Quality of Life of Adults with an Intellectual Disability


Purpose of Review

Quality of life can be measured both objectively, by frequencies and quantities, and subjectively through feelings. The subjective dimension is the most difficult to measure and the topic of this review.

Recent Findings

Subjective wellbeing is commonly measured by asking how “happy” or “satisfied” people feel on a standardized set of questions. One crucial requirement is that these questions are the same for everyone, whether they have a disability or not. This ensures equivalent standards for judging high and low life quality. The Personal Wellbeing Index meets these requirements. It contains seven items, three of which form the “Golden Domain Triangle” as satisfaction with money, relationships, and achieving in life.


These three “Golden Domains” represent the key resources supporting life quality for both disabled and non-disabled people. For service provision to be maximally effective in facilitating life quality, it should target sufficiency in these areas.

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


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.

    Schalock RL. The conceptualization and measurement of quality of life: current status and future considerations. Journal on Developmental Disabilities. 1997;5(2):1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schalock RL, Brown I, Brown R, Cummins RA, Felce D, Matikka L, et al. The conceptualisation, measurement, and application of quality of life: report of an international panel of experts. Ment Retard. 2002a;40:457–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cummins RA. On the trail of the gold standard for life satisfaction. Soc Indic Res. 1995;35(2):179–200.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cummins RA. The second approximation to an international standard of life satisfaction. Soc Indic Res. 1998;43(3):307–34.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    • Capic T, Hutchinson D, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Richardson B, Khor S, Olsson C, et al. Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: -Report 34.0 - The Wellbeing of Australians: Financial Wellbeing. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. http://www.acqol.com.au/projects#reports; 2017b. This paper contains normative ranges for subjective wellbeing.

  6. 6.

    International Wellbeing Group. Personal Wellbeing Index Manual: 5th Edition. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University; 2013. Available from: http://www.acqol.com.au/instruments#measures.

  7. 7.

    Tomyn AJ, Weinberg MK, Cummins RA. Intervention efficacy among ‘at risk’ adolescents: a test of subjective wellbeing homeostasis theory. Soc Indic Res. 2015;120(3):883–95.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Richardson B, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz MD, Tomyn AJ, Cummins RA. The psychometric equivalence of the personal wellbeing index for normally functioning and homeostatically defeated Australian adults. J Happiness Stud. 2014;15(1):43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cummins RA, Lau ALD, Davey G, McGillivray J. Measuring subjective wellbeing: the personal wellbeing index - intellectual disability. In: Kober R, editor. Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: from theory to practice. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cummins RA. Using subjective wellbeing homeostasis to understand the personal impact of neurodevelopmental disorders. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders. 2018d;2(2):151–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-017-0039-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cannon WB. The wisdom of the body. New York NY: Norton; 1932.

  12. 12.

    McEwen BS, Wingfield JC. The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Horm Behav. 2003;43(1):2–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tellegen A, Lykken DT, Bouchard TJJ, Wilcox K, Segal N, Rich S. Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:1031–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cummins RA, Li L, Wooden M, Stokes M. A demonstration of set-points for subjective wellbeing. J Happiness Stud. 2014b;15:183–206.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Capic T, Li N, Cummins RA. Set-points for subjective wellbeing: A replication and extension. Social Indicators Research, doi: 101007/s11205–017–1585-5. 2017.

  16. 16.

    •• Cummins RA. Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis - Second edition. New York Oxford University Press; 2017a. Available from: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0167.xml. This is a review of subjective wellbeing homeostasis.

  17. 17.

    •• Capic T, Li N, Cummins RA. Confirmation of subjective wellbeing set-points: foundational for subjective social indicators. Social Indicators Research. 2018;137(1):1–28 This is the confirmation of setpoints for subjective wellbeing.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Andrews FM, Withey SB. Social indicators of well-being: American’s perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 1984;95:542–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Davern M, Cummins RA, Stokes M. Subjective wellbeing as an affective/cognitive construct. J Happiness Stud. 2007;8(4):429–49.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Blore JD, Stokes MA, Mellor D, Firth L, Cummins RA. Comparing multiple discrepancies theory to affective models of subjective wellbeing. Soc Indic Res. 2011;100(1):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Longo Y. The simple structure of positive affect. Soc Indic Res. 2015;124(1):183–98.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tomyn AJ, Cummins RA. Subjective wellbeing and homeostatically protected mood: theory validation with adolescents. J Happiness Stud. 2011a;12(5):897–914.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cummins RA. Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: a synthesis. J Happiness Stud. 2010a;11:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Yap SCY, Anusic I, Lucas RE. Does happiness change? Evidence from longitudinal studies. In: Sheldon KM, Lucas RE, editors. Stability of happiness: theories and evidence on whether happiness can change. USA: Elsevier; 2014. p. 127–45.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cummins RA, Woerner J, Weinberg M, Collard J, Hartley-Clark L, Horfiniak K. Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: -Report 30.0 - The Wellbeing of Australians: Social media, personal achievement, and work. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. http://www.acqol.com.au/projects#reports; 2013b.

  27. 27.

    Cummins RA, McCabe MP, Romeo Y, Reid S, Waters L. An initial evaluation of the comprehensive quality of life scale - intellectual disability. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 1997;44:7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kozma A, Stone S, Stones MJ. Stability in components and predictors of subjective well-being (SWB): implications for SWB structure. In: Diener E, Rahtz DR, editors. Advances in quality of life: theory and research. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. p. 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Anglim J, Weinberg MK, Cummins RA. Bayesian hierarchical modeling of the temporal dynamics of subjective well-being: a 10 year longitudinal analysis. J Res Pers. 2015;59(3):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Evans DR. Enhancing quality of life in the population at large. Soc Indic Res. 1994a;33:47–88.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cummins RA. The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. Soc Indic Res. 1996;38:303–32.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Felce D, Perry J. Quality of life: the scope of the term and its breadth of measurement. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes; 1997. p. 56–71.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Perry J, Felce D, Lowe K. Subjective and objective quality of life assessment: their interrelationship and determinants. Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities. Wales, UK: : University of Wales College of Medicine.; 2000.

  34. 34.

    Schalock RL, Keith KD. Quality of life questionnaire. Worthington, OH: IDS Publishing; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cummins RA. Cultural Response Bias. In: Keith KD, editor. Encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013b. p. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp604/pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Cummins RA. Personal income and subjective well-being: a review. J Happiness Stud. 2000b;1(2):133–58.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Emerson EB, Hatton C. Socioeconomic disadvantage, social participation and networks and the self-rated health of English men and women with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities: cross sectional survey. Eur J Pub Health. 2008;18(1):31–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR. Social support: the search for theory. J Soc Clin Psychol. 1990a;9(1):133–47.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chadsey J, Beyer S. Social relationships in the workplace. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2001;7:128–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Srivastava AK. Developing friendships and social integration through leisure for people with moderate, severe and profound ID transferred from hospital to community care. Tizard Learning Disability Review. 2001;6:19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Forrester-Jones R. Friendships and social integration through leisure. Tizard Learning Disability Review. 2001;6:28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Orben A, Dienlin T, Przybylski AK. Social media’s enduring effect on adolescent life satisfaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(21):10226–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Trope Y. Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In: Sorrentino RM, Higgins ET, editors. Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behavior. New York: Guilford; 1986. p. 350–78.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    McKnight PE, Kashdan TB. Purpose in life as a system that creates and sustains health and well-being: an integrative, testable theory. Rev Gen Psychol. 2009;13(3):242–51.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Clark AE, Diener E, Georgellis Y, Lucas RE. Lags and leads in life satisfaction: a test of the baseline hypothesis. Economic Journal. 2008a;118:F222–F43.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Schaffer RH. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. Psychological Monographs. 1953;67:14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. Cummins.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Robert Cummins declares no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Intellectual Disability

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cummins, R.A. Quality of Life of Adults with an Intellectual Disability. Curr Dev Disord Rep 7, 182–187 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-020-00205-x

Download citation


  • Quality of life measurement
  • Life domains
  • Subjective wellbeing
  • Homeostasis theory