Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease Scale
Overview
- Purpose
- Assessing quality of life
- Respondent
- Person with a Disability
- Administration Method
- Interview
- Administration Mode
- In-person
- Item Count
- 13
- Population
- Age Related Disability
Instrument Citation(s)
Logsdon, R.G. (1996). Quality of Life-Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD). Department of Psychosocial and
Community Health: University of Washington.
http://www.cogsclub.org.uk/professionals/files/QOL-AD.pdf 
Logsdon, R., Gibbons, L.E., McCurry, S.M., Terri, L. (1999). Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: patient
and caregiver reports. J Mental Health Aging, 5, 21–32.
Instrument Domains
| Domain | Number of Items |
|---|---|
| Community Inclusion | 4 |
| Meaningful activity | 1 |
| Social connectedness and relationships | 3 |
| Employment | 0 |
| Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion | 0 |
| Transportation | 0 |
| Holistic Health and Functioning | 7 |
| Individual health and functioning | 7 |
| 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
Thorgrimsen, L., Selwood, A., Spector, A., Royan, L., de Madariaga Lopez, M., Woods, R. T., & Orrell, M.
(2003). Whose quality of life is it anyway? The validity and reliability of the Quality of Life-
Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD) scale. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 17(4), 201-208.- Type of Publication
- Peer review
- Instrument Language
- English
- Sample: Age (Mean and Range)
sample 1: 81.3 (6.0) [69–92]; sample 2: 85.3 (7.0) [66–101]
- Sample: Age Group
65+ Years
- Sample: Countries/State
United Kingdom
- Sample: Disability Type
Age Related Disability
- Sample: Gender (%male)
sample 1: 44 (73.3%); sample 2: 158 (78.6%)
- Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)
Not Reported
- Sample: Sampling Strategy
Convenience Sample
- Sample: Size
Sample 1 (n = 60); Sample 2
(n = 201)- Reliability: Inter-rater
κ >0.70.
- Reliability: Internal Consistency
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.82
- Reliability: Test-retest
Overall ICC = 0.6 or above; κ = 0.37 for one item “family”; κ ranged from 0.40 to 0.74 for all other items.
- Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)
The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance (p < 0.001), and the Kaiser- Meyer-Oklin value was 0.74, thus supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.
- Validity: Content Validity (e.g., Expert Judgement)
The scale was found to have good content validity with no additional items required and all items necessary.
- Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)
It correlated well with the Dementia Quality of Life scale (0.69) and with the Euroqol-5D scale (0.54), indicating good criterion concurrent validity.
- Study design
- Cross-Sectional
Logsdon, R., Gibbons, L.E., McCurry, S.M., Terri, L. (1999). Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: patient
and caregiver reports. J Mental Health Aging, 5, 21–32.- Type of Publication
- Peer review
- Instrument Language
- English
- Sample: Age (Mean and Range)
average 78.3 years (sd = 6.1)
- Sample: Age Group
65+ Years
- Sample: Countries/State
Unknown
- Sample: Disability Type
Age Related Disability
- Sample: Gender (%male)
53
- Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)
86% Caucasian, 14% African American
- Sample: Sampling Strategy
Convenience Sample
- Sample: Size
77
- Reliability: Internal Consistency
Coefficient Alpha = 0.88
- Reliability: Test-retest
ICC = 0.76
- Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)
Patient QoL-AD scores were modestly correlated with MMSE scores: r = 0.24, p<0.05
- Study design
- Cross-Sectional