Preferences for Everyday Living Inventory-Nursing Home
Overview
- Purpose
- To assess preference for daily life (e.g. wake up time, type of clothes)
- Respondent
- Person with a Disability
- Administration Method
- Interview
- Administration Mode
- In-person
- Item Count
- 226
- Population
- Age Related Disability
Instrument Citation(s)
Survey available at: http://www.polisherresearchinstitute.org/assessment-instruments
Instrument Domains
Domain | Number of Items |
---|---|
Choice and Control | 164 |
Choice of services and supports | 11 |
Personal freedoms and dignity of risk | 149 |
Self-direction | 4 |
Personal choices and goals | 0 |
Community Inclusion | 40 |
Meaningful activity | 14 |
Social connectedness and relationships | 26 |
Employment | 0 |
Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion | 0 |
Transportation | 0 |
Holistic Health and Functioning | 2 |
Individual health and functioning | 2 |
Health promotion and prevention | 0 |
Human and Legal Rights | 5 |
Privacy | 5 |
Freedom from abuse and neglect | 0 |
Informed decision-making | 0 |
Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights | 0 |
Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights | 0 |
Workforce | 4 |
Person-centered approach to services | 4 |
Adequately compensated with benefits | 0 |
Culturally competent | 0 |
Demonstrated competencies when appropriate | 0 |
Safety of and respect for the worker | 0 |
Staff Turnover | 0 |
Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability | 0 |
Workforce engagement and participation | 0 |
Caregiver Support | 0 |
Access to resources | 0 |
Family caregiver/natural support involvement | 0 |
Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing | 0 |
Training and skill-building | 0 |
Consumer Leadership in System Development | 0 |
Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement | 0 |
Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement | 0 |
System supports meaningful consumer involvement | 0 |
Equity | 0 |
Availability | 0 |
Equitable access and resource allocation | 0 |
Transparency and consistency | 0 |
Fluctuation of Need | 0 |
Level of Caregiver Well-Being | 0 |
Person-Centered Planning and Coordination | 0 |
Assessment | 0 |
Coordination | 0 |
Person-centered planning | 0 |
Service Delivery and Effectiveness | 0 |
Delivery | 0 |
Person's needs met and goals realized | 0 |
System Performance and Accountability | 0 |
Data management and use | 0 |
Evidence-based practice | 0 |
Financing and service delivery structures | 0 |
Psychometric Citation
Van Haitsma, K., Curyto, K., Spector, A., Towsley, G., Kleban, M., Carpenter, B., ... & Koren, M. J. (2012). The preferences for everyday living inventory: Scale development and description of psychosocial preferences responses in community-dwelling elders. The Gerontologist, 53(4), 582-595.
- Type of Publication
- Peer review
- Instrument Language
- English
- Sample: Age (Mean and Range)
61–102
- Sample: Age Group
18-64 Years, 65+ Years
- Sample: Countries/State
New York
- Sample: Disability Type
Not Reported
- Sample: Gender (%male)
24
- Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)
60.6% (n = 320) self-identifying as Caucasian; 22.2% (n = 117) as African American; 9.7% (n = 51) as Hispanic; 6.3% (n = 33) as Caribbean American; 1.1% (n = 6) as Asian American; and 1 person as American Indian
- Sample: Sampling Strategy
Stratified Random Sample
- Sample: Size
437
- Reliability: Internal Consistency
Social Contact, .581; Growth Activities, .664; Diversionary Activities, .158; Self Dominion, .552; and Enlisting Others in Care, .155.
- Validity: Content Validity (e.g., Expert Judgement)
Preference items from each concept mapping preference domain were represented in the 10 most strongly held preferences in this sample—a finding that lends support to the instrument’s content validity.
- Validity: Face Validity
Feedback from those who took the preference inventory, and a professional advisory board, suggested the PELI possesses good face validity and comprehensively addresses important psychosocial preferences.
- Validity: Other Evidence
Convergent and Divergent Validity: ADL and IADL scales were significantly negatively correlated with Self Dominion (r = −0.13, p < .01, respectively) and not correlated with preferences for Enlisting Others in Care.There was a significant relationship between Vitality and preferences for Growth Activities (r = 0.13, p < .01). There was a significant positive correlation between self-reported pain on the SF12 Bodily Pain subscale and Enlisting Others in Care (r = 0.14, p < .01); a significant positive relationship between Bodily Pain and preferences for Growth Activities (r = 0.10, p < .05); a significant positive relationship appeared between Positive Affect and Social Contact, Growth Activities, and Diversionary Activities (r = 0.23, p < .01; r = 0.16, p < .01; r = 0.12, p < .05, respec- tively). There was significant negative correlation between depressive symptoms and negative affect and Diversionary Activities (r = −0.12, p < .05; r = −0.17, p < .01, respectively).
- Study design
- Cross-Sectional