXpectancy, a decline in the rate of infant mortality, etc.) or as "unfavor-
able" (e.g., a rise in the crime rate or in the rate of unemployment).
The~ the observed changes in a "favorable" direction were assigned a
multiplier such that the largest of these observed percentage changes
would receive a positive value approaching +50 as an upper limit.
Similarly, observed changes in an "unfavorable" direction were assigned
a multiplier (not always the same as for a "favorable" change) such that
the largest of these unfavorable changes would receive an index value
approaching -50 as a lower limit. This simple procedure does not
guarantee that no year-to-year percentage change, when enhanced by
the assigned multiplier, will exceed + or -50. In the few instances when
 ~
TABLE I -.l
Selected U.S. socioeconomic indicators: 1969 to 1985 0\

Year
Area of concern 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
and indicator 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

A. Health
(1) Life expectancy 70.4 70.9 71.1 71.2 71.4 72.0 72.6 72.9 73.3
at birth (BS) . 73.5 73.9 73.7 74.1 74.4 74.5 74.5 74.8
(2) Infant mortality 20.9 20.0 19.1 18.5 17.7 16.7 16.1 15.2 14.1 Cj
rate (Iqo) 13.8 13.1 12.6 11.9 11.5 11.2 10.6 10.0 m
(3) Days of disability
(per person/yr.)
8.5 e
9.8
8.5
9.5
8.6 e
9.8
9.3
9.9
9.2
10.1 e
9.3
10.2 e
9.7
10.3 e
9.4
10.4 e
9.4 -
Z
en
'T1
.....
B. Public safety 0
(4) Rate of violent crimes 329 364 396 401 417
::t
461 482 460 468 Z
490 540 587 594 571 538 539 556 ...,en
(5) Rate of property crimes 335 362 377 356 374 439 480 481 459 0
463 501 534 526 503 464 449 465 Z

C. Education
(6) % of pop. 25+ 10.7 11.1 11.4 12.0 12.6 13.3 13.9 14.8 15.4
with call. 4+ 15.7 16.4 17.0 17.1 17.7 18.8 19.1 19.4
(7) Average SAT scores 474 471 468 463 462 453 451 452 450
448 447 445 445 446 446 448 453

D. Employment
(8) Unemployment rate 3.4 4.8 5.8 5.5 4.8 5.5 8.3 7.6 6.9
(BS,16+) 6.0 5.8 7.0 7.5 9.5 9.5 7.4 7.1
 (Table I continued)

Year
Area of concern 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
and indicator 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

(9) % unempL less 86.7 83.8 76.3 76.1 81.2 81.5 68.3 67.9 72.1
than 15 weeks 77.2 79.8 75.4 72.4 67.4 60.7 68.2 72.3
(10) % unempl. not 64.1 55.8 53.7 43.2 61.2 56.5 44.7 50.3 54.7
job losers 58.3 57.1 48.3 49.4 41.3 41.6 48.4 50.2 0
C
E. Earnings &:income >
(11) Median family
income (1984 S)
25632
26938
25317
26885
25301
25418
26473
24525
27017
24187
26066
24580
25395
25072
26179
26780
26320 --<
r""
~

-
(12) Average weekly 189.45 187.05 190.33 198.50 198.46 190.35 184.30 186.85 189.00 "T1
earnings (1977 $) 189.24 184.06 173.27 169.96 167.84 171.26 172.78 170.42 r""

-
"r1
tr.!
F. Poverty
Z
(13) % of pop. in 12.1 12.6 12.5 11.9 11.1 11.2 12.3 11.8 11.6 I:'
poverty 11.4 11.7 13.0 14.0 15.0 15.2 14.4 14.0 tr.!
X
(14) % of children in 13.8 14.9 15.1 14.9 14.2 15.1 16.8 15.8 16.0
poverty 15.7 16.0 17.9 19.5 21.3 22.2 21.3 20.5

G. Housing
(15) New"POHUs" 1467 1434 2052 2357 2045 1338 1160 1538 1987
started (OOOs) 2020 1745 1292 1084 1062 1703 1750 1742
(16) Average sales price 51.9 48.1 48.5 49.1 52.6 52.7 52.1 54.1 54.2
~
(1977 $) 54.6 54.9 52.6 52.7 52.0 54.3 54.2 55.0 e -l
-l
(Table I continued) +:>.
-...J
(X;

Year
Area of concern 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
and indicator 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

H. Family stability
(17) Rate of divorce 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.0
(per 1000 pop.) 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.0
(18) %offamilies"intact" 86.8 86.8 86.1 85.8 85.2 85.0 84.3 84.1 83.8
82.8 82.5 82.5 81.7 81.3 81.3 80.8 80.3
o
I. Equality tTl
Z
(19) Bl: Wh. ratio, life 0.886 0.894 0.897 0.899 0.900 0.906 0.910 0.913 0.915
C/l
expectancy 0.919 0.918 0.915 0.920 0.923 0.925 0.926 0.927 e "lj

(20) Bl: Wh. ratio, 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.40 0.46 0.39 0.44 0.43 0.45
o
'-
ColI. 4+ 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.52 0.56
:r:
(21) Bl; Wh. ratio, med. 0.619 0.614 0.603 0.594 0.577 0.597 0.615 0.595 0.571 z
family income 0.592 0.566 0.579 0.564 0.553 0.563 0.570 0.576 ...,
C/l

o
Sources and Definitions z
He" = estimated by the author.
(1) Life expectancy at birth (both sexes combined) - National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Reports and annual
issues of the Statistical Abstract of the United States.
(2) Infant mortality Rate - Ibid.
(3) Days of disability - (per person per year) - National Center for Health Statistics, Health United States 1983, Table 29. Data are
annual only, covering the years 1970 and 1972 through 1981, age-adjusted. Data for other years are estimated by the author.
(4) Rate of violent crime - Expressed per 100000 popUlation. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Crime in the United States,
1983, summary table (for years 1974 through 1983). Data for other years from U.S. Department of Commerce, Social Indicators III.
Table 5/6; data for 1985 from release dated 27Ju186.
(5) Rate of property crime - Expressed per 10000 popUlation. Ibid.
(6) % of pop. 25+ with Call. 4+ - The percentage of the popUlation aged 25 years and over who have completed 4 or more years of
college education. Bureau of the Census, Current Population reports, Series P-20.
 (Table I continued)

(7) Average SAT scores - An unweighted average of the "verbal" and "mathematical" components of the standardized Scholastic
Aptitude Test given to high school graduates who wish to enter a college or university. Data are annual, covering the academic year
from September to June, and provided by the College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
(8) Unemployment rate - Defined as the percentage of the civilian labor force (both sexes combined, aged 16 and over) classified as
unemployed. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Eamings (monthly). Data are annual averages of twelve monthly estimates.
(9) % unemployed less than 15 weeks - Data also from issues of Employment and Eamings, Table A-32, and are also annual
averages of monthly estimates. This measure relates to the percentage of the unemployed who have been without work for less than 15
weeks.
(10) % unemployed not job losers - Data also from Employment and Eamings, Table A-40 or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, o
Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2175 (Dec. 1983). This measure is the percentage of the unemployed who did not lose their last c:
job involuntarily.
(11) Median family income - Expressed in constant 1984 dollars. Bureau of the Census, Cu"ent Population Reports, Series P-60
and annual issues of the Statistical Abstract of the United States.
(12) Average weeklyeamings - Data shown have been converted to constant 1977 dollars; they relate to average weekly earnings of
-
>
t""
~
-<
o
production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls. BLS, Handbook of Labor Statistics (op. cit.), Table 89. 'T1
(13) %ofpop. in poverty - Bureau of the Census, CUn'ent Population Reports, Series P--60. for annual estimates.
(14) % of children in poverty - Data relate to related children under 18 years old living in families classified as below the poverty -
t""

-
'T1
threshold. Bureau of the Census. Ibid. trl
(15) New "POHUs" started - Data relate to the number of new "privately-owned housing units" whose construction has begun.
Statistical Abstract of the United States and Bureau of the Census, Construction Reports, Housing Starts. Z
(16) Average sales price - Data relate to average sales price of new one-family houses sold, expressed in constant 1977 dollars.
o
trl
Statistical Abstract of the United States and Bureau of the CensuslDepartment of Housing and Urban Development, Construction :><
Reports, Series C-25 and C-27.
(17) Rate of divorce - Based on 1000 population. Statistical Abstract of the United States and National Center for Health Statistics,
Monthly Vital Statistics Report.
(18) % of families "intact" - Data relate to husband-wife families as a percentage of all family units. Bureau of the Census, CUn'ent
Population Reports, Series P-20.
(19) Bl:Wh. ratio, life expectancy - The ratio of average life expectancy at birth for the Black population (both sexes) to that of the
white population. Source is the same as for Indicator ,. 1.
(20) Bl: Wh. ratio, Coil. 4+ - The ratio of the percentage of Blacks 25 and over (both sexes) who have completed 4 or more years of
college education to that of whites 25 and over. Source is the same as for Indicator ,. 6. ~
(21) Bl: Wh. ratio, med. family income - The ratio of the median income of all Black families to that of all white families. Source is "--l
the same as for Indicator ,. 11. \0
 TABLE II +=--
00
Year-to-year percentage changes in values of selected U.S. socioeconomic indicators: 1969-1970 to 1984-1985 c

Period
Area of concern 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77
and indicator 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

A. Health
(1) Life expectancy at 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5
birth (BS) 0.3 0.5 -0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0 0.4 0
tTl
(2) Infant mortality -4.3 -4.5 -3.2 -4.3 -5.6 -3.6 -5.6 -7.2 Z
rate Cqo) -2.1 -5.1 -3.8 -5.6 -3.4 -2.6 -5.4 -5.7 Vl

-3.1 0 '"rl
(3) Days of disability 0 1.2 8.1 -1.1 1.1 4.3
4.2 -3.1 3.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .....
(per person/year) 0
::r::
B. Public safety Z
...,
Vl

(4) Rate of violent 10.6 8.8 1.3 4.0 10.6 4.6 -4.6 1.7 0
crimes 4.7 10.2 8.7 1.2 -3.9 -5.8 0.2 3.2 Z
(5) Rate of property 8.1 4.1 -5.6 5.1 17.4 9.3 0.2 -4.6
crimes 0.9 8.2 6.6 -1.5 -4.4 -7.8 -3.2 3.6

C. Education
(6) % of pop. 25+ 3.7 2.7 5.3 5.0 5.6 4.5 6.5 4.0
with colI. 4+ 1.9 4.4 3.6 0.6 3.5 6.2 1.6 1.6

(7) Average SAT -0.6 -0.6 -1.1 -0.2 -2.0 -0.4 0.2 -0.4
scores -0.4 -0.2 -0.4 0 0.2 0 0.4 1.1
 (Table II continued)

Period
Area of concern 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77
and indicator 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

D. Employment
(8) Unemployment 41.2 20.8 -5.2 -12.7 14.6 50.9 -8.4 -9.2
rate (BS. 16+) -13.0 -3.3 20.7 7.1 26.7 0 -22.1 -4.1 0
c:
(9) % unempl.less -3.4 -9.0 -0.3 6.7 0.4 -16.2 -0.6 6.2 >
than 15 weeks
(to) % unempl. not job -13.0
7.1 3.4
-3.8
-5.5
-19.6
-4.0
41.7
-6.9
-7.7
-9.9
-20.9
12.4
12.5
6.0
8.7
--<
r-'
~

losers 6.6 -2.1 -15.4 2.3 -16.4 0.7 16.3 3.7 0

'T.I

-
r-'

-
E. Earnings &income 'T.I
tTl
(11) Median family -1.2 -0.1 4.6 2.0 -3.5 -2.6 3.1 0.5 Z
income (1984 $) 2.3 -0.2 -5.5 -3.5 -1.4 1.6 2.0 6.8 0
tTl
(12) Average weekly -1.3 1.8 4.3 0 -4.1 -3.2 1.4 1.2 ><
earnings (1977 $) 0.1 -2.7 -5.9 -1.9 -1.2 2.0 0.9 -1.4

F. Poverty
(13) % of pop. in 4.1 -0.8 -4.8 -6.7 0.9 9.8 -4.1 -1.7
poverty -1.7 2.6 11.1 7.7 7.1 1.3 -5.3 -2.8
(14) % of children in 8.0 1.3 -1.3 -4.7 6.3 11.2 -6.0 1.3
poverty -1.9 1.9 11.9 8.9 9.2 4.2 -4.1 -3.8

-
~
00
 ~
(Table II continued) 00
N

Period
Area of concern 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77
and indicator 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

G. Housing
(IS) New"POHUs" -2.2 43.1 14.9 -13.2 -34.6 -13.3 32.6 29.2
started 1.7 -13.6 -26.0 -16.1 -2.0 60.4 2.8 -0.5
(16) Average sales -7.3 0.8 1.2 7.1 0.2 -1.1 3.8 0.2 t:l

-
price (1977 $) 0.7 0.5 -4.2 0.2 -1.3 4.4 -0.2 1.5 m
Z
C i)

H. Family stability 'Tl

(17) Rate of divorce 9.4 5.7 8.1 7.5 7.0 4.3 4.2 0
....
0
(per 1000 pop.) 2.0 3.9 -1.9 1.9 -5.7 -2.0 0 2.0 :c
z
(18) % offamilies 0 -0.8 -0.4 -0.7 -0.2 -0.8 -0.2 -0.4 Ci)
~
"intact" -1.2 -0.4 0 -1.0 -0.5 0 -0.6 -0.6 0
Z
I. Equality
(19) Bl: Wh. ratio, life 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2
expectancy 0.4 -0.1 -0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1
(20) Bl: Wh. ratio, -4.9 -2.6 5.3 15.0 -15.2 12.8 -2.3 4.6
CoUege4+ -2.3 4.5 -4.4 4.5 4.3 2.1 6.1 7.7
(21) Bl: Wh. ratio, med. -0.8 -1.8 -1.5 -2.9 3.5 3.0 -3.3 -4.0
family income 3.7 -4.4 2.3 -2.6 -2.0 1.8 1.2 1.0

Sources: See Table I.

 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX 483

TABLE III
Derivation of index values from year-ta-year percentage changes shown in Table n

Maximum
Number of observed
Indicator changes:· changes: Multipliers: b
"+" "0" "-" "+" "-" "+" "-"

1. Life expectancy at birth 14 1 1 0.8 0.3 50 100

2. Infant mortality rate 15 0 1 7.2 1.9 7 21
3. Disability days 3 3 10 3.1 8.1 12 6
4. Rate of violent crime 3 0 13 5.8 10.6 5 5
5. Rate of property crime 6 0 10 7.8 17.4 5 5
6. % of pop. with coll. 4+ 16 0 0 6.5 8 16
7. AverageSATscore 4 2 10 1.1 2.0 20 20
8. Unemployment rate 8 1 7 22.1 50.9 2 2
9. % unempl.1ess than 15 wks 7 0 9 12.4 16.2 4 4
10. % unempl. not job losers 8 0 8 41.7 20.9 2 2
11. Median family income 7 0 9 4.6 5.5 10 10
12. Average weekly earnings 7 1 8 4.3 5.9 10 10
13. % of pop. in poverty 7 0 9 6.7 11.1 5 5
14. % of children in poverty 5 0 11 6.0 11.9 5 5
15. Starts of "POHUs" 7 0 9 60.4 34.6 1 1
16. Averagepriceof"POHUs" 6 0 10 7.3 7.1 6 6
17. Rate of divorce 3 2 11 5.7 9.4 5 5
18. % of families "intact" 0 3 13 1.2 80 40
19. BI: Wh. ratio, life expect. 14 0 2 0.9 0.3 50 100
20. BI:Wh. ratio, % coll. 4+ 10 0 6 15.0 15.2 3 3
21. BI:Wh. ratio, med. income 7 0 9 3.7 4.4 10 10

Totals 157 13 166

• Each of the observed year-ta-year percentage changes in Table n is classified as

being in a "favorable" direction ("+") or an "unfavorable" direction~-"). For example,
an increase in life expectancy and a decline in the crime rate are vorable" changes,
while an increase in infant mortality and a decline in median family income are
"unfavorable" changes.
b See text for explanation.

observed changes did yield index values exceeding these limits, they
were simply assigned the limiting values of + or -50.
As noted, not all of the multipliers are the same for "favorable" as
for "unfavorable" changes in a given indicator. Two considerations
suggested the application of different multipliers in a few instances (see
Table llI). First, as evident with indicators number 1 (life expectancy at
birth), 2 (the rate of infant mortality), 6 (the percentage of the adult
population having completed at least four years of college education),
484 DENIS F. JOHNSTON

and 19 (the Black to white ratio with respect to life expectancy at

birth), changes in an "unfavorable" direction were much less frequent
than ''favorable'' changes. Their rarity was thought to suggest that when
they did occur, the fact that they went against a prevailing trend
justified their being given additional weight in the overall index. Second,
these ''unfavorable'' changes were much smaller in magnitude than the
more common favorable changes in the same indicators. Thus their
expression in the form or roughly comparable index values called for a
larger multiplier. In two cases, (indicators no. 3 and 18 (days of
disability per person per year and the percentage of families that are
"husband-wife" or "intact" families, respectively), the relative rarity of
"favorable" changes during the period of observation dictated the use of
larger multipliers with favorable changes than with the more common
unfavorable changes. In the case of indicator no. 4, (the rate of violent
crime), it was decided to use the same multipliers for changes in both
directions in order to match the procedure employed with the next
indicator, the rate of property crime.
Step 4. Once the appropriate multipliers for observed year-to-year
percentage changes in each of the indicators had been selected, they
were applied to these changes so as to obtain the index values displayed
in Table IV. To repeat, positive index values, with +50 as an upper
limit, indicate that the indicator in question changed in a favorable
direction, such as a rise in life expectancy or a fall in the rate of divorce.
Similarly, negative index values, reaching -50 as a lower limit, denote
unfavorable changes, such as an increase in the crime rate or a decline
in real wages.
Finally, these index values were simply added to obtain the grouped
values show in Table V. The "total index value score" shown to the
right of Table V represents the aggregate magnitude and direction of
the overall "QOL" changes that occurred over the specified periods.
The "mean score" shown in the extreme right-hand column of this table
is the simple unweighted average index value: the total score divided by
21. Because the index values in each column of this table are the sums
of the values for the individual indicators comprising the specified "area
of social concern," an examination of these figures in relation to the
"total score" yields some insight into the factors driving the overall
"QOL" at different times.
 TABLE IV
Index values for observed year-to-year percentage changes in selected U.S. socioeconomic indicators: 1969-70 to 1984-85

Period
Area of concern 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77
and indicator 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

A. Health
1. Life expo 35 15 5 15 40 40 20 25 0
15 25 -30 25 20 5 0 20 c::
2. Infant mort. 30
15
32
36
22
27
30
39
39
24
25
18
39
38
50
40 -
>
r-'
~
-<
3. Disability days 0 -7 -49 13 -7 -26 37 0 0

-
-25 37 -19 -6 -12 -6 -6 -6 "'l1
t'"'
"rl
B. Public safety
4. Rate of violent
crime
-50
-24
-44
-50
-6
-44
-20
-6
-50
20
-23
29
23
-1
-8
-16
-
m
Z
0
m
5. Rate of property -40 -20 28 -26 -50 46 -1 23 ><
crime -4 -41 -33 8 22 -39 16 -18

C. Education
6. % of pop. 25+ with 30 22 42 40 45 36 50 32
coIl. 4+ 15 35 29 5 28 50 13 13
7. Average SAT -12 -12 -22 -4 -40 -8 4 -8
scores -8 -4 -8 0 4 0 8 22 ~
00
VI
(Table IV continued) .+;:..
00
0\

Period
Area of concern 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77
and indicator 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

D. Employment
8. Unempl. rate -50 -42 10 25 -29 -50 17 18
(BS,16+) 26 7 -41 -14 -50 0 44 8
9. % unempl.less than -14 -36 -1 27 2 -50 -2 25 0

-
15 weeks tT1
28 14 -22 -16 -28 -40 50 24 Z
10. % of unempl. not -26 -8
C/)
-39 50 -15 -42 25 17 "T'J
job losers 13 -4 -31 5 -33 1 33 7 c-
O
E. Earnings & income :r::
z
11. Median family -12 -1 46 20 -35 -26 31 5 ...,
C/)

income 23 -2 -50 -35 -14 16 20 50 0

Z
12. Aver. weekly -13 18 43 0 -41 -32 14 12
earnings 1 -27 -50 -19 -12 20 9 -14

F. Poverty
13. % of pop. in -20 4 24 34 -4 -49 20 8
poverty 8 -13 -50 -38 -36 -6 26 14
14. % of children in -40 -6 6 24 -32 -50 30 -6
poverty 10 -10 -50 -44 -46 -21 20 19
(Table IV continued)

Period
Area of concern 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77
and indicator 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

G. Housing
15. Starts of "POHUs" -2 43 15 -13 -35 -13 33 29
2 -14 -26 -16 -2 50 3 0 0
c:
-
16. Average price of 44 -5 -7 -43 -1 7 -23 -1 >
"POHUs" -4 -3 25 -1 8 -26 1 -9 r"
...:.I
H. Family stability -<
0

-
17. Divorce rate -47 -28 -40 -38 -25 -22 -21 0 "TI
(per 1000 pop.) -10 -20 10 -10 28 10 0 -10 r"
"TI
m
18. % offarnilies
"intact"
0
-48
-32
-16
-16
0
-28
-40
-8
-20
-32
0
-8
-24
-16
-24 -
Z
CI
I. Equality m
><
19. Bl:Wh. ratio, life 45 15 10 5 35 20 15 10
expectancy 20 -10 -30 25 15 10 5 5
20. Bl:Wh. ratio, -15 -8 16 45 -46 38 -7 14
PopJcoU.4+ -7 14 -13 14 13 6 18 23
21. BI:Wh. ratio, med. -8 -18 -15 -29 35 30 -33 -40
fam.income 37 -44 23 -26 -20 18 12 10
~
Sources: Tables II & III. (X)
-....l
488 DENIS F. JOHNSTON

DISCUSSION

Setting aside questions as to the validity of the indicators selected

and/or the legitimacy of the procedure for transforming their original
values into what we have ambitiously termed a "comprehensive quality-
of-life index," it is possible to examine a number of interesting features
in the index value changes summarized in Table V. To begin with, by
simply adding the index values for the individual indicators in each of
the nine "areas of social concern" shown in that table, and dividing the
sum by the number of indicators in each area, we can recognize
immediately the relative contribution of each area of concern to the
observed changes in the overall index over the 1969-1985 period as a
whole. The average changes shown in the bottom of Table V relate to
selected periods only; the corresponding average changes for the entire
period are as follows:

Average index val ue changes, by area of concern: 1969 to 1985

Health Safety Educ. Empl. Income Poverty Housing Family Equality

232.3 -199.5 198 -69 -27.5 -137 8 -272.5 77.3

Per yr.: 14.5 -12.5 12.4 -4.3 -1.7 -8.6 0.5 -17.0 4.8

It is evident that for the sixteen-year period as a whole, the areas of

"health" and "education" contributed most heavily to ''favorable''
changes in the overall "QOL" in American society, with somewhat
less dramatic but steady gains in the area of "equality" as well. These
gains were offset, however, by serious declines in the area of ''family
stability," together with smaller but substantial deterioration in the
areas of "public safety" and "poverty."
Turning to the more detailed information in Table V, we see that the
overall changes in our "QOL" index as shown above were by no means
uniform at different times within the 1969-1985 period. Furthermore,
different "areas of concern" manifest quite different changes at different
times as well. In general, the earliest of the three shorter periods - i.e.,
1969-1974 - displays the greatest deterioration in overall "QOL",
averaging a loss of 3.0 index value points per year. As noted, most of
this decline occurred in two areas: public safety and family stability.
 TABLE V
Average composite index values, by area of social concern: 1969-70 to 1984-85 and selected periods

A rea ofsocial concern and number of indicators in each area

Public Educa- Employ- Earnings Family Mean
Health safety tion ment & income Poverty Housing stabil. Equality score
Period (3) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (21 )

1969-70 21.7 -45.0 9.0 -30.0 -12.5 -30.0 21.0 -23.5 7.3 -7.86
1970-71 13.3 -32.0 5.0 -28.7 8.5 -1.0 19.0 -30.0 -3.7 -5.62
1971-72 -7.3 11.0 10.0 -10.0 44.5 15.0 4.0 -28.0 3.7 3.43 0
1972-73 19.3 -23.0 18.0 34.0 10.0 29.0 -28.0 -33.0 7.0 6.05 c::
1973-74 24.0 -50.0 2.5 -14.0 -38.0 -18.0 -18.0 -21.5 8.0 -11.05 :>
1974-75
1975-76
13.0
32.0
11.5
11.0
14.0
27.0
-47.3
13.3
-29.0
22.5
-49.5
25.0
-3.0
5.0
-27.0
-14.5
29.3
-8.3
-8.62
12.52
-..,
r
o<!
1976-77 25.0 7.5 12.0 20.0 8.5 1.0 14.0 -8.0 -5.3 9.00 0

-
"T1
1977-78 1.7 -14.0 3.5 22.3 12.0 9.0 -1.0 -29.0 16.7 3.95 r
1978-79 32.7 -45.5 15.5 5.7 -14.5 -11.5 -8.5 -18.0 -13.3 -4.28
"T1
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
-7.3
19.3
10.7
-38.5
1.0
21.0
10.5
2.5
16.0
-31.3
-8.3
-37.0
-50.0
-27.0
-13.0
-50.0
-41.0
-41.0
-0.5
-8.5
3.0
5.0
-25.0
4.0
-6.7
4.3
2.7
-18.24
-7.14
-4.33
-
tTl
Z
t:l
1982-83 5.7 -5.6 - 25.0 -13.0 18.0 -13.5 12.0 5.0 11.3 4.52 tTl
1983-84 10.7 7.5 10.5 42.3 14.5 23.0 -12.0 13.57 X
2.0 11.7
1984-85 18.0 -17.0 17.5 13.0 18.0 16.5 -4.5 -17.0 12.7 7.52
A verage annual changes in index values over selected periods
1969-1974 14.2 -27.8 8.9 -9.7 2.5 -1.0 -0.4 -27.2 4.5 -3.01
1974-1979 20.9 -5.9 14.4 2.8 -0.1 -5.2 1.3 -19.3 3.8 2.51
1979-1985 9.5 -5.2 13.7 -5.7 -6.6 -17.7 0.6 -6.7 6.0 -0.68
1979-1982 7.6 -5.5 9.7 -25.5 -30.0 -44.0 -2.0 -5.3 0.1 -9.90
1982-1985 11.5 -4.8 17.7 14.1 16.8 8.7 3.2 -8.0 11.9 8.54
~
00
Source: Table IV. \0
490 DENIS F. JOHNSTON

Significant deterioration was also evident in the area of employment at

this time. Examination of the "Mean scores" in the right-hand column
of Table V reveals the sensitivity of our indicator set to economic
fluctuations: the declines of the 1969-1974 period were concentrated
in 1969-71 and 1973-75, both recession periods, the second of
which followed the first oil embargo. The second period - 1974-
1979 - was one of general improvement, despite continued deteriora-
tion in the areas of family stability, public safety, and poverty. Con-
tinued and substantial gains in the areas of health and education were
strong enough to offset these areas of decline, so that the period as a
whole registers an average improvement of 2.5 index value points per
year at this time.
The third and most recent period under consideration - 1979-
1985 - displays a leveling in overall "QOL" - registering an average
decline of only 0.7 index value points, on average, over this six-year
period. However, this average conceals a sharp deterioration of 9.9
index value points per year, on average, during the first half of the
period (the severe recession of the 1981-82 period having been
preceded by the serious effects of the high levels of inflation immedi-
ately before), followed by the equally impressive gains of the second
half of the period, 1982-85, when the overall "QOL" rose by an
average of 8.5 index value points per year. Closer examination of these
changes indicates, first, that the areas of public safety and family
stability continued to deteriorate at this time, but at a much lower rate.
Meanwhile, the areas of health and education continued to improve,
but also at a lower rate than during the two earlier periods. In contrast,
the indicators that reflect most directly the current economic conditions
- employment, earnings and income, and poverty - accounted for
the bulk of the declines during the 1979-82 period, and they also
accounted for the bulk of the gains during the recovery period of
1982-85. It is apparent that crime and unstable family life are the two
aspects of contemporary American society that have contributed the
most toward reducing the overall "QOL" that might otherwise be
enjoyed in the United States. It is also apparent that these areas are the
most resistant to the benefits of economic recovery. The obvious
implication, of course, is that aggregate improvements in the economy
 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX 491

and in material conditions of life do not reach every segment of the

society.
Fmally, in an attempt to gauge the extent to which our overall
"QOL" index value changes are "dominated" by movements in the
national economy, we have plotted the year-to-year changes in our
index (the "mean scores" from Table V) as a "dependent" variable, and
regressed these values against the corresponding year-to-year percen-
tage changes in per capita disposable personal income (expressed in
constant 1972 dollars), taken as our "independent" variable. The data
plot and regression equation are shown in the following chart. The
original data on per capita disposable personal income are shown in the
following table:
Per capita disposable personal income: 1969 to 1985

Year or Period: 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Amount (1972 $): 3564 3665 3752 3860 4080 4009 4051 4158 4280
Percent change: 2.8 2.4 2.9 5.7 -1.7 1.0 2.6 2.9

Year or Period: 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Amount (1972 $): 4441 4512 4487 4561 4729 4829 5068 5137
Percent change: 3.8 1.6 -0.6 1.6 3.7 2.1 4.9 1.4

The results of this simple exercise are not encouraging to those of us

who would like to develop a variety of indicators of "well-being" or
"QOL" that are not dominated by economic factors. The regression
results imply that not quite half of the observed variability in the overall
change in our "QOL" index can be accounted for by corresponding
variation in the real per capita disposable personal income. But a closer
examination of the data plot suggests a different conclusion: as in all
simple linear regressions, the slope of the line is dominated by a small
number of "extreme" values - "boom" years, such as the 1972-73 and
1983-84 periods, or "recession" years, such as the 1973-74 or
1979-80 periods. If these values are removed from the regression, the
coefficient of determination (r2) declines from 0.45 to 0.06. As seen on
the accompanying graph, year-to-year changes in the performance of
the economy (as measured in terms of changes in real per capita
disposable personal income) are poor "predictors" of corresponding
 492 DENIS F. JOHNSTON

CHART 1
Regression of year-to-year percentage changes in mean "QOL" index values on
corresponding changes in per capita real disposable income: 1969-70 to 1984-85

NOTE: [70 = 1969-70 ... 85 = 1984-851

y
20
"QOL"
Mean I
Scores
(%) 15 I .84
I .76

10
I .85
.77

5
I .83
.73
72 .78
I
o ----
-t - - - - - ---------

I .79 .82
-5 .71
I .75
.81 .70

-10
.74

-15
fx -= -8.11 + 3.32X (r2 = 0.45)
.80
-20

~___~____+_----~----~----~----~----~----_Tx
-2.0 -1.0 o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Percentage change in per capita disposable real income (in constant S1972).

Source: Table V and Economic Report of the President, February 1985, Table B-24.
Revisions of personal income data for the years 1982 through 1984, plus data for 1985
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX 493

changes in our overall "QOL" index, except when the former changes
are either negative or strongly positive.
We now tum, in the concluding section, to a brief consideration of
some of the more serious criticisms to which constructs of this kind are
subject.

CRITICISM

In a recent work that is as delightful as it is informative, a noted

authority on the art of social measurement expresses the fundamental
problem in the construction of composite indices in simple terms: "...
the measurement problem must be solved before the "synthetic" index
is computed." Duncan goes on to cite the argument voiced earlier by
Stuart A. Rice to the effect that "... there is no fundamental solution to
the problem of combining indicators ... until the system that generates
them is correctly understood." 3 Despite the persuasive logic of this
argument, Duncan, ever the pragmatist, proceeds to admit, with obvious
reluctance, that "... we shall continue to work for the foreseeable
future with symptoms rather than direct measures; and, since our data
collection machinery produces a continual increase in the volume of
raw statistics, we shall either use "representative figures" or be inun-
dated by numbers." 4
It must be admitted that the act of combining rates of change for
such disparate phenomena as crime, infant mortality, and educational
attainment cannot be justified on the grounds of any existing theory of
social reality. It is also evident that our composite "QOL" index is, at
best, a type of "representative figure" whose changes over time remain
to be explained. But if such an index, composed exclusively of descrip-
tive statistics, is lacking in explanatory power, it can at least be said that
an examination of the movements of its separate components does
provide some insights into underlying social processes that might not
otherwise be apparent.
Still more recently, a brief article on quality-of-life measures lists
seven critical weaknesses to which most of these measures are subject,
albeit in varying degree. 5 First, the author decries the general failure of
such measures to incorporate both "objective" and "subjective" com-
494 DENIS F. JOHNSTON

ponents. One can only agree strongly with this argument; it seems
self-evident that the omission of perceptual or attitudinal data is a
particularly serious defect in any measure that purports to represent the
quality of life. As W. I. Thomas observed, it is not the objective
situation itself, but rather how that situation is perceived, that governs
human behavior. The same point can be made, a fortiori, of the quality-
of-life that is experienced by the members of any society. Second, Wish
points out that the content of most of these QOL measures appears to
be dictated by data and measures that are readily available, rather than
by the demands of prior theory. This is perhaps a truism. It might be
argued, by way of reply, that all of the statistical indicators included in
our composite QOL index were originally established on the basis of
some theory concerning the phenomena they are designed to measure.
But in any case, it is difficult to imagine a viable alternative to managing
with the data that are available, particularly in dealing with highly
aggregate statistics such as the ones dealt with here. A third objection is
more telling: the fact that such measures commonly relate to inappro-
priate geographic (or other) units of analysis. It is certainly the case that
national averages, or even statistics relating to large sub-national
regions or large population groupings of whatever kind can be seriously
misleading. As Wish recognizes, the remedy is both obvious and (usually)
unobtainable: data of sufficient quality to permit disaggregation and
samples of sufficient size to yield meaningful statistics at the community
level. Her fourth objection is probably an inescapable feature of any de-
velopmental effort that is essentially exploratory: the absence of
consensus with regard to either the components or the weighting proce-
dures employed in constructing composite "QOL" indices. One can
observe, in this connection, that many of the indicators selected for
inclusion in our composite QOL index are themselves the product of a
gradual developmental process out of which some degree of consensus
[mally emerged. Until and unless such consensus is achieved with
respect to composite QOL measures, they can only serve as more or
less plausible illustrations of possible approaches. Fifth, Wish cites the
common failure of these QOL measures to address the distributional
aspects of the different components of the "quality-of-life" or of the
"well-being" of particular population groups within a larger society.
Here, as in the case of her third objection, the basic remedy is to have
 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX 495

data from sufficiently large samples to permit the kinds of disaggrega-

tion that are called for. Sixth, Wish raises the problem of salience - i.e.,
she asks whether the weightings accorded the several components of a
given QOL measure reflect their relative importance to the persons
whose QOL is being measured. This criticism gives rise to serious
methodological problems, beginning with the obvious question of how
the "salience" of different QOL components is to be determined, and
how possible differences among, say, the members of a given com-
munity with respect to the relative importance of these components
ought to be reconciled. But her point is valid: if public perceptions of
their situation are an essential component of their experienced quality-
of-life, the relative importance of different aspects of their situation
must also be essential. Finally, Wish criticizes the failure of these QOL
measures to permit the analyst to arrive at an explanatory understand-
ing that would identify those "actionable" causes that policy-makers
could manipulate in order to achieve desired social objectives. This
last objection brings us back to the initial reservations expressed by
Duncan: without the benefit of an underlying theory, our measure-
ments can only provide, at best, descriptive insights; they cannot yield
explanatory power.6

NOTES

• This is a revision of a paper presented at the XI World Congress of Sociology in

New Delhi, 18-22 August 1986. The author is grateful to Professor Frank M.
Andrews of the University of Michigan for his constructive criticisms of the original
version of the paper.
I Numerous examples might be cited, including Ben-Chieh Liu, Quality of Life Indica-
tors in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: A Statistical Analysis (N.Y.: Praeger, 1976); Karl A.
Fox, SocUlI System Accounts: Linking SocW and Economic Indicators through Tangible
Behavior Settings (Boston: D. Reidel, 1985); and F. Thomas Juster and Kenneth C.
Land (eds.), SocUlI Accounting Systems - Essays on the State of the Art (N.Y.:
Academic Press, 1981). Also noteworthy in this regard is I. P. David and D. S.
Maligalig. Multivari4te Statistical and Graphical Classification Techniques Applied 10
the Problem of Grouping Countries, Manila, Asian Development Bank, Report No.2,
March 1985. Multivariate analysis has become a common technique in reducing large
and complex data sets to a variety of "composite" indices. Two recent examples are
~ysztof Zagorski, 'Composite measures of social, economic and demographic regional
differentiation in Australia', SocUlI Indicators Research, Vol. 16, No.2 (Feb. 1985),
131-156, and Jan Selen, 'Multidimensional descriptions of social indicators', Social
!ndicators Research, Vol. 17, No.4 (Nov. 1985),435-445.
Our "comprehensive quality-of-life index" was originally developed at the instigation
496 DENIS F. JOHNSTON

of staff members of U.S.A. Today, a national newspaper. The author is grateful to

Marilyn Adams and Anthony M. Casale of U.S.A. Today for their support and
encouragement. In its original form (now slightly modified and updated), the index was
summarized in graphic form and presented in the March 11, 1985 issue of that
newspaper.
3 Otis Dudley Duncan, Notes on Social Measurement (N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation,
1984),231ff.
4 Ibid., p. 233. Compare Robert J. Rossi and Kevin J. Gilmartin, The Handbook of
Social Indicators: Sources, Characteristics, and Analysis (N.Y. & London: Garland
STPM Press, 1980), chapter 7, pp. 104-109).
S Naomi Bailin Wish, 'Are We Really Measuring the Quality of Life?', AmeriCQll
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 45, No.1 (Jan. 1986),93-99.
6 The underlying rationale for descriptive constructs of this kind is that they can serve
a useful social reporting function, despite their inability to satisfy the scientific objec--
tives of explanation or prediction. However, a number of research efforts have sought
to combine some explanatory capability with social reporting. Outstanding examples
include Frank M. Andrews and Stephen B. Withey, 'Developing measures of perceived
life quality: Results from several national surveys', Social Indicators Research 1:1 (May
1974), 1-26; Wolfgang Zapf, 'Applied social reporting: A social indicators system for
West German Society', Social Indicators Research 6 :4 (October 1979), 397--419; and
the contributions of Erwin S. Solomon et aI., Henri Verwayen, Wolfgang Zapf, and
Frank M. Andrews in Alexander Szalai and Frank M. Andrews (eds.), The Quality of
Life - Comparative Studies (Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, Inc., 1980), Part m,
223-285.

Georgetown University,
School of Business Administration,
Washington, D. c.,
U.S.A.