Great, but are these indicators any good?

At least they seem to reduce age biases. Using the same subjective question, younger people tend to underestimate their 'objective' health, older people overestimate. MEHM(+) reduces this, making the responses more comparable. (7/11)

It does! I extracted an indicator from MEHM and MEHM+. MEHM +also includes pain and multimorbidity, which are also important for rating one's health: https://twitter.com/PatLazarevic/status/1604802411561984000

GSEM is flexible for adding more variables if you have them! (6/11)

Using DEAS-data of Germans aged 40-85 (by @DZA ) wanted to combine the MEHM into 1 indicator. Cronbach's α was great across age groups (esp. for a short scale!).

Next step: combining them using generalized structural equation modeling (GSEM) - does it work? (5/11)

Functioning was the most important domain for subjective health, followed by diseases and pain. This mostly replicates another study with European data (more here: https://twitter.com/PatLazarevic/status/124249134113060864).

Interestingly, diseases/pain/mental health were a bit more relevant for women. (3/5)

SRH can be viewed as a weighted combination of health information:

Ideally, people recall all health info about themselves and combine it into an overall rating (solid arrows). But maybe the weight of every health aspect differs between population groups (dashed arrows)? (2/5)