Preferences for Everyday Living Inventory-Nursing Home


To assess preference for daily life (e.g. wake up time, type of clothes)
Person with a Disability
Administration Method
Administration Mode
Item Count
Age Related Disability

Instrument Citation(s)

Instrument Domains

DomainNumber of Items
Choice and Control164
Choice of services and supports11
Personal freedoms and dignity of risk149
Personal choices and goals0
Community Inclusion40
Meaningful activity14
Social connectedness and relationships26
Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion0
Holistic Health and Functioning2
Individual health and functioning2
Health promotion and prevention0
Human and Legal Rights5
Freedom from abuse and neglect0
Informed decision-making0
Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights0
Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights0
Person-centered approach to services4
Adequately compensated with benefits0
Culturally competent0
Demonstrated competencies when appropriate0
Safety of and respect for the worker0
Staff Turnover0
Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability0
Workforce engagement and participation0
Caregiver Support0
Access to resources0
Family caregiver/natural support involvement0
Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing0
Training and skill-building0
Consumer Leadership in System Development0
Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement0
Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement0
System supports meaningful consumer involvement0
Equitable access and resource allocation0
Transparency and consistency0
Fluctuation of Need0
Level of Caregiver Well-Being0
Person-Centered Planning and Coordination0
Person-centered planning0
Service Delivery and Effectiveness0
Person's needs met and goals realized0
System Performance and Accountability0
Data management and use0
Evidence-based practice0
Financing and service delivery structures0

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
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)


    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years, 65+ Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    New York

    Sample: Disability Type

    Not Reported

    Sample: Gender (%male)


    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


    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