Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of the Quality of Life in Youth Services Scale (QOLYSS): Content-Related Validity Evidence Based on Adolescents’ and Expert Reviewers’ Perspectives

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite increased interest in the quality of life of younger populations, the quality of life of youngsters in vulnerable situations such as those in youth services remains under-researched. To gain insight into critical ingredients for understanding and enhancing the lives of these youngsters, appropriate assessment tools are needed. This study focuses on providing content-related validity evidence for the new Quality of Life in Youth Services Scale (QOLYSS) for adolescents in youth services. A sequential approach to item generation, refinement, and evaluation is presented. The initial item bank is devised by means of a thorough literature search and evaluated against findings from qualitative research among adolescents in youth services. In addition, a three-round international expert panel (N = 5) is convened to align identified items to the adopted quality of life framework, and to provide evidence on domain representation and relevance. Last, input is collected from adolescents in youth services themselves. More specifically, 20 group discussions and 13 individual interview sessions are organized to support 21 adolescents in critically assessing the content of the item bank on level of relevance, clarity, and coverage. The expert panel resulted in a provisional scale of 262 unique items that, based on adolescents’ input, is further reduced to a set of 88 items. Adolescents omitted items because of divergent reasons (e.g., content-overlap, self-evident character of the items, level of irrelevance). Explanatory qualitative information on the item selection process is provided. This study provides a detailed understanding of the content-related validity evidence of a new multidimensional quality of life scale. Moreover, it highlights the importance of acknowledging youngsters as critical partner in quality of life research and assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Arias, V. B., Gómez, L. E., Morán, L., Alcedo, M. A., Monsalve, A., & Fontanil, Y. (2018). Does quality of life differ for children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability compared to children without autism? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3289-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh, A. (2005). Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 74(3), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-4645-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh, A. (2008). The child indicator movement: Past, present, and future. Child Indicators Research, 1, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-007-9003-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frønes, I., & Korbin, J. E. (2013). Multifaceted concept of child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 1–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Semsa, A. J. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, practice, and applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development volume 1 (pp. 894–941). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolino, B. (2015). Working with children and adolescents in residential care. A strengths-based approach. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brendtro, L., & Larson, S. (2004). The resilience code: Finding greatness in youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 12(4), 194–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1263–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, I., & Brown, R. (2003). Quality of life and disability: An approach for community practitioners. London/New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, N. J., Beeghly, M., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Positive development of minority children: Introduction to the special issue. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00253.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casas, F. (2011). Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being. Social Indicators Research, 4, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9093-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casas, F. (2016). Children, adolescents and quality of life: The social sciences perspective over two decades. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A life devoted to quality of life (pp. 3–21). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Claes, C., Mostert, R., Moonen, L., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R.L. (2014). Personal outcomes scale for children and adolescents (POS-CA). Stichting Arduin/HOGENT.

  • Claes, C., Van Hove, G., van Loon, J., Vandevelde, S., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Quality of life measurement in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: Eight principles for assessing quality of life-related personal outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 98(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9517-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavez, L., Mir, K., & Canino, G. (2012). Starting from scratch: The development of the adolescent quality of life-mental health scale (AQOL-MHS). Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 36(3), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-012-9264-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croce, L., Lombardi, M., Vandevelde, S., & Claes, C. (2014). Quality of life: Psychometric properties of the personal outcome scale children version. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(4), 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. (2005). Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 699–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00738.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maeyer, J., Vandenbussche, H., Claes, C., & Reynaert, D. (2017). Human rights, the capability approach and quality of life: An integrated paradigm of support in the quest for social justice. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, 38(3), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/TC-03-2017-0011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maeyer, J., Vanderplasschen, W., Camfield, L., Vanheule, S., Sabbe, B., & Broekaert, E. (2011). A good quality of life under the influence of methadone: A qualitative study among opiate-dependent individuals. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(10), 1244–1257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.03.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wolf, T. (2019). Qualitative research on the perceptions on quality of life among youngsters in youth services [Master’s thesis]. Retrieved from https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/784/644/RUG01-002784644_2019_0001_AC.pdf

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J. (2008). Young people leaving care: Health, well-being and outcomes. Child and Family Social Work, 13(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2007.00538.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endicott, J., Nee, J., Yang, R., & Wohlberg, C. (2006). Pediatric quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire (PQ-LES-Q): Reliability and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(4), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000198590.38325.81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2007). Children’s conceptualization(s) of their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80, 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9019-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayer, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). West-Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, M., Verdugo, M. A., Gómez, L. E., Aguayo, V., & Arias, B. (2018). Core indicators to assess quality of life in population with brain injury. Social Indicators Research, 137, 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1612-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. (2001). Text and turbulence: Representing adolescence as pathology in the human services. Childhood, 8, 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0907568201008002003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jozefiak, T., & Kayed, N. S. (2015). Self- and proxy reports of quality of life among adolescents living in residential youth care compared to adolescents in the general population and mental health services. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 104 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0280-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, T. D., & Huebner, S. (2007). Initial development and validation of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale – Adolescent version. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-007-9026-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, L. E., Alcedo, M. A., Arias, B., Fontanil, Y., Arias, V. B., Monsalve, M. A., et al. (2016a). A new scale for the measurement of quality of life in children with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 53-54, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, L. E., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., Tassé, M. J., & Brown, I. (2015). Operationalisation of quality of life for adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59(19), 924–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, L. E., Morán, M. L, Alcedo, M. A., Arias, V. B., & Verdugo, M. A. (in press). Addressing quality of life of children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. http://aaidd.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/gomez.pdf?sfvrsn=2b8f3621_0

  • Gómez, L. E., Peña, E., Arias, B., & Verdugo, M. A. (2016b). Impact of individual and organizational variables on quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 125(2), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0857-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, L. E., Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2019). The role of logic models and moderator and mediator variables in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Advance online publication., 32, 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09702-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., Rodríguez, M., Morán, L., Arias, V. B., & Monsalve, A. (2020). Adapting a measure of quality of life to children with down syndrome for the development of evidence-based interventions. Psychosocial Intervention, 29, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2019a17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J. G., & Cadell, S. (2009). Power, pathological worldviews, and the strengths perspective in social work. Family in Society, 90(4), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1606/2F1044-3894.3921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenaro, C., Verdugo, M., Caballo, C., Balboni, G., Lachapelle, Y., Otrebski, W., & Schalock, R. L. (2005). Cross-cultural study of person-centred quality of life domains and indicators: A replication. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 734–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00742.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, K.D., & Schalock, R.L. (1995). Quality of student life questionnaire manual. IDS Publishing Corporation.

  • Knorth, E. J., Harder, A. T., & Anglin, J. P. (2014). ‘The black box never sleeps …’: Inside perspectives on youth placements in residential care. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 15(1), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, L. H., Moore, K. A., & McIntosh, H. (2011). Positive indicators of child well-being: A conceptual framework, measures, and methodological issues. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6, 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-011-9138-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, M., Croce, L., Claes, C., Vandevelde, S., & Schalock, R. L. (2016). Factors predicting quality of life for people with intellectual disability: Results from the ANFFAS study in Italy. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 41(4), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1223281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magasi, S., Ryan, G., Revicki, D., Lenderking, W., Hays, R. D., Brod, M., Snyder, C., Boers, M., & Cella, D. (2012). Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Quality of Life Research, 21(5), 739–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moons, P., Budts, W., & De Geest, S. (2006). Critique on the conceptualisation of quality of life: A review and evaluation of different conceptual approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(7), 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Erhart, M., Bruil, J., Duer, W., Auquier, P., Power, M., Abel, T., Czemy, L., Mazur, J., Czimbalmos, A., Tountas, Y., Hagquist, C., Kilroe, J., & European Kidscreen Group. (2005). KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 5(3), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schalock, R. L., Luckasson, R., & Shogren, K. A. (2020). Going beyond environment to context: Leveraging the power of context to produce change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1885. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002). Handbook on quality of life for human service practitioners. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Bonham, G. S., Fantova, F., & Van Loon, J. (2008). Enhancing personal outcomes: Organizational strategies, guidelines, and examples. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5(4), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2007.00135.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Gómez, L. E. (2011). Evidence-based practices in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: An international consensus approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(3), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simões, C., & Ribeiro, C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the personal outcomes scale for children and adolescents. BMC Health Services Research, 18(suppl. 2), 684–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45(1), 83–117. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006985528729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skjerning, H., Mahony, R. O., Husby, S., & DunnGalvin, A. (2014). Health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with celiac disease: Patient-driven data from focus group interviews. Quality of Life Research, 23(6), 1883–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0623-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. (2006). Research review: Young people leaving care. Child and Family Social Work, 11(3), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2206.2006.00439.X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M., Kash, S., Butler, T., Callahan, C., Verdugo, M. A., & Gómez, L. E. (2020). Validation of English language adaptations of the KidsLife and san Martin Scales for assessing quality of life with individuals on the autism spectrum receiving residential care. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 32, 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09686-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sukarieh, M., & Tannock, S. (2011). The positivity imperative: A critical look at the ‘new’ youth development movement. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(6), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2011.571663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swerts, C., De Maeyer, J., Lombardi, M., Waterschoot, I., Vanderplasschen, W., & Claes, C. (2019). “You shouldn’t look at us strangely”: An exploratory study on personal perspectives on quality of life of adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders in residential youth care. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 14, 867–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9534-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L., & Ikeda, J. (2014). Young people with complex needs: Designing coordinated interventions to promote resilience across child welfare, juvenile corrections, mental health and education services. British Journal of Social Work, 44(3), 675–693. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hecke, N., Claes, C., Vanderplasschen, W., De Maeyer, J., De Witte, N., & Vandevelde, S. (2018). Conceptualisation and measurement of quality of life based on Schalock and Verdugo’s model: A cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 137, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1596-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hecke, N., Vanderplasschen, W., Van Damme, L., & Vandevelde, S. (2019). The bumpy road to change: A retrospective qualitative study on formerly detained adolescents’ trajectories towards better lives. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 13(10), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-019-0271-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Loon, J., Van Hove, G., Schalock, R., & Claes, C. (2008). POS. Persoonlijke Ondersteuningsuitkomsten Schaal. Individuele kwaliteit van bestaan scoreboek. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all youngsters for their participation in this study and (members of) the organizations for their commitment.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Funding

There are no financial arrangements pertinent to the research that might create the appearance of bias. This paper is based on a practice-oriented project that was financed by the research fund of HOGENT University of Applied Sciences and Arts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social-Educational Care Work; Equality Research Collective, HOGENT University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Chris Swerts, Jessica De Maeyer & Goedele De Nil

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Plaza Feijoo s/n, 33003, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

    Laura E. Gómez

  3. Department of Special Needs Education, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Wouter Vanderplasschen

Authors
  1. Chris Swerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura E. Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jessica De Maeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Goedele De Nil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wouter Vanderplasschen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have been personally and substantially involved in the work leading to the paper, and will hold themselves jointly and individually responsible for its content. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Chris Swerts and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Swerts.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Annex 1: Overview of QOLYSS items retained by adolescents

Annex 1: Overview of QOLYSS items retained by adolescents

Interpersonal relations

  1. 1

    I like the people I live with

  2. 2

    I get along with my teachers

  3. 3

    My friends consider me someone they can count on

  4. 4

    I get along with other students at school

  5. 5

    I trust others

  6. 6

    I have enough opportunities to meet with friends

  7. 7

    My parents or legal guardian reassure me when I need it

  8. 8

    I am satisfied with my friends

  9. 9

    Adults understand me

  10. 10

    I have someone I can go to if I have a question or a problem

  11. 11

    I act responsibly towards others

Personal development

  1. 12

    I am encouraged by my family to do my best

  2. 13

    I have enough opportunities to show what I am good at

  3. 14

    I get the chance to correct mistakes I make

  4. 15

    I can deal well with what is expected of me in my daily life

  5. 16

    I am planning on finding a job or develop a career

  6. 17

    I spend time doing things that are important to me

  7. 18

    I learn things (e.g. at school, at home, in the community or outside the home) that help me become more independent.

  8. 19

    I am learning new things

  9. 20

    I have hobbies and personal interests

  10. 21

    I get support from teachers when I need it

Material well-being

  1. 22

    I have enough to eat

  2. 23

    I’m worried about having debts

  3. 24

    I am satisfied with the place where I live

  4. 25

    I like the food I eat

  5. 26

    There are enough opportunities to do activities outdoors

  6. 27

    I like my clothes

  7. 28

    I have material things that I need (e.g. clothing, computer, school supplies, care products, etc.).

  8. 29

    I have enough allowance (e.g. to save, buy things I need, etc.).

  9. 30

    I am satisfied with my current living situation

  10. 31

    I have personal belongings (e.g. photos, diary, cell phone, tablet, etc.).

  11. 32

    I have access to my personal belongings

Emotional well-being

  1. 33

    I am satisfied with the way I look

  2. 34

    I feel useful for others (e.g., family, friends, etc.)

  3. 35

    I feel comfortable when I am alone

  4. 36

    I feel good about my future

  5. 37

    I feel safe

  6. 38

    I express how I feel to others

  7. 39

    I am satisfied with my intimacy

  8. 40

    I can handle difficulties that come my way

  9. 41

    I am proud of the things I do

  10. 42

    I enjoy my life

  11. 43

    I am able to cope with pain or discomfort

  12. 44

    I feel good about myself

Physical well-being

  1. 45

    I feel fit

  2. 46

    I feel good when I wake up in the morning

  3. 47

    I feel physically well

  4. 48

    I have good eating habits

  5. 49

    I take care of my appearance

  6. 50

    I am satisfied with my physical health

  7. 51

    I can go to a doctor or other professionals when I need it

  8. 52

    I sleep well

  9. 53

    I am satisfied with my personal hygiene

Rights

  1. 54

    I get a clear answer to my questions

  2. 55

    I can own things

  3. 56

    I am respected when I say ‘no’

  4. 57

    I receive support in understanding and exercise my rights

  5. 58

    I am well-informed about relevant decisions that are taken in my name

  6. 59

    I have access to information I need or that interests me (e.g., via newspapers or internet)

  7. 60

    My decisions are respected

  8. 61

    My rights are defended

  9. 62

    I have a key to the place I live

  10. 63

    I have access to technology to communicate with others (e.g. texts messages, internet, etc.)

  11. 64

    My belongings are respected

  12. 65

    I have access to good health and social services

  13. 66

    I have enough privacy where I currently live

  14. 67

    Adults treat me with respect

Self-determination

  1. 68

    I express my own opinion (in terms of clothing, trips, activities, food)

  2. 69

    I have goals that I want to achieve

  3. 70

    I talk to other people about my future

  4. 71

    I can do things on my own

  5. 72

    I am in control of my own life

  6. 73

    I say ‘no’ when I think it is necessary

  7. 74

    I can think for myself about important things in life

  8. 75

    My needs, wishes and preferences are taken into account in supports I receive

  9. 76

    I am involved in decisions about my life (e.g. where to go to school, to which doctor I want to go, to which club I want to belong)

  10. 77

    I ask help when I need it

Social inclusion

  1. 78

    I am accepted by others

  2. 79

    I have places to go to with friends

  3. 80

    I feel at ease in social situations

  4. 81

    I feel part of things

  5. 82

    I have responsibilities in a team, club or group

  6. 83

    I am satisfied with my neighborhood

  7. 84

    Other people also ask me for help or advice

  8. 85

    I receive help from my neighbors

  9. 86

    I have a good social life

  10. 87

    I participate in leisure activities with same-age peers

  11. 88

    I am important to other people

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swerts, C., Gómez, L.E., De Maeyer, J. et al. Development of the Quality of Life in Youth Services Scale (QOLYSS): Content-Related Validity Evidence Based on Adolescents’ and Expert Reviewers’ Perspectives. Applied Research Quality Life 17, 593–612 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09921-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09921-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation