Subjective socioeconomic status: an alternative to objective socioeconomic status

Abstract

Background Subjective “ladder” measurements of socio-economic status (SES) are easy-to-administer tools that ask respondents to rate their own SES, allowing them to evaluate where they believe their material resources place them relative to their community. Here, we sought to compare a ladder score to a measure of SES that includes data on water and sanitation, asset ownership, education, and income (WAMI). Methods Leveraging an ongoing study of adult patients with tuberculosis in Lima, Peru, we compared results of the WAMI survey to the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. We assessed the relationship between WAMI and the ladder scores using Kappa scores and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. We used Akaike information criterion (AIC) to compare the predictability of logistic regression models that evaluated the association between SES and history of asthma. Results Among 595 participants who completed both questionnaires, the MacArthur ladder and WAMI scores were within two or less points (on a scale of 10 points) of each other for 84% of participants. The correlation coefficient was 0.34 (p < 0.001). Among 36 participants with a repeated ladder test, the 18 individuals who were selected for initially having dissimilar ladder and WAMI scores had a greater median decrease in their retested ladder scores (median 5, IQR: 1.25 to 6) compared to the 18 individuals who had similar scores (median 2, IQR: 0 to 3). When initial ladder scores were replaced with the repeated responses, the overall correlation coefficient increased to 0.40 (p < 0.001) and the variability in the difference between the ladder scores and WAMI decreased. Both SES scores were associated with history of asthma. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that the MacArthur SES ladder is positively correlated to WAMI and performs similarly to WAMI in predicting a socio-economically sensitive health outcome. Researchers should consider subjective SES tools as an alternative method for measuring SES, particularly in large health studies where data collection is a burden.

The Association Between Life Satisfaction and Subjective Social Mobility Status Among Women of Rasht City: A Cross-Sectional Analytical Study

“…The data collection tool consisted of characteristics. Subjective "scale" measures of socioeconomic status (SES) are easy-to-administer instruments that ask respondents to rate their own SES, allowing them to assess their material resources (10). The MacArthur Scale was used to measure the SES of candidates during childhood (8).…”

“…The lowest level is denoted by the first number (19), while the highest number is represented by the 10th number. Scholars have revealed that a rating scale is more effective in showing the relationship between individual mental health and SES than traditional objective indicators (10,20).…”

“…The socioeconomic status of an individual is influenced by the combination of socioeconomic, cultural, and political contexts, while subjective social status quantifies their perception of their social standing relative to others and is empirically and theoretically positively related to health and well-being (8,9). Socioeconomic status can play a dual role in epidemiological studies: It can serve as a predictor of health outcomes and act as a confounding factor that needs to be considered for control to understand the relationship between health outcomes and other significant factors (10).…”

The Role of Subjective Socioeconomic Status in Predicting Academic Performance: Exploring the Mediating Influence of Sense of Belonging among Students in a Distance Learning University

“…The superiority of subjective measures over objective measures of socioeconomic status may stem from their ability to offer a more comprehensive evaluation. While objective measures provide a snapshot of present resources, subjective indicators offer a more holistic assessment that accounts for historical and current outcomes, alongside future prospects in light of individuals’ social and cultural environment (Zhao et al, 2023). Hence, in the current research, we will focus on subjective socioeconomic status.…”