1 / 19

Social well- being

GROUP 2 Dorota, Olga, Diana, Luis, Nikolas. Social well- being. Introduction. Our model aims at assessing social well-being Social well being was defined as: Having fulfilling and satisfactory relationships with others in society. Introduction. Our initial domains were:

anka
Download Presentation

Social well- being

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GROUP 2 Dorota, Olga, Diana, Luis, Nikolas Social well-being

  2. Introduction • Our model aims at assessing social well-being • Social well being was defined as: Having fulfilling and satisfactory relationships with others in society

  3. Introduction Our initial domains were: • Family & Friends • Community • Services • Work environment • Following some essential adaptations, our model has been transformed to its ultimate format…

  4. Formative indicators • Family & Friends • Social activities (SCLACT) • Living with a partner (LVGPTNA) • Enjoyable time spent with family (FMLENJ) • Community • Respect from other people (TRTRSP) • Help from others in local area (PPLAHLP) • Recognition received (RCNDSRV) • Closeness with people in your local area (FLCLPLA) • Discrimiation (DSCRGRP)

  5. Model specification REFLECTIVE FORMATIVE

  6. Model specification • In our model, social well-being is assessed through a formative model (followed by a reflective part) • Family & Friends – Community are the Formative components of our model • Services and work environment were left out due to data unavailability  impact on model‘s explanatory power • Social well-being is reflected on Happiness and Satisfaction with life (reflective part)

  7. Family & Friendsweights • Weights for: all countries except Austria • Errors were assumed to be 0 • Standardised weights CFI 0,999 >0,95 TLI 0,996 > 0,95 RMSEA 0,018 <0,050 SRMR 0,004< 0,050 • Highestimpact on Family & friendsisbyenjoyable time spentwiththem • Rational finding ! (-0,345) • Those not livingwith a partnerareexpectedtohave a negative influence

  8. Community weights • Weights for: all countries except Austria • Standardised weights • Errors were assumed to be zero (measurement error was estimated for Discrimination) CFI 0,999 >0,95 TLI 0,996 > 0,95 RMSEA 0,017 < 0,050 SRMR 0,003 < 0,050

  9. Social well-beingoverallweights • Weights for: all countries except Austria • Standardised weights • Correlation effects CFI 0,996 >0,95 TLI 0,973 > 0,95 RMSEA 0,032 <0,050 SRMR 0,007<0,050

  10. Adjusted model specification • Social well-being is reflected in another latent variable: General Satisfaction There is no impact on our model results through this alternative specification !

  11. Adjusted model specification

  12. Composite scoresandtheirquality • All formative indicators were standardised and then using factor loadings the composite scores were computed • Quality (formative) Quality = 1 - [var(error)/var(CS)] • Quality (reflective) Quality = cor(Latent CS, ObservedCS) = = Sum (Factor Loading x weight) / SD (ObservedCS)

  13. Composite scores • Family & Friends CSFAM=Zsclact x 0.515 - Zlvgptna x 0.345 + Zfmlenj x 0.728 • Community CSCOM=Ztrtrsp x 0.395 + Zpplahlp x 0.228 + Zrcndsrv x 0.607 + Zflclpla x 0.132 + Zdscrgrp x 0.192 • Social well-being CSSOCWEL = ZCSFAM x 0,267 + ZCSCOM x 0,316 • General satisfaction CSGENSATSF = ZHAPPY x 0,5 + ZLFSATSF x 0,5 Weights estimated through Solver (SD  min w1 + w2 = 1)

  14. Quality of Family & Friends • Quality obtained through SQP Now we can calculate error variance for CSFAM Var(error) = (0,515)2 x 0,3 + (-0,345) 2*0,4 + (0,728) 2*0,4 = 0,339 SD(CSFAM) = 1,065 Quality (CSFAM) = 1 – (0,339 / 1,0652) = 0,7

  15. Quality of Community • Quality obtained through SQP Now we can calculate error variance for CSCOM Var(error) = 0,3952 x 0,5 + 0,2282 x 0,4 + 0,6072 x 0,3 + 0,1322 x 0,1 + 0,1922 x 0,333 =0,223 SD(CSCOM) = 0,9885 Quality (CSCOM) = 1 – (0,223 / 0,98852) = 0,771

  16. Quality ofSocial Well-Being • Quality obtained through SQP Now we can calculate error variance for CSSOCWEL Var(error) = (0,267)2 x 0,3 + (0,316)2 x 0,229 = 0,044 Var(CSSOCWEL) = 0,224 Quality (CSSOCWEL) = 1 – (0,044 / 0,224) = 0,803

  17. Quality of General Satsifaction • This corresponds to the reflective component of our model • Quality = cor(Latent CS, ObservedCS) = = Sum (Factor Loading x weight) / SD (ObservedCS) • Quality = (0,825 x 0,5 + 0,835 x 0,5) / 0,92 = 0,902 This SD was calculated in SPSS by CSGENSAT

  18. Conclusions • Our models have a good fit (CFI, RMSEA, RMSR)  Family & Friends / Community / Social Well-Being • Quality of our CSs is satisfactory  Family & Friends / Community / Social Well-Being / General Satisfaction • Useful outcome: CS of Family & Friends (0,7) includes 30% of unexplained variance CS of Community (0,77) includes 23% of unexplained variance CS of Social Well-being (0,803) includes 20% of unexplained variance CS of General Satisfaction (0,902) includes 10% of unexplained variance

  19. Thankyou ! • Q &As time Hope your Social Well-being has increased throughout QMSS2 in Vienna. If not, see you in the next training event !

More Related