Content uploaded by Noraini Noor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Noraini Noor on Dec 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Social Indicators Research
An International and Interdisciplinary
Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement
ISSN 0303-8300
Soc Indic Res
DOI 10.1007/s11205-012-0219-1
Development of Indicators for Family Well-
Being in Malaysia
Noraini M.Noor, Anjli Doshi Gandhi,
Ismahalil Ishak & Saodah Wok
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
in Malaysia
Noraini M. Noor •Anjli Doshi Gandhi •Ismahalil Ishak •
Saodah Wok
Accepted: 3 December 2012
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract This study was carried out to develop a set of indicators for measuring and
reporting the state of family well-being in Malaysia, and subsequently, to produce an Index
of Family Well-Being. To build the set of indicators, domains of family well-being and
relevant indicators were identified from past studies. Focus group discussions with fami-
lies, professional groups and NGOs helped to refine the indicators prior to the main study.
Using a stratified random sampling design, 2,808 households were identified (a parent and
a child aged at least 13 years), making a total sample of 5,616 respondents. Results
indicated ten key indicators that can predict family well-being—resiliency, safety, savings,
healthy lifestyle, time with family, work-family balance, importance of religion, number of
bedrooms at home, debt and child care—supporting the notion of family well-being being
multi-dimensional and interconnected. On the basis of the results, a model of family well-
being was hypothesized. This model was used to guide the development of the Index of
Family Well-being. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to determine the fit
of the model to data. Five domains of family well-being were identified—family rela-
tionships, economic situation, health and safety, community relationship and religion/
spirituality. The Index of Family Well-Being was calculated using the equal weighting
strategy to each of these five domains. This index showed that the current family well-
being of Malaysians is relatively high at 7.95 (SD =1.38) on a 0–10 Likert response
format. The findings suggest that family well-being is multifaceted, made up not only of
the immediate family relationships and health and safety of its members, but include
having adequate income to meet the demands of a minimum standard of living. Currently,
the Index that is developed is only in the form of a numerical value reflecting the state of
family well-being, but in future, it can be used to track changes in the family from time to
time.
N. M. Noor (&)S. Wok
International Islamic Universiy Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: noraini@iium.edu.my
A. D. Gandhi I. Ishak
National Population and Family Development Board, Bangunan LPPKN, No. 12B, Jalan Raja Laut,
P.O. Box 10416, 50712 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
123
Soc Indic Res
DOI 10.1007/s11205-012-0219-1
Author's personal copy
Keywords Indicators Index Family well-being Malaysia Satisfaction
1 Introduction
The Malaysian government has implemented several policies such as the New Develop-
ment Policy (1991–2000), the National Vision Policy (2001–2010), and recently, the
Government Transformation Programme (2010–2020) to make Malaysia into a developed
nation by 2020. These policies, entailing rapid economic and social development processes
have, however, imposed increasing demands on the family. As a result, families are faced
with pressures and challenges as illustrated by the breakdown of the extended family ties
and loss of support systems, an increase in social problems such as extra-marital rela-
tionships among youth, ‘‘baby dumping’’, abuse and neglect of children, family violence,
and others (e.g., Amin et al. 2006; Ministry of Women, Community and Development’s
website).
To balance the rapid rate of economic and social development, the family institution
and family relationships must be strengthened. This is important as the family is the basic
social unit which prepares and supplies human capital resources for national development.
Children are raised to become useful members of society within the family; thus, if the
family is problematic, society will suffer. Given the importance of the family institution
and family well-being for the country’s future, this study aims to build a set of indicators to
measure the family well-being of Malaysia’s plural society, and ultimately, to develop an
Index of Family Well-Being.
This effort can indirectly gauge the impact of social and economic development policies
on the family, and the extent to which these policies (through programs that have been
implemented) have been effective. So far, there is no one measure that can serve to
describe the state of family well-being in Malaysia, and consequently, to monitor family
well-being from time to time. Therefore, via the identified indicators, it is hoped that the
state of family well-being can be described and monitored from time to time to improve
family conditions. This is also related to the evaluation of family programs that are
implemented—for the effective ones to continue while others to be discontinued or
improved. For families that are identified as problematic, appropriate support and assis-
tance can be channelled to them so that well-being can be enjoyed by all citizens.
Indicators that can predict family well-being may also be recommended as predictors or
input in the formulation and implementation of family development programs, and sub-
sequently, to contribute to the National Family Policy which was approved on December
17, 2007. These important indicators can be used to strengthen family development pro-
grams enabling the National Family Policy to move in tandem with economic development
and other areas in the country. Lastly, this study can also be used as a ‘‘benchmark’’ study
of family well-being in Malaysia where comparisons can be made from time to time.
Indirectly, the information obtained from this study can be used to build a database on
family well-being in Malaysia, which can be improved from time to time as deemed
appropriate.
1.1 Family Well-Being
‘‘Family well-being’’ is a broad concept which covers various aspects of the living con-
ditions of an individual or a family. It involves a balanced development of individuals and
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
families in terms of the physical, spiritual, economic, social, and mental sides (e.g.,
Families Australia 2006; America’s Children 2009; Canadian Index of Well-Being 2010;
Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index 2009; Martinez et al. 2003). The concept also
emphasizes access to basic needs and facilities such as adequate shelter, quality schools,
health care, and a safe environment. Relationships between family members, such as
communication, solving problems, coping, and parenting, are also included in this concept
(e.g., Zubrick et al. 2000).
Family well-being can be measured quantitatively through indicators such as education
level or household income (e.g., Canadian Index of Well-Being 2010; Gallup-Healthways
Well-Being Index 2009). It can also be measured subjectively through individuals’ per-
ception of their satisfaction or happiness with different aspects of family relationships (e.g.,
Cummins et al. 2003; Diener et al. 1999; van Hoorn 2006). Although subjective indicators
may be questionable, they are increasingly being used to describe the living conditions of
individuals and families. Moreover, the use of subjective indicators has been found to
complement objective indicators in reflecting the living conditions of a family.
Due to the broad, complex, and multi-dimensional concept of ‘‘family well-being’’, it is
difficult to find one definition that is agreed upon. This consequently leads to difficulty in
measuring ‘‘family well-being’’, especially in a plural society like Malaysia.
However, based on previous studies and an understanding of the family and society in
Malaysia, in this study, family well-being is considered as a multi-dimensional concept
that incorporates family relationship, family’s economic situation, health and safety,
community relationship, housing and environment, as well as religion/spirituality. This last
dimension is deemed important in the Malaysian context because of the significance of
religion/spirituality in people’s lives (see Christie and Noor’s 2012 paper on the perpetual
contestations among the ethnic groups in the country).
1.2 Indicators
An indicator is defined as ‘‘a summary measure related to a key issue or phenomenon that
can be used to indicate a positive or negative change’’ (Statistics New Zealand 2004, p. 8).
It is thus a useful tool to condense a large amount of data so that information becomes
easier to interpret, and for any changes to be more discernible.
In this study, following from Zubrick, Williams, Silburn and Vimpani (2000), a dis-
tinction is made between indicators, as predictors, and problems, as outcomes, of these
indicators. A number of indicators are used to measure each domain of well-being as no
one indicator on its own is sufficient.
2 Review of the Literature
In this literature review, the domains of family well-being and hence, possible indicators
from past studies and reports are described and evaluated. Both international and relevant
Malaysian studies are reviewed.
2.1 International Studies on Family Well-Being
Berger-Schmitt and Jankowitsch (1999) have provided an excellent overview of the
international development of social indicator reports and social reporting on well-being in
European countries up until 1999. The authors outlined the history of the social indicator
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
movement, and reviewed social indicators used by major organizations in these countries.
The social reporting on well-being in these countries, however are vastly different in terms
of the quality, depth, regularity and target group studied. The authors distinguished four
approaches; level of living research, quality of life research, living conditions approach,
and living standard research.
The first, level of living research, is usually carried out by Nordic countries, and is
dependent on a resource concept of welfare, where the focus is on the availability of
resources which determine the living conditions of people. These are measured by
objective or descriptive indicators that rely on some aspects of welfare, such as education,
employment and working conditions, economic resources and consumption, housing and
residential environment, social relations and participation, leisure, health, personal safety,
social mobility, inequality in material living condition, gender inequality, among others.
The aims of the survey are to inform social policy and for public use.
The second, the quality of life research, is based on a welfare concept which considers
satisfaction of needs as an essential welfare component, and studies using this approach
have been carried out in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Switzerland. Here, sub-
jective indicators are considered together with objective living conditions. Thus, in relation
to the objective indicators of the topics covered, subjective welfare indicators such as
satisfaction and quality of working life or housing are added. Information on subjective
indicators is gathered by surveys.
The third, the living conditions approach, is the most widely used in Europe, where
social reports are structured by life domains and welfare components and are based on
official data but may also include survey data. Objective data is commonly used. The main
difference between this approach and the first is the lack of an underlying framework that
guides data collection and report structure in this approach. In the UK, the most well-
known social report, ‘‘Social Trends’’ provides yearly reports on the social situation in the
country covering 13 domains: population, households and families, education and training,
labor market, income and wealth, expenditure, health, social protection, crime and justice,
housing, environment, transport and lifestyles. Though the report is more descriptive than
analytic, it is very comprehensive. Indicators are mainly based on official data with few
subjective ones.
The fourth kind of reporting is common for the Eastern European countries in transition,
where the focus of research is on basic standard of living measured by objective indicators,
mainly monetary aspects.
Berger-Schmitt and Jankowitsch next distinguished social reporting of well-being for 10
European countries into two, the living conditions approach and the quality of life research
traditions. In these countries, similar aspects of well-being are measured by both
approaches—the difference is that in the quality of life research more subjective indicators
are added. All 10 countries contained indicators for the areas of employment and working
conditions, and housing. Nine reports contained indicators on social security and benefits.
Eight reports contained population measures and indicators on income consumption,
health, as well as leisure, culture and communication. Most of these indicators are
objective ones. However, in more recent studies, subjective indicators are increasingly
being used to measure how people feel about their lives (see study by Cummins et al. 2003
on the development of the Australian Unity Well-being Index; development of the Gallup-
Healthways Well-being Index 2009 to measure the well-being of Americans; Zubrick et al.
2000 on what constitute indicators of social and family functioning). This is needed
because objective indicators may not necessarily capture people’s subjective quality of life.
Thus, objective indicators provide information on the basic living conditions of people,
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
while subjective indicators highlight people’s experience of those conditions, giving a
more comprehensive picture of well-being. This is also in line with the finding showing
that while GDP in Western countries has increased over the past few decades, no such
increase is evident in measures of subjective well-being (Eckersley 2000). Thus, objective
measures alone may not be sufficient, especially when countries have gone through much
material progress.
Within the few Asian countries that have examined domains and indicators of well-
being (e.g., Symth et al. 2009; Haq 2009; Yiengprugsawan et al. 2009), the studies are
mainly validating the personal well-being index (PWI) which is a subjective measure. This
may not be able to reflect people’s well-being adequately because objective components
are not taken into consideration. On the other hand, the few studies that have used both
objective and subjective components are not as comprehensive as the ones carried out in
the West.
2.2 Malaysian Studies
So far, there has been no one measure that can serve to describe the state of family well-
being in Malaysia, and consequently, to monitor family well-being. However, at present
there are two Indexes—Malaysian Quality of Life Index and Malaysian Youth Index—but
neither emphasizes family well-being. The Malaysian Quality of Life Index (2004) mea-
sures the quality of living standards in Malaysia. This index measures the change in quality
of life from 1990 to 2002 and it includes 11 domains with 42 indicators. The domains are
transportation, communication, health, education, housing, environment, family life, social
participation, public safety, culture and leisure. The selection of indicators for these
domains is based on their significance, i.e., how they reflect the specific aspects of life, and
the availability of data. Although the domains included are comprehensive, the use of
objective indicators alone is insufficient. Quality of life is tied to how a person perceives its
meaning, which can be considered as ‘‘…categories of phenomena that include one’s
emotional perception, domain satisfaction, and global ratings of life satisfaction’’ (Diener
et al. 1999, p. 277), which is subjective. Therefore, the absence of subjective indicators in
the Quality of Life Index is questionable.
The Malaysian Youth Index (2008) was built to monitor the quality and well-being of
youth using eight domains—personal development, social relationships, identity, self-
potential, leisure, health, media penetration and deviant behaviour, with their respective
indicators. Unlike the Malaysia Quality of Life Index, the Malaysian Youth Index uses a
number of subjective indicators to complement the objective ones. Results showed an
increase in the overall Index score between 2006 and 2008 (70.0 % from 68.7 %), but there
was a decrease in the score of several domains, which reflects a decline in performance.
For example, in the domain of social relations, relationship with parents showed a
decreased score of 72.8 % compared to 73.5 % in 2006. Similar to the Quality of Life
Index, the Malaysian Youth Index does not emphasize family well-being, and it only takes
into account the youth (those aged between 15 and 40 years).
Table 1summarises some of the most relevant studies/reports on family well-being
from different countries of the world in terms of their aims, methods, findings and rec-
ommendations. The table also highlights the domains and indicators of well-being used in
these studies.
Based on the review of the literature, six domains of family well-being were identi-
fied—family relationships, economic situation, health and safety, housing and environ-
ment, community relationships, and religion/spirituality, each with its own indicators. The
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 Summary of relevant past studies
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Cummins
et al.
(2003)
To develop the
Australian Unity
Wellbeing Index and
measure the level of
life satisfaction among
Australians
2000 respondents were obtained
through a nationally representative
sample
Data collection took place via
telephone interviews
The study made use of the Personal
Wellbeing Index (7 domains:
standard of living, health,
achievement, relationships, safety,
community connectedness, future
security), the National Wellbeing
Index
(3 domains: economic situation,
environment, social conditions),
and a number of other sub-domain
items (wealth, health services,
family support, trust, own life
changing for the better, Australia
changing for the better)
Future security, health and standard of living
consistently made significant contributions to the
prediction of all six dependent variables (Life as
a whole, Life in Australia, National Index and
Personal Index, Social capital, Own life
changing, Australia changing)
Personal relationships topped the range, while
community connectedness was at the bottom
The score for satisfaction with life in Australia was
lower than that for personal life satisfaction
Across the personal domains, the 66-75 year group
was found to experience the highest level of
satisfaction. Health was the exception, however,
as they were found to be the least satisfied with
their health
The youngest age group (8–25) was found to be the
least satisfied with their community
connectedness and personal relationships, while
the 36–45 age group was the least satisfied with
their future security
For national wellbeing, the domain of economic
status was higher for the high access group
(accessibility to service centers) compared to the
moderate-low access group. This outcome,
however, was reversed when the PWI was taken
into consideration
Experience of recent
events that made
an individual
happy/sad may
affect overall
wellbeing
Personal Wellbeing Index
Life as a whole
Personal life domains
Standard of living
Health
Achievement in life
Personal relationships
Safety
Community connectedness
Future security
National Wellbeing Index
Life in Australia
National life domains
Economic situation
State of the environment
Social conditions
Australian Unity Wellbeing
Index =Personal Wellbeing
Index ?National Wellbeing
Index
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Zubrick
et al.
(2000)
To verify the
measures of family
and social
functioning shown
to be valid for
Australians, as
well as their
usefulness in
interpreting the
effects of changes
in family life on
health of young
Australians
A literature search (and
web search) of the
main Australian and
International studies on
development of
indicators relevant to
social and family
functioning, as well as
indicator use
40 academicians and
main Australian
leaders involved in
indicator development
were recruited for a
two-day national
workshop, in which the
review of research was
discussed in order to
come to a decision on
indicators of social and
family functioning
A rationale for the
selection,
development and use
of the indicators, as
well as essential
indicators measuring
aspects of human
capital, time,
income,
psychological capital
and social capital
were established
Selection of social and family
functioning indicators on the
basis of causal pathways. This
allows for the prospect of
intervention
In order to implement indicators
of social and family
functioning, items of the
proposed indicators need to be
refined and used in a number of
data collection methods (e.g.,
face-to-face interviews), and
from a range of informants
(e.g., teachers and different
caregivers)
1. Time
Parental hours in paid employment
Hours in unpaid labour
Parental employment status (full-time, part-time, casual)
Hours of formal child care
Hours engaged in parent–child activities (supervising homework,
outings, recreational and leisure activities)
Time child spends watching tv (playing video games/Internet)
2. Income
Total family income
Disposable family income
Level of welfare benefits (current, sustained and lifetime)
Financial strain (ratio of debts to assets)
3. Human capital
Parental/carer education
Parental/carer physical health
Culturally acquired knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values and
traditions
Parental/carer skills and competencies
4. Psychological capital
Stressful life events
Parental mental health
Level of self-efficacy, mastery/personal, control/autonomy and
self-direction
Family conflict (discord, violence, abuse)
Family cohesion
Perceived level of social support
Parenting/carer style (encouraging, detached)
5. Social capital
Neighborhood, violence and crime
Social or cultural discrimination
Availability of support services
Trust
Social supports/extended kin and community contacts
Social participation and engagement
Reciprocity
Civic involvement
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Families Australia
(2006)
To devise a
framework which
focuses
specifically on
family to guide
research, policy
development and
resource allocation
and evaluation
Examined
frameworks and
models of national
and individual
well-being and
welfare from
various countries
namely United
Kingdom, United
States as well as
Australia
There are four
elements that are
dynamic and
interconnected to
overall family
well-being
Any family well-
being framework
should contain
principles,
components of
family well-being,
factors influencing
well-being, target
and indicators and
recommendations
for action by
government and
private sectors,
community, and
future research
1. Physical safety and health
Child abuse and neglect
Domestic violence
Safety from crime and anti-social behaviors
Substance abuse
Suicide
Homelessness
Life expectancy
Expected years of life lived without disability
Infant mortality
Mental health
Physical activity
2. Supportive family relationship
Relationship break down
Level of trust
Conflict resolution skills
Work/family balance
Access to child care
Access to public transport
Recreation patterns
Resilience
Acts of love and acceptance
Recognition of individual and family achievements
Family participations in learning
3. Outside social connections
Social isolation
Social skills
Contact with family and friends
Community engagement
Telephone and Internet access
4. Economic security
Employment and labour force differentials
Literacy
Education participation and outcomes
Workforce participation
Wealth and wealth distribution
Income/income distribution
Debt/debt distribution
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Hooghe and
Vanhoutte (2009)
To examine
individual and
community level
characteristics on
subjective well-
being in Flanders
(Belgium)
The Social Cohesion
Indicators Flanders
(SCIF) Survey,
which is used to
analyze individual
and community
level
characteristics on
individual quality
of life outcomes
was administered
to respondents
living in Flanders
Subjective well-
being (dependent
measure) was
measured by 3
items (How
satisfied are you
with your 1. family
life, 2. social life,
and 3. sexual well-
being?). A
summed scale
ranging from 0 to
100 was developed
based on these
three items.
Respondents
(n =2080) were
randomly recruited
via two-stage
cluster and data
was collected
through face-to-
face interviews
Level of income and
subjective
satisfaction with
health and wealth
were reported to
have positive
effects on
wellbeing
Informal networks
(e.g., having
friends) and
generalized trust
remain important
determinants of
subjective well-
being
On the community
level,
unemployment,
crime rate and
population density
did not have any
impact on well-
being
The term
communities may
not have been
properly defined in
the SCIF survey,
accounting for the
insignificant
relationship
between
communal factors
and well-being. In
other words,
community
characteristics do
not have an impact
on well-being in
Flanders—
subjective well-
being can be
mostly explained
by individual level
determinants like
having a partner
and friends, and
being satisfied
with one’s income
and one’s health
Individual level determinants of well-being
1. Social structure
Household composition
Occupational status
Family income
2. Social capital
Frequency of family visits
Frequency of inviting friends
Active membership of organizations
Generalized trust
3. Subjective indicators
Satisfaction with health
Satisfaction with income
Community level indicators of well-being
Unemployment rate
Average crime rate
Population density
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Hansson et al. (2004) To examine whether
previous studies
conducted on well-
being could be
replicated in a
Swedish
population-based
sample
10,311 Swedish
citizens living in
Stockholm
County, aged
between 20 and
64 years were
randomly sampled.
10,441 randomly
selected
Well-being was
measured by
making use of the
WHO (ten) well-
being index. This
index contained
items related to
both emotions
(e.g., depression
and vitality) as
well as cognitive
evaluations (e.g.,
coping skills and
adjustment to life)
Cohabitant (or those
living with a
partner) and males
(as opposed to
females) were
found to exhibited
higher degrees of
well-being.
Furthermore, those
aged between 50
and 64 produced
higher well-being
scores than those
in the younger age
groups
Good social support,
good childhood
conditions,
absence of
negative life
events as well as
financial problems
were related to
higher levels of
well-being. While
social support was
found to explain
most of the
variance,
education was
found not to be
significantly
related to well-
being
Research on well-
being needs to
focus more on
internal factors
such as an
individual’s
personality and
coping strategies
to better
understand the
underlying process
of SWB
Cohabiting
Age
Good childhood
Support from friends
Financial problems
Absence of negative life events
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Martinez
et al.
(2003)
To identify key indicators of
family well-being attributed to
successful families in America
36 studies and reports
that represent strong
and successful
American families that
had been previously
documented were
selected
A review of these reports
identified 4 areas;
public priorities (53 %
of reports); public
family surveys (25 %
of reports); research
and evaluation (14 %)
and private sector/
polling data (8 %)
For each report, an
analysis report form
was developed to carry
out a structured review
of the study which was
then content analyzed
Based on the degree of
consensus as to what
indicators constitute
family well-being,
themes were
categorized into 3 tiers
of family well-being
(each with its own
indicators)
Level 1indicators
represented 100 %
consensus because
they were identified
across all the four
areas—16 family well-
being indicators which
indicated that a healthy
family life is of utmost
importance to family
well-being
Level 2 indicators
represented a sense of
common ground on
family well-being
since these indicators
were identified in three
of the four areas
Level 3 indicators were
identified across only
half of the areas and
they represented
differences of opinion
on what is meant by
family well-being
Different groups of
people emphasize
different types of value
in defining family
well-being.
There is variation in the
types of indicators that
represent family well-
being, depending on
the interests of the
different institutions/
groups
Tier 1 domains and indicators
1. Family life
Time together
Discipline, structure, and monitoring of children
Positive communication
Commitment to family
Religious beliefs
Social support
Family dinners
2. Safe community
Safe community
Neighbors who knows and who are willing to help
Community support youth
Culture makeup of neighborhood
3. Early childhood
Access to quality early childhood care
4. Education
Parents are involved in children’s education
5. Health
Access to health care
Exercise
Substance abuse prevention and treatment
Tier 2
1. Family life
Love
Protection of children
Parental stress/positive parenting
Access to child care
2. Community supports
Family friendly employers
Neighborhood watch groups
Church/places of worship
Families engaged in community
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Schools support families
Housing (affordable, housing stock/values)
Families and youth volunteering in community
Quality child care available
3. Early childhood
School readiness
4. Education
Student achievement
Student attendance
Going to college
5. Health
Preventing teen pregnancy
Mental health (stress reduction)
Prevention injury
Violence prevention
Proper nutrition
6. Economics
Employers with family supportive policies
Number of working poor families
Ability to pay bills/provide basic needs of family
7. Role of government
Tax policies that support raising families
Access to quality early childhood
Access to education to support parents in raising
their children
Support the working poor
Sense of safety (crime prevention)
Reform welfare to encourage work and self-
sufficiency
Access to basic services (roads, police, fire,
libraries)
Tier 3 domains and indicators NOT shown
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Canadian
index of
well-
being
(2010)
To report the Canadian
Index of Well-being
(CIW) which is
constructed to measure
the overall quality of
life of Canadians
(exercise still ongoing)
The CIW is designed to reflect
Canadian values. This exercise
has been taken up by the
Canadian Policy Research
Network (CPRN), whereby
Canadians were asked about
their families and ambitions for
their communities among
others
The CIW Network authorized
literature reviews,
environmental scans and
domain reports by experts in
the field, which provide a
comprehensive summary of
relevant studies conducted in
Canada
The responses provided by the
participants were refined by the
Institute’s Canadian Advisory
Research Group (CRAG) into a
framework constituting 8
domains
Consultations with pan-Canadian
stakeholders and Canadian
leaders were held to ensure that
the themes and domains were
deeply rooted in Canadian
values
A framework constituting 8 domains and a
number of indicators, forming the
Canadian Index of Wellbeing was
established
Domains are 1. Democratic Engagement,
2. Living Standards, 3. Healthy
Populations, 4. Time Use, 5. Leisure
and Culture, 6. Community Vitality, 7.
Education, and 8. Environment
Additional research
is required to
identify macro,
community, family
and individual-
level factors that
influence time use.
Further studies are
needed to
investigate the
strength of social
relationships and
societal values for
different groups in
the population, as
well as lower
geographical
regions
1. Healthy population
Self-rated health
Influenza immunization among age 65?
Population with a regular family doctor
Patient satisfaction with health services
Health-adjusted life expectancy
Diabetes
Depression
Life expectancy
Infant mortality
Smoking
2. Living standards
After-tax median income
Income distribution
Incidence of low income
Wealth distribution
Housing suitability and affordability
CIBC employment quality index
Employment rate
Long-term unemployment
CSLS economic security index
3. Community vitality
Participation in group activities
Volunteering
Belonging to community
Caring for others
Experience of discrimination
Trust
Property Crime
Violent crime
Walking alone after dark
Number of close relatives
Providing assistance to others
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
4. Democratic engagement
(1) Individual engagement
Voter turnout
Interest in politics
Volunteer rate for political activities
(2) Government engagement
Policy impact perception
Satisfaction with democracy
Ratio of registered to eligible voters
Representation of women in Parliament
(3) Global engagement
Net official development assistance as percent of
gross national income.
5. Time use
Adults working long hours
Adults working non-standard hours
Adults working reporting high levels of time
pressure
Adults providing unpaid care to seniors
Retired seniors engaged in active leisure
Retired seniors volunteering
Children/adolescents participating in organized
activities
Parent-preschooler reading activities
Adolescents eating meals with parents at home
Adolescents exceeding recommended screen time
6. Leisure and culture
Social leisure activities
Arts and culture activities
Volunteering for culture and recreational
organizations
Physical activities
Attending performing arts
Visits to national parks and national historic sites
Nights on vacation
Spending on culture and recreation
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
7. Education
(literacy and skill levels of the population, including the
ability to function in various societal contexts and plan
for and adapt to future situations—under development)
8. Environment
(state of well-being and integrity of the natural
environment, including the sustainability of ecosystems,
watersheds and natural resources—under development)
Rashida Haq
(2009)
To examine objective
and subjective
indicators of human
well-being in ranking
of survey data for
various regions in
Pakistan
The Pakistan Social and
Living Standards
Measurement Survey,
which provides a set of
representative,
population-based
estimates of social
indicators; provides
data on well-being
(using various
indicators of well-
being) for regions
around Pakistan
Economic status and communities
were found to be important
indicators in subjective
perception of well-being.
Objective indicators of well-being
and subjective perception of
well-being make up 68 % of
the variation in human well-
being.
Subjective well-being varied
extensively among the various
districts of Pakistan
The differences in well-
being evidenced in the
various districts of
Pakistan may be a
result of
inconsistencies in
objective conditions
and in subjective
perceptions of well-
being
Objective domains
1. Education—indicators: illiteracy rate, child education in
terms of levels, parent education
2. Health—indicators: immunization and access to health
3. Living conditions
Subjective perception of well-being
1. Education
2. Health
3. Public safety
4. Households’ perception of economic safety
5. Community
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Yiengprugsawan
et al. (2009)
To close the gap in well-
being data in Thailand
by:
(a) Calculating the Thai
PWI and domain
scores using a large
sample
(b) Examining the level
of satisfaction of Thais
and comparing it to
international standards
(c) Examining Thai PWI
and domains in relation
to demographic, socio
economic and
geographic
characteristics
Data derived from a
national cohort of
87,134 adult students
(most are part-timers)
aged 20 and above
from the Sukhotai
Thammathirat Open
University (STOU) yet
only 82,564 data were
used for the main
analysis
Instrument : mail-out
survey
Satisfaction in life increased with increase in
income (73.8 in the lowest group compared to
79.6 in the highest group), higher level of
education (74.9 for junior/high school education
compared to 76.7 for bachelor degree and above)
and household assets (73.9 in the lowest group
compared to 77.7 in the highest group)
Overall score for PWI was 70.0
Among eight domains of PWI the highest mean
scores were ‘spiritual and religion’ (76.5)
followed by ‘personal relationship’ (72.4) and
‘health ‘(72.2)
The lowest scores were sense of ‘achievement in
life’(72.4), ‘sense of community’ (65.8) and
‘standard of living’ (67.6)
Marital status, income, level of education, older
people and being in rural area have positive
correlation with all domains of PWI
Correlation between domains: the highest
correlation of 0.70 was between ‘achievement in
life’ and ‘future security’ followed by 0.64
between ‘achievement in life’ and ‘standard of
living’. The lowest correlation of 0.34 was found
between ‘achievement in life’ and ‘spirituality
and religion’
Health was not a strong contributor to
‘satisfaction in life as a whole’.
Relationship between culture,
spirituality and religion are
intertwined.
‘Spirituality and religion’ gained the
highest mean score across all
domains
Domains of PWI
1. Standard of living
2. Personal health
3. Achievement in life
4. Personal relationship
5. Personal safety
6. Sense of community
7. Future security
8. Spirituality/religion
Additional Indicators
Age
Gender
Marital status
Household assets
Level of education
Area of residence
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
Malaysian
Quality of
Life
(2004)
To analyze changes in
the quality of life (qol)
for the period of 1990
–2002 in Malaysia
Computed using 42 indicators which
represent 11 components of life
Indicators were chosen based on level
of importance, how they reflect the
particular aspect of life and the
availability of data.
All indicators were assigned with
positive and negative symbols
where the former symbol signifies
improvement in life as the
numerical value increased and the
latter sign works in reverse.
Standardized deviation method was
used to standardized each indicator
Resource and Tool: Household
Income Survey (HIS), Department
of Statistics, District Data Bank and
Population and Housing Census of
Malaysia
The upward trend of Malaysian
Quality of Life Index was
mainly contributed by
improvement in domains such
as working life and transport
and communication
Other domains namely housing,
health, culture and leisure,
social participation, income and
distribution and family life also
improved
Due to data constrain, only five
domains (income and
distribution, transportation and
telecommunication, health,
education and public amenities)
were used to assess quality of
life at state level
Experience of recent events
that made an individual
happy/sad may affect
overall well-being
1. Income and distribution
Real per capita income
Gini coefficient
Incidence of poverty
2. Working life
Unemployment rate
Trade disputes
Man days lost due to industrial actions
Industrial accident rate
3. Transport and communications
Private motorcars and motorcycles
Commercial vehicles
Road development index
Telephones
Internet subscribers
Average daily newspaper circulation
4. Health
Male life expectancy at birth
Female life expectancy at birth
Infant mortality rate
Doctor-population per ratio
5. Education
Literacy rate
Pre-school participation rate
Secondary school participation rate
University participation rate
Primary school teacher-student ratio
Secondary school teacher-student ratio
6. Housing
Average price of low-medium-cost house
Low-cost housing units
Housing units with piped water
Housing units with electricity
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
7. Environment
Air quality
Water quality
Forested land
8. Family life
Divorces
Crude birth rate
Household size
Juvenile crimes
9. Social participation
Registered voters
Membership in registered
non-profit organizations
Registered residents’
associations
10. Public safety
Crimes
Road accidents
11. Culture and leisure
Membership in public libraries
Television viewers
Domestic hotel guests
Malaysian
Youth
Index
(2008)
The Malaysian Youth
Index (MYI) was
developed to assess the
quality and well-being
of youth in Malaysia
The MYI was first developed in 2006.
The sample for the scale index
comprised of 4,673 individuals
aged between 15 and 40 years. The
sampling was done based on the
national population, taking into
account the individual’s gender,
age, race and place of birth.
Responses were indicated by rating
items on a five-point Likert-type
scale ranging from not good to very
good
MYI 2008 contains 47 indicators
clustered within 8 domains.
Between the years 2006 and 2008, the
overall index indicated an increase
in domains. However, there were
still slight decreases evidenced in
some domains; health, social
relationship and developmental.
Youths were found to have performed
slightly better for the remaining
domains of leisure time, self
potential, deviant behavior, media
penetration and identity
The development of MYI serves
as a tool for youth workers so
that they can narrow down to
the indicator or domain that
needs to be improved to
increase the quality and well-
being of Malaysian youth
1. Self development
Self esteem
Self efficacy
Motivation
Emotion
Assertiveness
Depression
Stress
2. Social relationship
Relationship with parents/family
Relationship with community
Relationship with friends
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
3. Identity
Competitiveness
Volunteerism
Patriotism
Unity
Political socialization
4. Self potential
Leadership
Entrepreneurship
Skill
5. Leisure time
Sport
Exercise
Club and association
6. Health
No high blood pressure
No diabetes
No cancer
No heart problem
No kidney problem
No asthma
No HIV/AIDS
No obesity
7. Media penetration
Free TV channels
Paid TV channels
Radio
Newspaper/magazine
Book
Mobile phone
Computer
I nternet
CD/MP3 players
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 continued
Study Aims Methods Results Discussion/
recommendations
Domains/indicators
8. Deviant behavior
No smoking
Non drinking
Not taking drugs
Not gambling
Not reading pornographic
materials
No sexual premarital activities
Not loitering
No vandalism of public
properties
Not involve in illegal race
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
aims of the study were to (1) build a set of indicators to measure family well-being in
Malaysia, and (2) build an Index of Family Well-Being based on these indicators.
3 Method
The study was conducted on 2,808 households (a parent and a child—at least 13 years old
from each household) throughout Malaysia. The study used a stratified random sampling
design in selecting respondents for the sample stratified by locality (urban and rural) and
ethnic groups (Bumiputera—Malay and other indigenous groups, Chinese and Indian)
proportional to their ratio in the population. Data collection was carried out by a team of
interviewers who were trained before being allowed to interview family members. Face-to-
face interviews were utilized.
3.1 Sample
In the final sample, there were 1,484 fathers and 1,324 mothers (mean age of
fathers =50.13 years, SD =7.85, and mothers =46.54 years, SD =7.57), respectively.
On the other hand, there were 1,356 male and 1,452 female children, with a mean age of
18.31 years (SD =3.53). The majority of parents (93.1 %) were married, with the
remainder being divorced (single parent) and widowed. In contrast, the majority of chil-
dren (94.7 %) were single and still studying.
The distribution of households for the three ethnic groups was 62.0 % Bumiputera,
28.3 % Chinese and 9.8 % Indians. The majority of households consisted of the nuclear
family (81.7 %), followed by the extended family (14.2 %). The number of individuals in
the household ranged from 2 to 21 people, with a mean of 5.48 (SD =1.96). While 52.8 %
lived in urban areas, the rest were in rural areas. However, there were more Bumiputera in
the rural areas compared to Chinese and Indians. Urban families tended to work in the
professional, technical and related fields (25.3 %), followed by sales, service and related
areas (24.2 %), and within administration and management (20.3 %), while the majority of
rural families were in agriculture, fisheries and related areas (26.5 %).
In terms of monthly income, 65.6 % of parents reported a gross household income of
below RM3000, with only 14.2 % of households reporting an income of more than
RM5000 per month. However, the distribution of household income by ethnic group
showed that more Bumiputera earned less than RM1000 per month (28.5 %), compared to
the Chinese (17.3 %) and Indians (21.5 %). On the other hand, the percentage of Chinese
who earned more than RM4000 per month (9.9 %) was higher than the Indians (8.4 %) and
Bumiputera (6.4 %). They also recorded a higher percentage of monthly income exceeding
RM10,001 compared to Indians and Bumiputera. In general, urban families had higher
income than rural families.
3.2 Domains and Indicators
Table 2shows the indicators of each domain of family well-being. The table also shows
how each indicator is defined and the measures used to assess them in the study. As can be
seen, many of these measures are specifically developed for the study.
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 2 Domains and indicators of family well-being
Domain Indicator Concepts and measures
Family
relationships
Parenting styles
Authoritarian
Authoritative
Permissive
Uninvolved
Concept: How parents raise their children (Baumrind 1991)
Measures: Assessed via scores on a 10-item scale developed for the study;
Authoritarian parenting style was measured by two items, Authoritative by
three items, Permissive by four and Uninvolved by one. Items were measured
using a 5-point Likert response format (1 =‘‘strongly disagree’’ to
5=‘‘strongly agree’’), with higher scores indicating higher levels the
particular parenting style
Cronbach alphas were .78, .74, and .82 for Authoritarian, Authoritative and
Permissive parenting styles, respectively
Parental involvement Concept: An aspect of parents’ skills as guardian—to know and monitor their
children (Zubrick et al. 2000)
Measures: Assessed via scores on a 4-item scale developed for the study. Items
were measured using a 5-point Likert response format (1 =‘‘strongly
disagree’’ to 5 =‘‘strongly agree’’), with higher scores indicating higher
parental involvement in their children’s lives
Cronbach alpha for this scale was .87
Family resiliency Concept: The family’s ability to cultivate strengths to positively meet the
challenges of life (Family Resiliency 1995)
Measures: Assessed via scores on a 10-item scale developed for the study. Items
were measured using a 5-point Likert response format (1 =‘‘strongly
disagree’’ to 5 =‘‘strongly agree’’), with higher scores indicating higher
family resiliency
Cronbach alpha for this scale was .95
Family functioning Concept: Comprises ways in which the family communicate, relate and maintain
relationship with each other, make decisions and solve problems (Silburn et al.
2006)
Measures: Assessed via scores on a 7-item scale developed for the study. Items
were measured using a 5-point Likert response format (1 =‘‘strongly
disagree’’ to 5 =‘‘strongly agree’’), with higher scores indicating lower levels
of family functioning.
Cronbach alpha for this scale was .96
Time with family Concept: Time parents have for themselves and with family members (Zubrick
et al. 2000)
Measures: This indicator was assessed via scores on a 4-item scale (relating to
four daily activities) developed for the study. Items were measured using a
5-point Likert response format (1 =‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 =‘‘strongly
agree’’), with higher scores indicating more time spent with the family
In this study, Cronbach alpha was .91
Child care Concept: Time parents spend in child care (Zubrick et al. 2000)
Measures: This indicator was assessed by one subjective item ‘‘To what extent
do you face child care problems when working?’’ that used an 11-point
response scale (0 =‘‘no problem at all’’ to 10 =‘‘a lot of problem’’)
Work-family balance Concept: Time parents have for themselves and with family members (Zubrick
et al. 2000)
Measures: This indicator was assessed by one subjective item ‘‘To what extent
are you able to balance the demands of work and family?’’ that used an
11-point response scale (0 =‘‘not at all able’’ to 10 =‘‘very able’’)
Influnce of internet/
social media
Concept: The Internet or virtual social space that is designed to facilitate
communication, collaboration, and sharing of information across a network of
contacts (Kietzmann et al. 2011)
Measures: This indicator was assessed via scores on a 3-item scale developed for
the study. Items were measured using a 5-point Likert response format
(1 =‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 =‘‘strongly agree’’), with higher scores
indicating more positive influence.
Cronbach alpha for the present study was .70
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 2 continued
Domain Indicator Concepts and measures
Overall satisfaction with family
relationship
Measures: Assessed by scores on the following 4 items
developed for the study, ‘‘Overall, how satisfied are
you with your …?’’
relationship with your husband/wife
family relationship
family functioning
family achievement
These items used an 11-point response scale (0 =‘‘not
at all’’ to 10 =‘‘completely’’)
Cronbach alpha for the present study was .95
2. Economic situation
Concept: Ability to
provide for the
family’s basic needs
and other requirements
to ensure that the
family is comfortable,
safe, and satisfied
(Zubrick et al. 2000)
Highest level of education
Family’s monthly income
Economic security
Savings
Debt
Measures: Economic security was assessed by two
items, one measuring savings ‘‘To what extent is
your family saving?’’ and the other measuring debt
‘‘To what extent is your family in debt?’’, using an
11-point response scale (0 =‘‘None at all’’ to
10 =‘‘A lot’’). Higher scores on the former indicate
higher savings while in the latter higher debt
Overall satisfaction with
economic situation
Measures: Assesed by two subjective items, ‘‘Overall,
how satisfied are you with your …?’’
family’s economic situation
family’s standard of living
These items used an 11-point response scale (0 =‘‘not
at all’’ to 10 =‘‘completely’’)
Cronbach alpha for the two items was .91
3. Health and safety
Concept of health: Refers
to a state of complete
physical, mental and
social well-being, not
merely the absence of
disease (WHO 2011)
Concept of Safety:
Feeling safe and
protected from failure,
burglary, mistake,
accident or injury
(Kojima 2005)
Healthy life style Measures: Assessed via scores on 5-items (diet,
exercise, smoking, drug use and alcohol intake),
using a 5-point Likert response format
(1 =‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 =‘‘strongly agree’’),
with higher scores indicating healthier life style
Cronbach alpha for the scale was .71
Physical health Measures: Physical health was measured by one item
on the absence of chronic illness in the family, using
a 5-point Likert response format
Stress Measures: This was assessed by 5 items taken from the
General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg 1978). The
items were ‘‘Lost sleep over worry’’, ‘‘Felt constantly
under strain’’, ‘‘Been enjoying your normal daily
activities’’, ‘‘Been feeling unhappy’’, and ‘‘Been
losing confidence in yourself’’, using a 5-point Likert
response format (1 =‘‘not at all’’ to 5 =‘‘more than
usual’’), with higher scores indicating higher levels
of stress
Cronbach alpha for scale was .86
Safety at home Measures: This was assessed by two items developed
for the study, using a 5-point Likert response format
(1 =‘‘not at all’’ to 5 =‘‘always’’), with higher
scores indicating better safety at home.
Cronbach alpha was .82
Overall satisfaction with health
and safety
Measures: Assesed by two subjective items, ‘‘Overall,
how satisfied are you with your …?’’
family’s health
family’s safety
These items used an 11-point response scale (0 =‘‘not
at all’’ to 10 =‘‘completely’’)
Cronbach alpha for the two items was .91
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Table 2 continued
Domain Indicator Concepts and measures
4. Community
relationship
Concept: A group of
people who live within
the same region, share
the same set of
resources and culture,
often interact with each
other, and consider
themselves part of the
social group
Involvement in community Measures: This indicator was assessed by a 3-item
scale developed for the study, using a 5-point Likert
response format (1 =‘‘not at all’’ to 5 =‘‘always’’),
with higher scores indicating higher family
involvement in the community
Cronbach alpha for the scale was .91
Overall satisfaction with
community relationship
Measures: Assesed by one subjective item, ‘‘Overall,
how satisfied are you with your family’s relationship
within the community?’’, using an 11-point response
scale (0 =‘‘not at all’’ to 10 =‘‘completely’’)
5. Religion/spirituality
Concept: Refers to a
collection of cultural
systems, belief
systems, and
worldviews that relate
humanity to spirituality
and, also, to moral
values
Importance of religion Measures: Assessed by one item on the importance of
religion in family life, using a 5-point Likert
response format
Overall satisfaction with religion/
spirituality
Measures: Assessed by one item, ‘‘Overall, how
satisfied are you with your family’s religious/
spiritual practices?’’ using an 11-point response scale
6. Housing and
environment
Concept: This refers to
the family having
adequate housing/
shelter and basic
amenities (Disney
2006)
Number of people in household
Number of bedrooms
Overall satisfaction with housing
and enviroment
Measures: assessed by one item, ‘‘overall, how
satisfied are you with the basic amenities in your
housing area?’’ using an 11-point response scale
Overall family well-
being
Concept: Refers to
various aspects of the
living conditions of a
family, including
development of
individuals and
families in terms of the
physical, spiritual,
economic, social, and
mental aspects. The
concept also
emphasizes access to
basic needs and
facilities such as
adequate shelter,
quality schools, health
care, and a safe
environment (Families
Australia 2006;
Canadian Index of
Well-Being 2010;
Gallup-Healthways
Well-Being Index
2009)
Measures: Assessed by a 3-item scale developed for
the study. The items were ‘‘Overall, how satisfied are
you with your family’s well being?’’, and two more
items that describe the state of family life at the
present time and 5 years from now. The items used
an 11-point Likert response format (0–10), with
higher scores indicating higher family well-being
Cronbach alpha for the scale was .91
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
3.3 Procedure
The study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. In the former, focus group
discussions were carried out while in the latter a field survey was conducted.
3.3.1 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
FGD was initially carried out to explore respondents’ understanding of what constituted the
domains and indicators of family well-being. While several domains (and indicators) were
identified from the literature review, the FGD responses were expected to verify these
domains and indicators. The FGD responses were then consolidated with findings from the
literature review to produce the final set of indicators.
Two FGD sessions were carried out—one consisting of respondents of households from the
three different ethnic groups to represent the family structure in Malaysia, and the other made
up of professionals/experts from the public and private sectors (e.g., doctors, psychologists,
nutritionists), representatives from non-governmental agencies and other associated bodies
who were involved either directly or indirectly with the family and family well-being—on the
assumption that responses from these two FGD sessions would complement each other and
provide a more comprehensive understanding of family well-being.
After responses from the FGDs were transcribed, interpreted and verified with findings
from the literature review, the indicators were finalised. They were then pilot-tested on 30
families. Based on the results of the pilot study, several changes were made to the format
and organization of the questionnaire.
First, instructions were improved, and the font used in the questionnaire was changed to
make it clearer and more respondent-friendly. Malay and English versions of the ques-
tionnaires were made to avoid confusion and in the main study, respondents were free to
choose to answer in Malay or English. Second, a number of scales used were refined based
on the results of factor analysis. Alpha values of the scales were calculated to ensure that
their reliabilities were acceptable. Third, problematic or inappropriate items were
reviewed. In some cases, these items were replaced with new ones. Fourth, to ensure that
the questionnaire did not take too long to complete, several scales were shortened. These
changes helped to strengthen the measures in the final questionnaire.
3.3.2 Training for the Interviewers
Prior to data collection, a training session was held to train the interviewers. First, they
were informed about the study objectives, sampling methods, interview procedures, and
the appropriate ways when dealing with respondents. Next, particular attention was given
to the interview process.
Interviewers were informed about possible alternatives if identified respondents refused
to be interviewed. Finally, interviewers practice role playing using the questionnaire so that
they could anticipate potential problems and ways of overcoming them. During this
training session, interviewers were given the opportunity to ask questions related to the
implementation of the survey.
3.4 Data Analyses
The analyses were carried out in several stages. First, within each of the six domains of
family well-being, multiple regression analyses were used to examine indicators that were
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
predictive of the overall domain satisfaction. Second, a regression analysis predicting
overall family well-being was carried out based on the significant domain indicators,
followed by a regression predicting overall family well-being from domain satisfaction
indicators. Based on these analyses, a model of family well-being was hypothesized. This
model was used to guide the development of the Index. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was next carried out to determine the fit of the model to data. Based on the results of the
CFA, the Index was calculated and some results, highlighted.
4 Results
4.1 Analysis by Domain
In each domain, regression analysis was carried out to determine the indicators of the
overall domain satisfaction. Prior to the regression analysis, means, standard deviations
and inter-correlations among the indicators in each domain were calculated.
4.1.1 Family Relationships
Because of the significant positive correlation between authoritative and authoritarian
parenting style (r=.47), authoritarian parenting style was dropped in further analysis.
Permissive parenting style was also dropped from the analysis because it was not corre-
lated with the overall satisfaction in this domain. Next, regression analysis predicting
overall satisfaction with family relationship was carried out and the results are shown in
Table 3. The table shows that family resilience, time with family, family functioning,
work-family balance, parental involvement, influence of the Internet, authoritative par-
enting style, and child care are significant predictors of the overall satisfaction with family
relationships. This model, F(9,2798) =122.79 (p\.0001), explained for 30.8 % of the
variance in the overall satisfaction with family relationship.
Table 3 Prediction of overall satisfaction with family relationship
Indicator R
2
Beta btp
1. Family resilience .763 .283 13.10 .0001
2. Time with family .314 .193 9.78 .0001
3. Family functioning -.199 -.109 -5.40 .0001
4. Work–family balance .059 .093 5.57 .0001
5. Parental involvement .212 .087 4.11 .0001
6. Authoritative parenting style -.148 -.071 -3.89 .0001
7. Influence of the internet .205 .062 3.80 .0001
8. Child care -.027 -.049 -2.92 .004
9. Uninvolved parenting style .028 .022 1.14 .255
.308
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
4.1.2 Economic Situation
All four indicators were correlated with overall satisfaction with economic situation, but
only savings and debt were predictive of the overall satisfaction with economic situation.
The regression model was significant, F(4,2803) =146.83, p\.0001, and it explained for
17.3 % of the variance in the overall satisfaction with economic situation (Table 4).
4.1.3 Health and Safety
All four indicators were significantly correlated with overall satisfaction with health and
safety, and the results of the regression analysis showed these four indicators to predict
overall satisfaction with health and safety, explaining for 27.2 % of the variance in the
model, F(4,2803) =335.33, p\.0001 (Table 5).
4.1.4 Community Relationship
Table 6shows that community involvement is a strong predictor of overall satisfaction
with community relationship; F(1,2806) =782.68, p\.0001, accounting for 21.8 % of
the variance in overall satisfaction with community relationship.
4.1.5 Religion/Spirituality
The results of the regression analysis in Table 7shows that importance of religion is a
positive and significant predictor of overall satisfaction with religion/spirituality,
F(1,2806) =527.36, p\.0001, constituting for 15.8 % of the variance.
Table 5 Prediction of overall satisfaction with health and safety
Indicator R
2
Beta btp
1. Safety .690 .342 19.85 .0001
2. Healthy life style .653 .211 11.97 .0001
3. Stress .220 .099 5.61 .0001
4. Physical health -.190 -.095 -5.58 .0001
.272
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
Table 4 Prediction of overall satisfaction with economic situation
Indicator R
2
Beta btp
1. Savings .215 .333 18.37 .0001
2. Debt -.119 -.193 -11.11 .0001
3. Highest level of education .032 .024 1.08 ns
4. Family’s monthly income .025 .034 1.53 ns
.173
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
4.1.6 Housing and Environment
The results of the regression analysis showed both number of bedrooms and individuals in
the household were predictive of overall satisfaction with housing and environment
(Table 8). This model was significant, F(2,2805) =12.76, p\.0001, and explained for
1.5 % of the variance in overall satisfaction with housing and environment.
4.2 Regression Predicting Overall Family Well-Being from Significant
Domain Indicators
Table 9shows the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations amongst all the sig-
nificant domain indicators with overall family well-being. The table shows that all the
indicators are correlated with overall family well-being.
Next, a regression analysis predicting overall family well-being was carried out based
on these significant domain indicators. Table 10 shows ten main indicators that are pre-
dictive of overall family well-being—resilience (b=.190, p\.0001), safety (b=.159,
p\.0001), savings (b=.142, p\.0001), healthy life style (b=.132, p\.0001), time
with family (b=.124, p\.0001), work-family balance (b=.105, p\.0001), number of
bedrooms (b=.063, p\.0001), debt (b=-.061, p\.0001), importance of religion
(b=.065, p\.0001) and child care (b=-.051, p\.001). It can be seen that in this
more rigorous analysis, indicators like stress, physical health, involvement in community,
number of individuals in household and influence of the Internet were no longer significant.
This model was significant, F(18,2789) =99.45, p\.0001, accounting for 39.1 % of the
variance in overall family well-being.
Table 6 Prediction of overall satisfaction with community relationship
Indicator R
2
Beta btp
1. Involvement with community 1.071 .467 27.98 .0001
.218
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
Table 7 Prediction of overall satisfaction with religion/spirituality
Indicator R
2
Beta btp
1. Importance of religion .764 .398 22.96 .0001
.158
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
Table 8 Prediction of overall satisfaction with housing and environment
Indicator R
2
Beta btp
1. Number of bedrooms .208 .117 6.10 .0001
2. Number of people in household .012 .017 0.67 .0001
.015
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Table 9 Inter-correlations between all the significant domain indicators and overall family well-being
Indicator Mean SD 1 2 345678 9101112131415161718
1. Overall family
well-being
32.81 5.77
2. Authoritative
parenting style
11.84 1.34 .21*
3. Parental
involvement
16.58 2.37 .39* .38*
4. Resilience 41.96 5.24 .45* .38* .60*
5. Family functioning 11.60 5.34 -.37* -.24* -.44* -.51*
6. Time with family 15.58 3.28 .43* .23* .48* .45* -.47*
7. Influence of
Internet
11.10 2.14 .16* .14* .20* .19* -.15* .17*
8. Child care 2.78 0.34 -.11* -.06
?
-.02 -.07* .07* .07* -.08*
9. Work–family
balance
6.55 0.65 .23* .07* .09* .11* -.10* .06* .06
?
-.32*
10. Savings 6.13 0.83 -.30* .12* .13* .09* -.16* .21
?
.05
?
-.01 .20*
11. Debt 6.31 2.44 -.21* .11* .15* .13* -.17* .12* .09* -.20* .10* .10*
12. Healthy life style 20.34 2.58 .39* .19* .36* .30* -.28* .38* .18* -.06
?
.13* .21* .18*
13. Safety 7.92 1.62 .36* .21* .31* .35* -.24* .23* .18* -.11* .14* .06 .19* .27*
14. Physical health 1.35 0.68 .16* .09* .15* .13* -.24* .18* .04
?
-.01 .01 .12* .08* .25* .07*
15. Stress 19.61 3.56 .32* .17* .27* .29* -.42* .35* .16* -.13* .14* .16* .32* .31* .30* .25*
16. Involvement in
community
12.28 2.27 .34* .25* .42* .45* -.42* .44* .10* -.04 .09* .13* .22* .29* .31* .11* .34*
17. Importance of
religion
4.38 0.77 .31* .14* .35* .32* -.32* .40* .14* -.04 .06* .09* .11* .26* .23* .14* .24* .45*
18. No. of bedrooms 3.29 0.98 .13* .09* .03 .03 -.02 .04 -.01 -.08* .14* .22* .05
?
.08* .06
?
-.03 .70* .05
?
.03
19. No. of people in
household
5.47 1.93 .05
?
.03 .04 .04 .03 .04 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.08* -.01 -.03 .05
?
-.03 -.00 .07* .07* .23*
?
p\.01, * p\.001
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
4.3 Regression Predicting Overall Family Well-Being from Domain
Satisfaction Indicators
Table 11 shows that all the domain satisfaction indicators are correlated with overall
family well-being, with overall satisfaction with family relationship having the highest
correlation (r=.72, p\.0001), followed by satisfaction with health and family (r=.68,
p\.0001) and economic situation (r=.67, p\.0001).
Next, regression analysis was carried out to determine which among these indicators
were predictive of overall family well-being. The results showed all six domain satisfaction
indicators to predict overall family well-being, with satisfaction with economic situation
(b=.245, p\.0001) and family relationship (b=.252, p\.0001) being the two most
important factors in predicting overall satisfaction with family well-being (Table 12). This
model was significant, F(6,2801) =649.29, p\.0001, explaining for 58.2 % of the
variance in overall satisfaction with family well-being.
4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
On the basis of these findings, a second order factor model for the Index of Family Well-
being was hypothesized (see Fig. 1). To confirm that the Index load into certain underlying
components, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to see how well the data
fitted the model. In the figure, the Index of Family Well-being was hypothesized to have
six constructs—satisfaction with family relationships, satisfaction with economic situation,
satisfaction with health and safety, satisfaction with community relationships, satisfaction
Table 10 Prediction of overall family well-being from significant domain indicators
Indicator R
2
Beta btp
1. Resiliency .464 .190 9.17 .0001
2. Safety .257 .159 9.55 .0001
3. Savings .064 .142 8.93 .0001
4. Healthy life style .327 .132 7.66 .0001
5. Time with family .184 .124 6.29 .0001
6. Work–family balance .132 .105 6.70 .0001
7. Importance of religion .091 .065 3.73 .0001
8. No. of bedrooms .135 .063 4.12 .0001
9. Debt -.027 -.061 -3.75 .0001
10. Child care -.059 -.051 -.3.25 .001
11. Parental involvement .091 .041 2.05 .041
12. Family functioning -.064 -.039 -2.01 .044
13. Authoritative parenting style -.091 -.036 -2.15 .032
14. No. of people in household .035 .026 1.70 .089
15. Stress .052 .030 1.63 .104
16. Physical health .037 .023 1.45 .148
17. Influence of the internet .049 .016 1.05 .294
18. Involvement in community -.036 -.015 -.80 .422
.391
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
with religion/spirituality, and satisfaction with housing and environment—each having its
own measurement model and measuring items.
The second order CFA was carried out in two steps (Awang 2012; Kline 2005). At the
first step, first order CFA was carried out on two measurement models—satisfaction with
family relationships and satisfaction with health and safety—because only these two
constructs had four or more indicators. The remaining constructs were entered directly into
the second order CFA because they had two or less indicators. At the second step, second
order CFA was carried out to estimate the causal effects of second order construct (Index)
on all the first order constructs by linking the second order construct to all the measurement
models of first order constructs. The measurement model was validated by obtaining the
factor loading of the indicators. Finally, the fitness indices were obtained to indicate the
‘‘fit’’ between data and model, and this was measured by several fit indexes, such as GFI
(Goodness-of-Fit Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) and
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Estimation; Hair et al. 1995). Chi square test was not
used because it has been shown to be a poor fit when sample size is large as in the present
study.
Figure 2shows the results of the CFA, after the model was modified. The fit indices,
were GFI =.940, CFI =.891; NFI =.885; RMSEA =.076, all showed satisfactory fit.
Therefore, the Index of Family Well-being construct consisted of five components—
Table 11 Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations between domain satisfaction indicators and
overall satisfaction with family well-being
Domain satisfaction indicators M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Overall satisfaction with family well-being 24.85 3.71
2. Overall satisfaction with family relationship 32.81 5.77 .72*
3. Overall satisfaction with economic situation 15.22 3.49 .67* .72*
4. Overall satisfaction with health and safety 16.06 3.13 .68* .78* .73*
5. Overall satisfaction with community
relationship
7.92 1.50 .63* .73* .62* .76*
6. Overall satisfaction with religion/spirituality 7.99 1.49 .64* .77* .63* .75* .78*
7. Overall satisfaction with housing and
environment
7.55 1.77 .55* .58* .60* .64* .64* .64*
*p\.001
Table 12 Prediction of overall satisfaction with family well-being from domain satisfaction indicators
Domain satisfaction indicators R
2
Beta btp
1. Overall satisfaction with economic situation .183 .254 13.33 .0001
2. Overall satisfaction with family relationship .229 .252 12.30 .0001
3. Overall satisfaction with health and safety .110 .138 5.88 .0001
4. Overall satisfaction with religion/spirituality .069 .093 4.22 .0001
5. Overall satisfaction with community relationship .062 .085 3.85 .0001
6. Overall satisfaction with housing and environment .036 .058 3.32 .001
.582
Beta, unstandardized regression coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
satisfaction with family relationships, satisfaction with economic situation, satisfaction
with health and safety, satisfaction with community relationships, and satisfaction with
religion/spirituality. Satisfaction with housing and environment was no longer considered.
4.5 Calculation of Index
The results of the CFA showed that the Index was made up of five domains. Thus, in the
calculation of the Index, only these five domains were used.
Past studies (e.g., Land 2006; Zill 2006) have suggested two ways to determine the
weights assigned to each domain in order to produce a composite index of well-being:
equal weighting strategy or unequal weighting strategy. According to Land (2006), the first
strategy is simple, clear, and easily replicated by other researchers. This method is also
used when the researcher has no clear theoretical or empirical justification concerning the
importance of the existing indicators. This strategy has been used by Bradshaw et al.
Family
Relation
F8e8
1
1
F7e7 1
F6e6
1
F5e5
1
F4e4 1
F3e3
1
F2e2
1
F1e1
Economy
Health
& Safety
Housing
Environment
E2
e10
1
1
E1
e9
1
HS4e14
1
1
HS3e13 1
HS2e12
1
HS1e11 1
HE2e16
1
1
HE1e15
1
Spiritual
Community
Index
of Family
Well-Being
1
Fig. 1 Second order factor model for Index. Note:F1=Parental involvement, F2 =Resiliency,
F3 =Authoritative parenting style, F4 =Time with family, F5 =Family functioning, F6 =Work life
balance, F7 =Influence of the Internet, F8 =Child care, E1 =Saving, E2 =Debt, HS1 =Healthy
lifestyle, HS2 =Stress, HS3 =Physical health, HS4 =Safety at home, HE1 =Number of bedrooms,
HE2 =Number of individuals
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
(2007) in developing the Child Well-Being Index, as well as by Cummins (2006)in
producing the Personal Well-Being Index and the Australian Unity Well-being Index
(Cummins, et al. 2003). This method has also been used in developing the Malaysian
Quality of Life Index (2004) and the Malaysian Youth Index (2008). Therefore, the present
study takes the same approach in building the Family Well-being Index. The second
strategy, on the other hand, is rarely used.
The calculation of the Family Well-Being Index scores is as follows:
ðEconomic SituationÞþðFamily RelationshipsÞþðHealth and SafetyÞþðReligionÞ
þðCommunity RelationsÞ
This index used an 11-point Likert response scale (0 =‘‘not at all satisfied’’ to
10 =‘‘very satisfied’’) where higher scores indicated higher family well-being. Using this
GFI = .940, CFI = .891, NFI = .885, RMSEA = .076
Index
Family
Economy
Health
Safety
F5
e5 -.67
F4
e4 .68
F3
e3 .43
F2
e2 .74
F1
e1
.73
E2
e7 -.44
E1 e6 .32
HS4
e11
.49
HS3
e10
.29
HS2
e9 .60
HS1
e8
.55
.88
.86
.89
Community
Spiritual
.69
.55
e14
e15
e16
e17
e18
.11
.53
.10
.19
.45
.46
.10
.20
.30
.35
.09
.24
.48
.31
Fig. 2 Modified second order factor model (with standardized factor loadings). Note:F1=Parental
involvement, F2 =Resiliency, F3 =Authoritative parenting style, F4 =Time with family, F5 =Family
functioning, E1 =Saving, E2 =Debt, HS1 =Healthy lifestyle, HS2 =Stress, HS3 =Physical health,
HS4 =Safety at home
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
calculation, the mean of the Family Well-Being Index =7.95, with a standard deviation of
1.38.
This score is quite similar to that reported by the Quality of Life Index (The Economist
Intelligence Unit Quality of Life Index 2005), with a mean of 6.608 based on the 10-point
response scale (1–10). Malaysia was ranked 36 out of 111 countries. However, the Quality
of Life Index used a broader range of indicators than those in this study (domains included
health, family life, community life, material well-being, safety and political stability,
geography and climate, job security, political freedom and gender equality).
Another comparison that can be made is with the results of the Asian Barometers study
(Blanchflower 2008) which used a 5-point Likert response format (1 =‘‘very unhappy’’ to
5=‘‘very happy’’). In this study, Malaysia obtained a value of 3.93 and ranked 3 among
13 countries in Asia for the years 2003 and 2004 (Fig. 3).
Thus, it can be seen that the mean score of the Family Well-being Index developed in
the present study is quite comparable to those of past indices. However, the Index gen-
erated in this study is deemed more meaningful as it has been constructed after taking into
account the local context of families in Malaysia.
4.5.1 Index by Region, Locality, Ethnicity and States
Next, calculations were performed to determine if Index scores differ according to region
(West Malaysia and East Malaysia), locality (rural and urban), ethnic groups (Bumiputera,
Chinese and Indian), and the 14 states in the country.
Results showed differences in the Index scores between the ethnic groups, between
families in West Malaysia and East Malaysia, and between the 14 states. No difference was
found in the Index scores between urban and rural families.
Bumiputera families reported higher well-being (M =8.03, SD =1.35) than Chinese
(M =7.81, SD =1.46) and Indian families (M =7.82, SD =1.37), F(2,2805) =15.81,
p\.0001. A more detailed analysis showed that Bumiputera families were satisfied with
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
6.608
x
The Economist
Intelligence Quality
of Life Index, 2005
(rank 36 out of 111)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
7. 95
x
Family Well-Being
Index – calculated
from this study
1 2 3 4 5
Low Hi
g
h
3.93
x
Asian Barometers
(Blanchflower, 2008)
(rank 3 out of 13)
Fig. 3 Comparison of Family Well-being measures
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
community and religion/spirituality compared to Chinese and Indian families. All were
most dissatisfied with economic situation.
Families in East Malaysia reported higher well-being (M =8.03, SD =1.56) than
families in West Malaysia (M =7.93, SD =1.33, t=-4.54, p\.0001). A more
detailed analysis showed that families in East Malaysia were most satisfied with family
relationships but most dissatisfied with the economic situation. Families in West Malaysia
also were most dissatisfied with economic situation.
Index comparisons by states indicated that families in Kedah (M =8.41) reported the
highest well-being score followed by families in Melaka (M =8.28) and Terengganu
(M =8.25). Families in Perlis reported the lowest well-being (M =6.51), followed by
families in Penang (M =7.44), Selangor (M =7.65) and Perak (M =7.73). However, the
Index score for Perlis is questionable due to its small sample size (N=24 households
only; see Table 13).
Further analysis showed that families residing in states with higher Index scores were
satisfied with their family relationships, religion/spirituality, and community relationship.
In contrast, families in states with lower Index scores consistently reported their dissat-
isfaction with economic situation. This latter finding is interesting considering that the
states with lower Index scores are the more developed states in Malaysia.
4.5.2 Comparing Index with Well-Being Domains
Comparisons were carried out between the Family Well-Being Index score and the five
domains of family well-being. For this purpose, indicators which were identified to sig-
nificantly predict the well-being for each domain were combined to produce an average
value. This value was then converted to percentage in order to enable comparisons to be
made with the Index. The percentage value for each domain is generated using the fol-
lowing formula:
Table 13 Ranking of the Family Well-being Index by states
State Number of households MSDMinimum Maximum
Kedah 204 8.41 1.25 2.00 10.00
Melaka 78 8.28 1.13 4.65 10.00
Terengganu 109 8.25 0.99 4.95 9.75
Johor 332 8.19 0.98 4.00 10.00
Sabah 322 8.14 1.59 1.35 10.00
Sarawak 248 7.91 1.53 1.90 10.00
Pahang 152 8.13 1.39 2.00 10.00
WP KL 179 8.01 1.54 1.00 10.00
Negeri Sembilan 108 7.99 1.46 3.35 10.00
Kelantan 171 7.90 1.12 5.00 10.00
Perak 235 7.73 1.22 2.00 9.92
Selangor 489 7.65 1.43 2.45 10.00
Penang 157 7.44 1.59 2.90 10.00
Perlis 24 6.51 0.64 5.55 8.00
Total 2,808 7.95 1.38 1.00 10.00
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Di¼Pxi
n
100
Scale
where D
i
=Percentage of the domain indicator; x
i
=Average score of the significant
indicator for i,1Cx
i
B5; n=Number of indicators; i=(1) Family Relationship
Domain, (2) Economic Situation Domain, (3) Health and Safety Domain, (4) Community
Relationship Domain, (5) Religion/Spirituality Domain.
Scale =5-point Likert scale.
Figure 4shows the Index of Family Well-Being and the domains of family well-being.
The Family Well-being Index is 79.5 %. Comparisons between the Index and the five
domains showed that all the domains had higher percentage values than the Index, except
for economic situation (62.3 %). This finding reinforced the previous results that economic
situation is the most problematic domain of family well-being in Malaysia.
5 Discussion
This study was conducted to develop a set of indicators to measure family well-being in
Malaysia, and subsequently, to construct an Index of Family Well-Being. These results are
discussed in the following sections.
5.1 Domains and Indicators of Family Well-Being
This study adopted the quality of life approach, where the majority of the indicators used
are based on subjective perceptions of family members. According to Land (1999), such
indicators are intended to determine the subjective reality in one’s life based on the belief
82.1%
62.3%
83.0%
81.9%
87.6%
Family
Relationships
Economic
Situation
Health &
Safety
Community
Relationship
Religion/
Spirituality
Family Well-Being
Index = 79.5%
Family Well-Being Index
Well-Bein
g
Domains
Fig. 4 Comparing the Index of Family Well-being with the well-being domains
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
that direct monitoring of an individual’s social-psychological conditions is necessary for
the understanding of social changes and their impact on the individual’s well-being (and
thus the family). Although direct relationship between objective and subjective conditions
is questionable, individual’s subjective perception is important because it reflects what is
significant to the individual based on his or her own experience. Therefore, subjective
indicators used in this study are regarded as more meaningful to the individual (Diener
et al. 2006).
In this study, family well-being was viewed as a multi-dimensional concept which
included six domains—family relationship, economic situation, health and safety, com-
munity relationship, religion/spirituality and housing and environment—along with rele-
vant indicators derived from past findings and focus group discussions. These domains and
indicators were then tested and the results examined to ensure that the indicators chosen
were valid and reliable. Therefore, the study consisted of both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’
approaches, which should better reflect the actual state of family well-being in Malaysia.
It should be reemphasized that the identified domains are interconnected. Family
members live with other members in the context of the wider community and society. All
contexts are interrelated and dependent on each other. These contexts lie within larger
social, economic, cultural and political environments, and changes in one context are able
to affect changes in other contexts. The influence of contexts is important, where one
context can enhance or limit the opportunities of a family and its members. Therefore,
multiple indicators are needed to describe the state of family well-being.
The results showed several key indicators that can predict family well-being—resil-
iency, safety, savings, healthy lifestyle, time with family, work-family balance, importance
of religion, number of bedrooms at home, debt and child care. Though the majority of these
indicators were from the domain of family relationship, economic situation as well as
health and safety, religion/spirituality and housing domains were also important—which
directly provides support for the relationship between indicators and domains of family
well-being. Thus, family well-being depends not only on family relationships, but also on
these other domains.
5.2 Index of Family Well-Being
The Index of Family Well-Being aims to summarize the indicators from the well-being
domains into a composite measure that can describe and reflect the changes or achieve-
ments of families from time to time. Based on the confirmatory factor analysis, however,
only five domains were significant in predicting the Index—family relationship, economic
situation, health and safety, community involvement and religion/spirituality. The results
show a mean value of 7.95 (SD =1.38) for the Index on a scale of 0–10, implying that the
current level of family well-being in Malaysia is relatively high. Comparisons with other
similar indices indicate that this Index score is comparable.
Differences found in the Index scores by ethnicity, region and state show that most
families are dissatisfied with their economic situation. These findings are supported by the
comparison between the Index score and the five domains of well-being, which again
indicated the same economic domain to have a lower percentage value than the Index. As
found by previous studies, economic situation plays a major role in family life. Without a
stable and satisfactory economy, families would not be able to achieve a state of well-
being. It can also be seen that the other domains are highly dependent on economic
situation. Although families are generally most satisfied with family relationships, there are
some aspects in this domain which can be further improved.
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
One main limitation in the present study is the number and kinds of indicators used in
each of the well-being domains. For example, several indicators were used to assess family
relationship, economic situation as well as health and safety, but within the other three
domains, only single indicators were utilized (which has a direct effect on the Index). In
addition, the housing domain which was dropped from the Index consisted only of
objective measures. Future studies are needed to identify better indicators in these latter
three domains.
6 Conclusion
The present study was conducted to develop a set of indicators for measuring and reporting
the state of family well-being in Malaysia, and consequently, to produce an Index of
Family Well-Being. Based on the results of the study, the indicators developed are able to
provide an insight into the current status of family well-being in Malaysia. Ten key
indicators that can predict family well-being are resiliency, safety, savings, healthy life-
style, time with family, work-family balance, importance of religion, number of bedrooms
at home, debt and child care which supports the notion of family well-being being multi-
dimensional and interconnected.
The Index of Family Well-Being was calculated using the equal weighting strategy to
each of the five domains of family well-being that were identified via confirmatory factor
analysis. This Index is able to show that Malaysia’s family well-being at present is rela-
tively high. However, there are some aspects of family life that may have a negative impact
on family well-being, particularly the family’s economic situation. Therefore, family well-
being is not just the concern of one party but there must be concerted efforts from various
agencies (government and non-government) to provide facilities and services, such as
adequate income to meet families’ current needs that can meet the demands of a minimum
standard of living, especially in the more developed states. Currently, the Index that is
developed is only in the form of a numerical value reflecting the state of family well-being,
and it would only be beneficial if it can be used to compare with a future Index value for
the purpose of tracking changes in family well-being from time to time.
Social problems that might stem from the home environment (e.g., space in the house,
type of neighbourhood, facilities available in residential areas, etc.) can reflect the eco-
nomic situation of the family. Economic difficulties or poverty is not just having low
income or low consumption of life’s necessities; it covers also non-financial aspects such
as social exclusion, the influence of social ties and opportunities as well as limited choices.
In addition to the minimum standard of living, basic facilities in residential areas should be
provided and readily accessible to all families.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Halimah Syakirah Omar, Maryam Latifah Osman, Hind
Aldaw, Azlin Alwi and Hariyati Shahrima Abdul Majid for their contributions. We are grateful to the
National Population and Family Development Board of Malaysia for funding this research.
References
America’s children. (2009). Key national indicators of well-being. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren.
Amin, R. M., Yusof, S. A., & Haneef, M. S. (2006). Values, social problems and balanced development in
Malaysia. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 151–163.
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Awang, Z. (2012). A handbook on SEM: Structural equation modelling (5th ed.). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Center of Graduate Studies.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.
Berger-Schmitt, R., & Jankowitsch, B. (1999). Systems of social indicators and social reporting: The state
of the art. EuReporting Working Paper No. 1, Subproject European System of Social Indicators.
Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA), Social Indicators Department.
Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indika
toren/eusi/paper1.pdf.
Blanchflower, D. G. (2008). International evidence on well-being. Retrieved December 8, 2011, from
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3354.pdf.
Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P., & Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child well-being in the European Union.
Social Indicators Research, 80, 133–177.
Canadian index of well-being. (2010). Measuring what matters. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from
http://www.ciw.ca/en/TheCanadianIndexOfWellbeing/DomainsOfWellbeing.aspx.
Christie, D. J., & Noor, N. M. (2012). Promoting inter-group harmony through psychologically informed
public policy: The geohistorical context of Malaysia. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), Psy-
chological components of sustainable peace (pp. 153–175). New York: Springer.
Cummins, R.A. (2006). Australian unity wellbeing index: Report 14.1—Fifth anniversary special report—
summarising the major findings. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psy-
chology, Deakin University. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/
acqol/auwbi/survey-reports/index.php.
Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., van Vugt, J. V., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national
index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Well-being Index. Social Indicators Research, 64,
159–190.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revisions to the adaptation
theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305–314.
Diener, E., Suh, M., Lucas, E., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
Disney, J. (2006). Over our heads: Housing costs & Australian families. Australian Quarterly, 78, 4–11.
Eckersley, R. (2000). The mixed blessings of material progress: Diminishing returns in the pursuit of
happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 267–292.
Family wellbeing in Australia. (2006). A families Australian vision. Retrieved from http://www.families
australia.org.au/publications/pubs/policy-familywellbeing.pdf.
Family Resiliency. (1995). Building strengths to meet life’s challenges.. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/EDC53.pdf.
Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. (2009). Methodology report for indexes. Retrieved May 25, 2011,
from http://www.well-beingindex.org/files/Gallup-Healthways.
Goldberg, D. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor, England: NFER Publishing.
Government Transformation Programme. (2010). The roadmap. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://jpt.
mohe.gov.my/eng/RUJUKAN/GTP%20Roadmap.pdf.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings
(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hansson, A., Hilleras, P., & Forsell, Y. (2004). Well-being in an adult Swedish population. Social Indicators
Research, 74, 313–325.
Haq, R. (2009). Measuring human well-being in Pakistan: Objective versus subjective indicators. European
Journal of Social Science, 9, 517–532.
Hooghe, M. & Vanhoutte, B. (2009). Subjective well-being and social capital in Belgian communities:
Subjective and objective well-being indicators in Flanders (Belgium). Retrieved June 15, 2010, from
http://fromgdptowellbeing.univpm.it/doc/papers/GDP2WB_051.pdf.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241–251.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Kojima, S. (2005). How can we survive between safety and risk: An elucidation of appropriate definition.
Paper presented at the 2005 Asian-Pacific conference on risk management and safety, Japan, Hong
Kong. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://hkarms.myftp.org/web_resources/Conference_
Presentation/How_Surive_Betwn_Safe_Risk.pdf.
Land, K. C. (2006). The foundation for child development: Child and Youth Well-Being Index (CWI),
1975–2004, with projections for 2005. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Development of Indicators for Family Well-Being
123
Author's personal copy
Malaysian quality of life. (2004). Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia: Economic Planning Unit.
Retrieved May 31, 2010, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan
023805.pdf.
Martinez, J., Mehesy, C., & Seeley, K. (2003). What counts: Measuring indicators of family well-being.
Retrieved from http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/
Resources/WhatCountsMeasuringIndicatorsofFamilyWell-being.pdf.
Malaysian youth index. (2008). Retrieved June 18, 2010, from http://www.ippbm.gov.my/v2/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=183:ibmpengenalan&catid=12:index-belia-malaysia&lang=en.
Silburn, S., Zubrick, S., De Maio, J., Shepherd, C., Griffin, J., Mitrou, F., et al. (2006). The Western
Australian aboriginal child health survey: Strengthening the capacity of aboriginal children, families
and communities. Perth: Curtin University of Technology and Telethon Institute for Child Health
Research.
Statistics New Zealand. (2004). Indicator guidelines. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.stats.govt.
nz/*/media/Statistics/surveys-and-methods/methods/indicator-guidelines/indicator-guidelines.pdf.
Symth, R., Nielsen, I., & Zhai, Q. (2009). Personal well-being in urban China. Social Indicators Research,
95, 231–251.
The Economist Intelligence Unit Quality of Life Index. (2005). Retrieved December 5, 2011, from
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf.
van Hoorn, A. (2006). A short introduction to subjective well-being: Its measurement, correlates and policy
uses. Retrieved November 30, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/39/38331839.pdf.
World Health Organization. (2011). Mental health: Strengthening our response. Retrieved December 1,
2011, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en.
Yiengprugsawan, V., Seubsman, S., Khamman, S., Lim, L. L. Y., & Sleigh, A. C. (2009). Personal well-
being index in a national cohort of 87,134 Thai adults. Social Indicators Research,. doi:10.1007/s
11205-009-9542-6.
Zill, N. (2006). Are all indicators created equal? Alternatives to an equal weighting strategy in the con-
struction of a composite index of child wellbeing. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from
http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/AreAllIndicatorsCreatedEqual.pdf.
Zubrick, S., Williams, A., Silburn, S., & Vimpani, G. (2000). Indicators of social and family functioning.
Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services.
N. M. Noor et al.
123
Author's personal copy