Personal Wellbeing Index-Intellectual Disability

Overview

Purpose
Measure life satisfaction
Respondent
Person with a Disability
Administration Method
Interview
Administration Mode
In-person
Item Count
8
Population
Intellectual and Developmental Disability

Instrument Citation(s)

International Wellbeing Group (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index: 5th Edition. Melbourne: Australian
Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University
(http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/index.php )

Instrument Domains

DomainNumber of Items
Community Inclusion3
Social connectedness and relationships3
Employment0
Meaningful activity0
Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion0
Transportation0
Holistic Health and Functioning1
Individual health and functioning1
Health promotion and prevention0
Caregiver Support0
Access to resources0
Family caregiver/natural support involvement0
Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing0
Training and skill-building0
Choice and Control0
Choice of services and supports0
Personal choices and goals0
Personal freedoms and dignity of risk0
Self-direction0
Consumer Leadership in System Development0
Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement0
Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement0
System supports meaningful consumer involvement0
Equity0
Availability0
Equitable access and resource allocation0
Transparency and consistency0
Fluctuation of Need0
Human and Legal Rights0
Freedom from abuse and neglect0
Informed decision-making0
Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights0
Privacy0
Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights0
Level of Caregiver Well-Being0
Person-Centered Planning and Coordination0
Assessment0
Coordination0
Person-centered planning0
Service Delivery and Effectiveness0
Delivery0
Person's needs met and goals realized0
System Performance and Accountability0
Data management and use0
Evidence-based practice0
Financing and service delivery structures0
Workforce0
Adequately compensated with benefits0
Culturally competent0
Demonstrated competencies when appropriate0
Person-centered approach to services0
Safety of and respect for the worker0
Staff Turnover0
Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability0
Workforce engagement and participation0

Psychometric Citations

  • McGillivray, J. A., Lau, A. L. D., Cummins, R. A., & Davey, G. (2009). The utility of the personal wellbeing index intellectual disability scale in an Australian sample. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22(3), 276-286.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    18–30: 50%, 31–40: 25%, 41–50: 14%, 51–60: 7%, 61 and above 3%

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years; 65+ Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Australia

    Sample: Disability Type

    Intellectual and Developmental Disability

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    54

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    114

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    The Cronbach alpha = 0.76

    Reliability: Test-retest

    r = .58

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    The extraction of two factors that explain about 57.97% of the variance.

    Study design
    Cross-Sectional
  • Lau, A. L., Cummins, R. A., & Mcpherson, W. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the Personal Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 72(3), 403-430.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Hong Kong: Young (18–35 years) 33%, Mid (36–64 years) 33%, Old (65 years and above) 33%; Australia: Young (18–35 years) 33%, Mid (36–64 years) 33%, Old (65 years and above) 33%

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years, 65+ Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Multiple Countries

    Sample: Disability Type

    Intellectual and Developmental Disability

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    Hong Kong 42%; Australia 35%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    180

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    α = 0.80 for Hong Kong and α = 0.73 for Australia

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    The total variance of the PWI explained by the domains were slightly higher for Hong Kong than Australia for both scale versions (47.0 vs. 40.8%; 48.3 vs. 42.2%).

    Study design
    Cross-Sectional