Understanding the Relationship between Quality of Life, Adaptive Behavior and Support Needs

  • Cristina Simões
  • Sofia Santos
  • Rui Biscaia
  • James R. Thompson
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 244 Downloads

Abstract

Psychometric tools providing quantitative measures of the constructs of adaptive behavior, support needs, and quality of life (QOL) have received considerable attention within the field of intellectual disability (ID). The relationship between the three constructs was investigated by examining scores on the Adaptive Behavior Scale (ABS), Supports Intensity Scale (SIS), and Personal Outcomes Scale (POS; a QOL scale). Data from 146 Portuguese adults with ID revealed that: (a) the ABS domains showed a moderate negative relationship with the SIS subscales; (b) the absolute value of correlations between SIS/ABS domains were greater than either the ABS/POS or SIS/POS correlations; and (c) people with relatively stronger adaptive skills and less intense support needs experience a higher QOL. Additionally, adaptive behavior scores were a stronger predictor of personal outcomes than the support needs scores. Personal outcomes associated with QOL were similar when assessed by the POS through self-report and report-of-others measures. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Intellectual disability Quality of life Adaptive behavior Support needs assessment 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The research has been approved by the ethics committee of the Centro Hospitalar de São João-Porto.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders text revision: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  2. Bonham, G., Basehart, S., Schalock, R., Marchand, C., Kirchner, N., & Rumenap, J. (2004). Consumer-based quality of life assessment: The Maryland Ask Me! Project. Mental Retardation, 42, 338–355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossaert, G., Kuppens, S., Buntinx, W., Molleman, C., Van den Abeele, A., & Moes, B. (2009). Usefulness of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) for persons with other than intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1306–1316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, I., Schalock, R., & Brown, R. (2009). Quality of life: Its application to persons with intellectual disabilities and their families-introduction and overview. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6, 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buntinx, W., & Schalock, R. (2010). Models of disability, quality of life, and individualized supports: Implications for professional practice in intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chou, Y., Lee, Y., Chang, S., & Yu, A. (2013). Evaluating the Supports Intensity Scale as a potential assessment instrument for resource allocation for persons with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2056–2063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cicchetti, D. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R. (2009). Evaluating the inter-respondent (consumer vs. staff) reliability and construct validity (SIS vs. Vineland) of the Supports Intensity Scale on a Dutch sample. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53, 329–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Claes, C., Van Hove, G., van Loon, J., Vandevelde, S., & Schalock, R. (2010). Quality of life measurement in the field of intellectual disabilities: Eight principles for assessing quality of life-related personal outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 98, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R. (2012). The influence of supports strategies, environmental factors, and client characteristics on quality of life-related personal outcomes. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 96–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Retrieved on 14 November 2015 from http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/effectSize
  12. Felce, D. (1997). Defining and applying the concept of quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41, 126–135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox, J. (1991). Regression diagnostics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Harries, J., Guscia, R., Kirby, N., Nettelbeck, T., & Taplin, J. (2005). Support needs and adaptive behaviors. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 393–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. IBM Corp. Released (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  16. Kraemer, B., McIntyre, L., & Blacher, J. (2003). Quality of life for young adults with mental retardation during transition. Mental Retardation, 41, 250–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamoureux-Hébert, M., & Morin, D. (2009). Translation and cultural adaptation of the Supports Intensity Scale in French. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114, 61–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Applied Social Research Methods Series Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Lopes-dos-Santos, P., Santos, M., Ferreira, M., Maia, M., Martins, S., Ives, S., … Tavares, A. (in press). Escala de Intensidade de Apoios versão Portuguesa. Lisboa, Portugal: Cegoc.Google Scholar
  20. Marôco, J. (2007). Análise estatística com utilização do SPSS (3rd ed.). Lisboa, Portugal: Edições Silabo.Google Scholar
  21. Nihira, K. (2012). AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale: Its history. In S. Santos & P. Morato (Eds.), Comportamento adaptativo: Dez anos depois (pp. 75–82). Lisboa, Portugal: Edições FMH.Google Scholar
  22. Nihira, K., Leland, H., & Lambert, N. (1993). Adaptive Behavior Scale-residential and community edition (ABS-RC: 2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Nota, L., Ferrari, L., Soresi, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2007). Self-determination, social abilities and the quality of life of people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 850–865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pestana, M., & Gageiro, J. (2005). Análise de dados para ciências sociais: A complementaridade do SPSS. Lisboa, Portugal: Edições Sílabo.Google Scholar
  25. Rey, L., Extremera, N., Duran, A., & Ortiz-Tallo, M. (2013). Subjective quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities: The role of emotional competence on their subjective well-being. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 26, 146–156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Riches, V., Parmenter, T., Llewellyn, G., Hindmarsh, G., & Chan, J. (2009). I-CAN: A new instrument to classify support needs for people with disability: Part I. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22, 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santos, S. (2014). Adaptive behaviour on the Portuguese curricula: a comparison between children and adolescents with and without intellectual disability. Creative. Education, 5, 501–509.Google Scholar
  28. Santos, S., & Morato, P. (2012a). A Escala de Comportamento Adaptativo Portuguesa como um instrumento fundamental na avaliação da dificuldade intelectual e desenvolvimental. In E. Mendes & M. Almeida (Eds.), Dimensões pedagógicas nas práticas de inclusão escolar (pp. 197–214). Marília, Brasil: Associação Brasileira de Pesquisadores em Educação Especial.Google Scholar
  29. Santos, S., & Morato, P. (2012b). O comportamento adaptativo em Portugal. In S. Santos & P. Morato (Eds.), Comportamento adaptativo: Dez anos depois (pp. 19–34). Lisboa, Portugal: Edições FMH.Google Scholar
  30. Santos, S., Morato, P., & Luckasson, R. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Adaptive Behavior Scale. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 379–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Schalock, R., & Verdugo, M. (2002). Handbook on quality of life for human service practitioners. Washington, DC: American association on mental retardation.Google Scholar
  32. Schalock, R., & Verdugo, M. (2009). Quality of life: From concept to future applications in the field of intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6, 62–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schalock, R., Lemanowicz, J., Conroy, J., & Feinstein, C. (1994). A multivariate investigative study of the correlates of quality of life. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 3, 59–73.Google Scholar
  34. Schalock, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bradley, V., Buntinx, W., Coulter, D., Craig, E., … Yeager, M. (2010a). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American association on intellectual and developmental disabilities.Google Scholar
  35. Schalock, R., Keith, K., Verdugo, M., & Gómez, L. (2010b). Quality of life model development and use in the field of intellectual disability. In R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities: From theory to practice (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz, C., & Rabinovitz, S. (2003). Life satisfaction of people with intellectual disability living in community residences: Perceptions of the residents, their parents and staff members. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 75–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Simões, C., & Santos, S. (2014). Cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Escala Pessoal de Resultados. Social Indicators Research, 119, 1065–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simões, C., & Santos, S. (2016). The quality of life perceptions of people with intellectual disability and their proxies. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 41, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simões, C., Santos, S., & Claes, C. (2015). The Portuguese version of Personal Outcomes Scale: A psychometric validity and reliability study. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53, 129–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Simões, C., Santos, S., & Biscaia, R. (2016). Validation of the Portuguese version of the Personal Outcomes Scale. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16, 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sousa, J., Casanova, J., Pedroso, P., Mota, A., Gomes, A., Seiceira, F., … Alves, T. (2007). O sistema de reabilitação e as trajectórias de vida das pessoas com deficiências e incapacidades em Portugal. Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal: CRPG.Google Scholar
  42. Tassé, M., Schalock, R., Balboni, G., Bersani, H., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Spreat, S., et al. (2012). The construct of adaptive behavior: Its conceptualization, measurement and use in the field of intellectual disability. American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson, J., McGrew, K., & Bruininks, R. (1999). Adaptive and maladaptive behavior: Functional and structural characteristics. In R. Schalock (Ed.), Adaptive behavior and its measurement: Implications for the field of mental retardation (pp. 15–42). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, J., Bryant, B., Campbell, E., Craig, E., Hughes, C., Rotholz, D., … Wehmeyer, M. (2004). Supports intensity scale: Users manual. Washington, DC: American association on mental retardation.Google Scholar
  45. Thompson, J., Bradley, V., Buntinx, W., Schalock, R., Shogren, K., Snell, M., et al. (2009). Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 135–146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, J., Schalock, R., Agosta, J., Teninty, L., & Fortune, J. (2014a). How the supports paradigm is transforming the developmental disabilities service system. Inclusion, 2, 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson, J., Wehmeyer, M., Hughes, C., Shogren, K., Palmer, S., & Seo, H. (2014b). The Supports Intensity Scale–Children’s Version: Preliminary Reliability and Validity. Inclusion, 2, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Loon, J., Van Hove, G., Schalock, R., & Claes, C. (2009). Personal outcomes scale: Administration and standardization manual. Ghent, Belgium: Stichting Arduin.Google Scholar
  49. van Loon, J., Claes, C., Vandevelde, S., Van Hove, G., & Schalock, R. (2010). Assessing individual support needs to enhance personal outcomes. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verdugo, M., Arias, B., Ibanez, A., & Schalock, R. (2010). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 115, 496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wehmeyer, M., & Schalock, R. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: Implications for special education services and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33, 1–16.Google Scholar
  52. Wehmeyer, M., Buntinx, W., Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson, R., Schalock, R., Verdugo, M., et al. (2008). The intellectual disability construct and its relation to human functioning. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 311–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wehmeyer, M., Chapman, T., Little, T., Thompson, J., Schalock, R., & Tassé, M. (2009). Efficacy of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) to predict extraordinary support needs. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114, 3–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator [Computer software]. Retrieved on 14 November 2015 from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/resources/effect_size_input.php
  55. World Medical Association (2008). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved on 14 November 2015 from http://www.bioetica.ufrgs.br/helsin7.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Estrada da CostaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Coventry University, Faculty of Business and Law CoventryUK
  3. 3.Beach Center on Disability, Department of Special EducationUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations