Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/quality-of-life-measurement-and-people-with-intellectual-disabilities-b9E5QfKh3I
References (10)
-
C. Hatton (1998)
Whose quality of life is it anyway? Some problems with the emerging quality of life consensus.Mental retardation, 36 2
-
K. Mcvilly, R. Burton-Smith, J. Davidson (2000)
Concurrence between subject and proxy ratings of quality of life for people with and without intellectual disabilitiesJournal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 25
-
R. Hastings, Hannah Thomas, Nicole Delwiche (2002)
Grandparent Support for Families of Children with Down's SyndromeJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 15
-
R. Cummins (1997)
Self-rated Quality of Life Scales for People with an Intellectual Disability: A ReviewJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10
-
A. Ager, C. Hatton (1999)
Discerning the Appropriate Role and Status of ‘Quality of Life’ Assessment for Persons with Intellectual Disability: A Reply to CumminsJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 12
-
R. Cummins (2001)
Self-Rated Quality of Life Scales for People with an Intellectual Disability: a Reply to Ager & HattonJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 14
-
M. Rapley, J. Ridgway (1998)
'Quality of Life' Talk and the Corporatisation of Intellectual DisabilityDisability & Society, 13
-
E. Emerson, J. Robertson, N. Gregory, C. Hatton, S. Kessissoglou, A. Hallam, J. Hillery (2000)
Treatment and Management of Challenging Behaviours in Residential SettingsJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 13
-
E. Emerson, J. Robertson, N. Gregory, C. Hatton, S. Kessissoglou, A. Hallam, M. Knapp, K. Järbrink, P. Walsh, A. Netten (2000)
Quality and costs of community-based residential supports, village communities, and residential campuses in the United Kingdom.American journal of mental retardation : AJMR, 105 2
-
R. Stancliffe (1999)
Proxy respondents and the reliability of the Quality of Life Questionnaire Empowerment factor.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 43 ( Pt 3)
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2002 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
- ISSN
- 1360-2322
- eISSN
- 1468-3148
- DOI
- 10.1046/j.1468-3148.2002.00124.x
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
This paper continues an exchange concerning quality of life measurement and people with intellectual disabilities. It addresses the continuing debate concerning three major issues: the utility of measuring subjective well‐being in assessing service quality; the validity of quality of life as a construct; and the wider context within which quality of life assessment takes place. Evidence is presented to argue that subjective well‐being should not be used to assess service quality, as it is a largely dispositional trait and measures of subjective well‐being can only be reliably completed by a minority of people with intellectual disabilities. Some concerns are raised concerning the validity of current measures of quality of life, in terms of combining objective and subjective aspects of quality of life, summing quality of life domains, and the lack of investigation of the ‘psychological reality’ of quality of life as a construct. Finally, arguments concerning the potentially unfortunate consequences of adopting a quality of life approach within services are outlined. Such potentially unfortunate consequences are argued not to be caused by malignant motivations on the part of professionals, but to be the result of broader historical and professional processes.
Journal
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities – Wiley
Published: Sep 1, 2002