Personal Wellbeing Index-Intellectual Disability

Share this page

Overview

Purpose
Measure life satisfaction
Respondent
Person with a Disability
Administration Method
Interview
Administration Mode
In-person
0
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 )

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