Learn More

Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies

The Community Quality-of-Life Survey is a standardized survey that have been administered in many communities in the U.S. and other countries to assess the level of community well-being.

The Theoretical Model Underlying the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey

Description of the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey

Conducting the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey

The Community-Quality-of-Life Survey Report

Project Fee

The Theoretical Model Underlying the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey

The conceptual model underlying the Community Quality of Life (CQOL) survey is shown in Figure 1 below (Sirgy et al., 2000; Sirgy & Cornwell, 2001). The CQOL measure is essentially based on bottom-up theory of life satisfaction, a theory widely accepted in quality-of-life studies (e.g., Andrews and Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976). The basic premise of bottom-up theory is that life satisfaction of community residents is influenced by satisfaction they experience about their life domains and sub-domains. Specifically, life satisfaction is construed to be on top of a satisfaction hierarchy and is mostly determined by satisfaction with life domains (e.g., satisfaction with community, family, work, social life, health, and so on). Satisfaction with a particular life domain (e.g., satisfaction with community life), in turn, is influenced by lower levels of life concerns within that domain (e.g., satisfaction with services provided in the local community). Hence, residents who feel highly satisfied with their various life domains (i.e., high satisfaction with community life, health life, work life, family life, neighborhood life, and leisure life) are likely to express high levels of life satisfaction in general. The affect within those life domains spills over vertically to the most super-ordinate domain (life in general), thus determining life satisfaction. Similarly, satisfaction with community life is mostly determined by satisfaction with the life conditions/concerns associated with community life domain such as services and conditions in the community.

As such the Community Quality of Life (CQOL) model, shown in Figure 1, is based on bottom-up theory of life satisfaction. As shown in the figure, residents’ satisfaction with specific local businesses (e.g., banking services, insurance services, taxi services, restaurants and night clubs, supermarkets, healthcare services, telecommunications, electricity services) influences their overall satisfaction with local business. Similarly, residents’ satisfaction with specific local government services (e.g., fire department, rescue squad, library, sanitation/refuse services, water services, postal services, police, voter registration, motor registration, public health services) influences their overall satisfaction with local government. Furthermore, residents’ satisfaction with specific local non-profit services (e.g., alcohol/drug abuse services, crisis intervention, religious services, support groups, chamber of commerce, legal aid, mental health services , senior citizen services, adult education, food and shelter for the homeless, youth services) influences their overall satisfaction with local nonprofit services.

Residents’ overall satisfaction with local business, local government, and local nonprofit services, in turn, influence their overall satisfaction with community quality of life. Their overall satisfaction with community quality of life is additionally influenced by residents’ satisfaction with other local conditions (e.g., quality of the physical environment, neighborhood, and housing). Residents’ overall satisfaction with community quality of life influences their overall life satisfaction conjoined with the influence of their overall satisfaction with other life domains (e.g., work life, financial situation, health, education, friends, leisure life, spiritual life, cultural life, and social status). See exact survey items of the models’ constructs in the section titled Statistical Norms Associated with the Survey Items and the actual online survey questionnaire in The Survey.

The core of the CQOL survey comprise satisfaction with specific local businesses, government services, and nonprofit services as well as satisfaction with local conditions. These constructs and measures have been administered in a variety of communities in the United States and other countries to capture the well-being of community residents in towns, cities, and other geo-political units (e.g., Forjaz et al., 2011; Gullion et al., 2015; Potapov, Shafranskaya, & Bozhya-Volya, 2016; Rezvani & Mansourian, 2013; Rezvani, Mansourian, & Sattari, 2013; Sirgy et al. 2000; Sirgy & Cornwell, 2001; Stephenson & Yerger, 2013; 2014) and validated in terms of its prediction of constructs such as overall satisfaction with community quality of life, and overall life satisfaction.

References

Forjaz, M. J., Prieto-Flores, M-E., Ayala, A., Rodriguez-Blazquez, C., Fernandez-Mayoralas, G., Rojo-Perez, F., & Martinez-Martin, P. (2011). Measurement properties of the Community Wellbeing Index in older adults. Quality of Life Research, 20, 733-743.
Gullion, C., Hji-Avgoustis, S., Fu, Y-Y., & Lee, S. (2015). Cultural tourism investment and resident quality of life: A case study of Indianapolis, Indiana. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 1, 184-199.
Potapov, D., Shafranskaya, I., & Bozhya-Volya, A. (2016). Happiness and the city: An empirical study of the interaction between subjective well-being and city satisfaction. Journal of Place Management and Development, 9, 313-330.
Rezvani, M. R., & Mansourian, H. (2013). Developing small cities by promoting village to town and its effects on quality of life for the local residents. Social Indicators Research, 110, 147-170.
Rezvani, M. R., Mansourian, H., & Sattari, M. H. (2013). Evaluating quality of life in urban areas (Case study: Noorabad City, Iran). Social Indicators Research, 112, 203-220.
Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 56, 125-143.
Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49, 279-316.
Stephenson, A., & Yerger, D. B. (2013). Optimizing engagement: Brand identification and alumni donation behaviors. International Journal of Educational Management, 28, 765-778.
Stephenson, A., & Yerger, D. B. (2014). Does brand identification transform alumni university advocates? International Review of Public & Nonprofit Marketing, 11, 243-262.

Description of the Quality-of-College-Life Survey

Residents of a particular locality (neighborhood, town, city, county, or province) are introduced to the survey questionnaire via a cover letter from a high-ranking public official (e.g., city mayor) describing the objectives of the survey as aiming to assess the community quality of life of residents of the designated locality. Participants are assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous.
The survey captures five major sets of community-quality-of-life constructs, plus demographics. These are:

  1. Residents’ satisfaction of local conditions (survey items capturing satisfaction with the physical environment, neighborhood, housing, public safety, street lighting, cost of utilities, real estate taxes, etc.);
  2. Residents’ satisfaction of specific local businesses (survey items capturing satisfaction with banking, insurance services, transportation services, restaurants and clubs, supermarkets, specialty stores, healthcare, telecommunications, electricity services, etc.), accompanied with residents’ satisfaction of overall local businesses (survey item capturing residents’ global evaluation of local business);
  3. Residents’ satisfaction of specific local government services (survey items capturing satisfaction with fire department, rescue squad, library, sanitation services, water services, postal services, police, voter registration, motor registration, public health services, etc.), accompanied with residents’ satisfaction of overall local government services (survey item capturing residents’ global evaluation of local government services);
  4. Residents’ satisfaction of specific local nonprofit services (survey items capturing satisfaction with alcohol and drug abuse programs, crisis intervention programs, adoption and foster care services, support groups, chamber of commerce, legal aid, mental health services, senior citizen programs, adult education, food and shelter for the homeless, youth services, etc.), accompanied with residents’ satisfaction of overall local nonprofit services (survey item capturing residents’ global evaluation of local nonprofit services);
  5. Residents’ satisfaction with community quality of life overall, other life domains (work life, financial situation, health, education, friends, leisure life, spiritual life, cultural life, and social status), and satisfaction with life overall.
  6. Residents’ demographics.

See the survey questionnaire on the example survey page.

Conducting the Quality-of-College-Life Survey

The Community-Quality-of-Life Survey is a web-based survey administered from our website (the website of the Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies or MIQOLS). A staff member at MIQOLS will communicate with your representative to adapt the survey questionnaire to reflect the specific reality of the city. Once the survey questionnaire is adapted to the exact specifications, the survey will then be posted on MIQOLS website. A link to the survey website will then be provided to the representative. The city representative will then send an e-mail letter to all the residents informing them about the availability of the Community-Quality-of-Life survey and encouraging them to participate by clicking on the link that would take them directly to the survey website. The staff member at MIQOLS will help the representative draft the e-mail message requesting participation in the survey. Residents should be assured that the survey will be conducted anonymously and confidentially. That is, residents will not be identified by name or any other form of identification, and the survey results will be reported at the aggregate level only. A time limit of 2-3 weeks will be set to conduct the survey. In the meantime, the representative will send several reminder e-messages to the population reminding them about the survey and request completion if they have not done so already. After the completion deadline, the survey site will be closed and the data will be analyzed and a report will be issued within 2-3 weeks thereafter.

The Quality-of-College-Life Survey Report


The report is structured as follows:

  • Cover page: A title page with applicant contact information and MIQOLS contact information
  • Executive Summary: The entire content of the report is summarized here.
  • Theory and Model: The theoretical model underlying the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey is described here and the theoretical constructs are clearly defined. The research supporting the Quality-of-Work-Life model is also discussed in this section.
  • Description of the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey: This section contains a description of the constructs with corresponding survey items.
  • Sampling and Data Collection: This part of the report describes the call issued to employees to participate in the Community-Quality-of-Life Survey, the deadline imposed, any incentives used to encourage employee participation, the survey link, the number of employees who actually participated in the survey, the total number of employees contacted, and the response rate. The response rate of the client organization is compared to past response rates of other organizations.
  • Survey Results: This section of the report provides descriptive statistics related to each survey item with figures (e.g., bar charts) against the norm. The norm is calculated based on the average of all past surveys that have been administered through MIQOLS.
  • Discussion and Recommendations: The survey results are then summarized and interpreted in this section. As such, specific strengths and weaknesses are identified. The client organization is then encouraged to bolster their strengths and correct weaknesses.
  • References: Exact references of corresponding text citations are fleshed out in this section.
  • Appendices: Extra detailed information related to any aspect of the report is placed in this section.
  • Click here to see an example of a report.

Project Fee

You can choose from the following options:

  1. FREE to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet);
  2. $500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet) plus statistical norms for every survey item;
  3. $4,500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet) plus a full report detailing the survey results with statistical graphs of the results with managerial recommendations;
  4. $7,500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet), a full report detailing the survey results with statistical graphs of the results with managerial recommendations, with additional analysis and reporting (i.e., results broken down by specific demographic groups) as requested.

To request MIQOLS to conduct a Community-Quality-of-Life Survey, please send an e-mail message to the executive director of MIQOLS, Joe Sirgy, at office@miqols.org indicating interest. You can also contact MIQOLS by letter (address: 6020 Lyons Road, Dublin, Virginia 24084, USA) or by phone (540-674-5022; leave voicemail message). A staff member will contact you by e-mail to set up a telephone (or Skype or ZOOM) meeting. The staff member will answer whatever questions you may have and discuss the logistics of the entire project, the cost, survey specifications, time line, delivery of the survey report and other details