Quality of Life Questionnaire (QOL - Schalock)

Overview

Purpose
To measure the quality of life of people with IDD
Administration Method
Interview
Administration Mode
In-person
Item Count
40
Population
Intellectual and Developmental Disability

Instrument Citation(s)

Schalock R. L. & Keith K. D. (1993) Quality of Life Questionnaire Manual. IDS Publishing Corporation,
Worthington, OH.

Instrument Domains

DomainNumber of Items
Choice and Control6
Personal freedoms and dignity of risk6
Choice of services and supports0
Personal choices and goals0
Self-direction0
Community Inclusion22
Employment9
Meaningful activity15
Social connectedness and relationships7
Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion0
Transportation0
Equity2
Equitable access and resource allocation2
Availability0
Transparency and consistency0
Holistic Health and Functioning3
Individual health and functioning3
Health promotion and prevention0
Human and Legal Rights1
Freedom from abuse and neglect1
Informed decision-making0
Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights0
Privacy0
Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights0
Person-Centered Planning and Coordination1
Assessment1
Coordination0
Person-centered planning0
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
Fluctuation of Need0
Level of Caregiver Well-Being0
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

  • Phase 1 focus group to sort out, categorize items using focus group. Phase 2: using survey method, 28 , self reported expert, rated the items by appropriateness and feasibility. Except for this validity self reported expert, I could not find any other type of validity, nor reliability

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    Spanish, Spanish (Mexican); QXQ English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    range between 18-76 (average 38) QXQ: range between 18 to 76 (mean=38) for the physical disability group and 22 to 40 for the ID group

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64, 65 + Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Spain, Mexico

    Sample: Disability Type

    Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Physical Disability, Mental Health Challenges, Other

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    Mexican study 59.8% -- Spanish Study 66.3% QXQ: I would write this as Study 1(physical disability group) 59.8%; study 2 (ID group) 66.3%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    209 (mexican with physical disabilities) - 424 (spanish with ID)

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    Cronbach's Alpha Competence/productivity (α=.91 - Mexico) (α=.91 - Spain)
    Cronbach's Alpha Satisfaction (α=.84 - Mexico) (α=.70 - Spain)
    Cronbach's Alpha Empowerment/independence (α=.84 - Mexico) (α=.69 - Spain)
    Cronbach's Alpha Social belonging/community integration (α=.71 - mexico) (α=.62 - Spain)

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    Mexico /study 1 EFA: validity, data resulting from the factor
    analysis suggest that four dimensions (Competence/
    productivity, Satisfaction, Empowerment/independence
    and Social belonging) represented the best fit. Correlations among factors converge
    with theoretical assumptions, which postulate
    that the factors are interrelated. Low-medium relations
    between sub-scales (from 0.32 to .60,P<0.1), and moderate correlations with total were
    found (from 0.65 to 0.81). Study 2 / Spain Correlations among factors
    converged with theoretical assumptions, given the
    low inter-factor correlations (from 0.13 to 0.36) and
    the medium–moderate factor-total correlations (from
    0.53 to 0.77; P < 0. 01).

    Study design
    Cross-Sectional
  • Rapley, M., Ridgway, J., & Beyer, S. (1997). Staff:staff and staff:client reliability of the Schalock & Keith
    (1993) Quality of Life Questionnaire, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42(1), 37-42.

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

    range from 35 to 65 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    England

    Sample: Disability Type

    Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Proxies

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    66 (13 clients)

    Reliability: Inter-rater

    Staff:staff reliability : all values were high with significance achieved -- Satisfaction .88; competence .83; Empowerment .88; social belonging .83; total .89 ___Staff:client: all values were high with significance achieved EXCEPT Empowerment -- Mean staff results Satisfaction .77; competence .65; Empowerment -.43 (non sig); social belonging .71; total .82

    Study design
    Cross-Sectional
  • Kober, R., & Eggleton, I.R.C. (2002). Factor stability of the Schalock and Keith (1993) Quality of Life
    Questionnaire. Mental Retardation, 40(2), 157-165.

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

    median=22 years (range from 17 to 64)

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Australia

    Sample: Disability Type

    Intellectual and Developmental Disability

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    63%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    172

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    Cronbach's Alpha Satisfaction and Domestic
    Contentment (α=.47); Cronbach's Alpha Competence/productivity (α=.91); Cronbach's Alpha Empowerment/Independence (α=.75); Cronbach's Alpha Social Belonging/
    Community Integration being (α=.68)

    Study design
    Cross-Sectional

States Using This Instrument

Clickable map of all States in the US.Click a State to learn more.

Waivers Associated with This Instrument