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
| Domain | Number of Items |
|---|---|
| Community Inclusion | 3 |
| Social connectedness and relationships | 3 |
| Employment | 0 |
| Meaningful activity | 0 |
| Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion | 0 |
| Transportation | 0 |
| Holistic Health and Functioning | 1 |
| Individual health and functioning | 1 |
| Health promotion and prevention | 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 |
| Choice and Control | 0 |
| Choice of services and supports | 0 |
| Personal choices and goals | 0 |
| Personal freedoms and dignity of risk | 0 |
| Self-direction | 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 |
| Human and Legal Rights | 0 |
| Freedom from abuse and neglect | 0 |
| Informed decision-making | 0 |
| Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights | 0 |
| Privacy | 0 |
| Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights | 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 |
| Workforce | 0 |
| Adequately compensated with benefits | 0 |
| Culturally competent | 0 |
| Demonstrated competencies when appropriate | 0 |
| Person-centered approach to services | 0 |
| Safety of and respect for the worker | 0 |
| Staff Turnover | 0 |
| Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability | 0 |
| Workforce engagement and participation | 0 |
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