Social Indicators Research

, Volume 141, Issue 1, pp 1–30 | Cite as

A Conceptual Framework for Visualizing Composite Indicators

  • Yael AlboEmail author
  • Joel Lanir
  • Sheizaf Rafaeli


Composite indicators (CIs) are common measurements and benchmarking tools used to measure multidimensional concepts such as well-being, education and more. Indicators and sub-indicators are selected and combined to reflect a measured phenomenon. Measurement iterations produce a series of time-oriented data, which stakeholders, as well as the general public, might be interested in interpreting. Visualization of a CI is highly recommended, in order to facilitate interpretation and enhance understanding of indicator components and their evolution over time. In recent years, a variety of CI visualizations have been published including various visualization techniques. Indeed, visualizing a CI is a complex and challenging issue, involving many design choices. However, there is a lack of guidelines and methodological approaches for CI visualization design. We suggest a framework that provides a systematic way of thinking of CI visualizations. The framework is intended for two uses: as a design tool when constructing a new CI visualization, and as an analytic tool for systematically describing, comparing and evaluating CI visualizations. The suggested framework is the outcome of both a top-down process, based on CI construction and information visualization literature, and a bottom-up process, in which 35 existing visualization applications of popular CIs were analyzed. We use Munzner’s visualization analysis and design framework (Munzner in Visualization analysis and design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2014) in an adaptive way, considering the specific challenges and characteristics of CI visualizations, in order to develop and discuss a systematic view of the data, tasks and methods for visualizing CIs. We demonstrate the use of the framework with a case study analyzing the popular OECD Better Life Index visualization tool.


Framework Visualization Composite indicator 



This research was done as part of the National Israel ICT project by The Center of Internet Research ( supported by the Israel Internet Association-ISOC-IK; the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation (1716/12); and the Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Studies.


  1. Aigner, W., Miksch, S., Schumann, H., & Tominski, C. (2011). Visualization of time-oriented data. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albo, Y., Lanir, J., Bak, P., & Rafaeli, S. (2016a). Off the radar: Comparative evaluation of radial visualization solutions for composite indicators. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1), 569–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albo, Y., Lanir, J., Bak, P., & Rafaeli, S. (2016b). Static vs. dynamic time mapping in radial composite indicator visualization. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (pp. 264–271). ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Andrienko, N., & Andrienko, G. (2006). Exploratory analysis of spatial and temporal data: A systematic approach. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, R. (2008). A survey of composite indices measuring country performance: Update. Office of Development Studies, New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  6. Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22(5), 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barzilai-Nahon, K., Rafaeli, S., & Ahituv, N. (2004). Measuring gaps in cyberspace: Constructing a comprehensive digital divide index. In Workshop on Measuring the Information Society, the conference of Internet Research (Vol. 5).Google Scholar
  8. Bertin, J. (1981). Graphics and graphic information processing. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertini, E. (2011). Review: OECD’s Better Life Index. Retrieved September 23, 2015 from
  10. Borkin, M. A., Bylinskii, Z., Kim, N. W., Bainbridge, C. M., Yeh, C. S., Borkin, D., et al. (2016). Beyond memorability: Visualization recognition and recall. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1), 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brehmer, M., & Munzner, T. (2013). A multi-level typology of abstract visualization tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12), 2376–2385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burch, M., & Weiskopf, D. (2014). On the benefits and drawbacks of radial diagrams. In W. Huang (Ed.), Handbook of human centric visualization (pp. 429–451). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colecchia, A., Pattinson, B., & Atrostic, B. (2000). Defining and measuring electronic commerce. Document de discussion de la DSTI/OCDE.Google Scholar
  15. Cukier, J. (2011). Can data visualization help build democracy? XRDS: Crossroads, ACM Magazine for Students, 18(2), 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickson, G. W., Senn, J. A., & Chervany, N. L. (1977). Research in management information systems: The Minnesota experiments. Management Science, 23(9), 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diehl, S., Beck, F., & Burch, M. (2010). Uncovering strengths and weaknesses of radial visualizations—an empirical approach. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6), 935–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutta, S, & Bilbao-Osorio, B. (2012). The Global information technology report 2012: Living in a hyperconnected world. World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  19. Elting, L. S., Martin, C. G., Cantor, S. B., & Rubenstein, E. B. (1999). Influence of data display formats on physician investigators’ decisions to stop clinical trials: Prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ, 318(7197), 1527–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Few, S. (2011). Data blooms in beauty and truth. Retrieved September 23, 2015 from
  21. Fuchs, J., et al. (2013). Evaluation of alternative glyph designs for time series data in a small multiple setting. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.Google Scholar
  22. Google Public Data Explorer. Retrieved January 15, 2016:
  23. Gnaldi, M., & Ranalli, M. G. (2015). Measuring University performance by means of composite indicators: A robustness analysis of the composite measure used for the benchmark of Italian Universities. Social Indicators Research, 129(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  24. Goldberg, J., & Helfman, J. (2011). Eye tracking for visualization evaluation: Reading values on linear versus radial graphs. Information Visualization. Scholar
  25. Gratzl, S., Lex, A., Gehlenborg, N., Pfister, H., & Streit, M. (2013). Lineup: Visual analysis of multi-attribute rankings. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12), 2277–2286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 459–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Index, L. P. (2014). The 2014 Legatum Prosperity Index.Google Scholar
  28. ITU. ICT-Eye. Retrieved September 23, 2015 from
  29. Joint Research Centre-European Commission. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and User guide. OECD publishing.
  30. Keim, D. A., Schneidewind, J., & Sips, M. (2004). CircleView: A new approach for visualizing time-related multidimensional data sets. In Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces (pp. 179–182). ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Kelvin, W. T. (1883). Electrical units of measurement. Popular Lectures and Addresses (1889), 1, 80–81.Google Scholar
  32. Mackinlay, J. (1986). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. Acm Transactions on Graphics (Tog), 5(2), 110–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maheshwari, D., & Janssen, M. (2013). Measurement and benchmarking foundations: Providing support to organizations in their development and growth using dashboards. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, J., Shinar, D., & Leiser, D. (1997). Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human factors, 39(2), 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Munzner, T. (2014). Visualization analysis and design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005a). Tools for composite indicators building. European Commission Joint Research Centre. Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Econometrics and Statistical Support to Antifraud Unit, I-21020 Ispra (VA) Italy, Report number: EUR, 21682.Google Scholar
  37. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005b). Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Perin, C., Vuillemot, R., & Fekete, J. D. (2014). A table!: Improving temporal navigation in soccer ranking tables. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 887–896). ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Petrović, M., Bojković, N., Anić, I., & Petrović, D. (2012). Benchmarking the digital divide using a multi-level outranking framework: Evidence from EBRD countries of operation. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 597–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plaisant, C. (2005). Information visualization and the challenge of universal usability. In J. Dykes, A. MacEachren & M. J. Kraak (Eds.), Exploring geovisualization (pp. 53–82) Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. OECD Better Life Index. Retrieved April 29, 2016 from
  42. Robertson, G., Fernandez, R., Fisher, D., Lee, B., & Stasko, J. (2008). Effectiveness of animation in trend visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14(6), 1325–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saisana, M. & Tarantola, S., (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. Citeseer.Google Scholar
  44. Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sciadas, G. (2004). International benchmarking for the information society. In ITU-KADO digital bridges symposium.Google Scholar
  46. Shneiderman, B. (1996). The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In IEEE symposium on visual languages, 1996. Proceedings (pp. 336–343). IEEE.Google Scholar
  47. Stapleton, L. M., & Garrod, G. D. (2008). Policy preceding possibility? Examining headline composite sustainability indicators in the United Kingdom. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tversky, B., Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. UNDP (2015). Human Development Index (HDI). Google Public Data Explorer. Retrieved September 23, 2015 from
  51. Van Wijk, J. J. (2006). Bridging the gaps. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 26(6), 6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wehrend, S., & Lewis, C. (1990). A problem-oriented classification of visualization techniques. In Proceedings of the 1st conference on Visualization’90  (pp. 139–143). IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  53. World Wide Web Foundation. Web Index. 2014. Retrieved September 23, 2015, from
  54. Yi, J. S., ah Kang, Y., Stasko, J. T., & Jacko, J. A. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of the role of interaction in information visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6), 1224–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Center for Internet ResearchUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy StudiesTechnionHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations