Advertisement

Translating the Quality of Life Concept into Practice

  • Robert L. Schalock
  • Miguel A. Verdugo
  • Laura E. Gomez
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Child and Family Studies book series (SSCFS)

Abstract

This chapter discusses six factors that significantly influence the translation of the quality of life concept into practice. These factors are a validated quality of life conceptual model, quality enhancement strategies, application fidelity, research, evidence-based practices, and a systematic approach to translating evidence into practice. We also suggest that these are the same factors that significantly influence the translation of positive psychology into practice. Throughout the chapter, quality of life is defined as a multidimensional phenomenon composed of core domains that constitute personal well-being.

Keywords

Quality of life Quality of life conceptual model Quality enhancement strategies Evidence-based practices Knowledge transfer 

References

  1. Archibald, T. (2015). “They just know”: The epistemological politics of “evidence-based non-formal education. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 137–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigby, C., Knox, M., Beatle-Brown, J., & Bould, E. (2014). Identifying good group homes: Qualitative indicators using a quality of life framework. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 348–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesta, C. J. J. (2010). What “what works” still won’t work: From evidence-based education to values-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouffard, M., & Reid, G. (2012). The good, the bad, and the ugly of evidence-based practice. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 29, 1–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Broekaert, E., Autrique, M., Vanderplasschen, W., & Colpaert, K. (2010). ‘The human prerogative:’ A critical analysis of evidence-based and other paradigms of care in substance abuse treatment. Psychiatric Quarterly, 81, 227–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, I., Hatton, C., & Emerson, E. (2013). Quality of life indicators for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Extending current practice. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 316–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, J. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Research, 30, 3–13.Google Scholar
  9. Chiu, C., Kyzar, K., Zuna, N., Turnbull, A., Summers, J. A., & Gomez, V. A. (2013). Family quality of life. In M. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 365–392). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Claes, C., van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). The influence of support strategies, environmental factors, and client characteristics on quality of life-related outcomes. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 96–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Claes, C., van Loon, J., Vandevelde, S., & Schalock, R. L. (2015). An integrative approach to evidence-based practices. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 132–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 236–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummins, R. A. (2005). Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 699–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Daly, J., Willis, K., Small, R., Green, J., Welch, N., Keely, M., et al. (2007). A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. Journal of Epidemiology, 60, 43–49.Google Scholar
  15. Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. M. (2009). What counts as credible evidence, applied research, and evaluation practice?. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farmer, C. (2012). Demystifying moderators and mediators in intellectual and developmental disabilities research: A primer and review of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1148–1160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16, 51–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Frazier, P., Tix, A., & Barron, K. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner, J. F., & Carran, D. (2005). Attainment of personal outcomes by people with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 43, 157–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Given, I. (2006). Qualitative research in evidence-based practice. A valuable partnership. Library HI Tech, 24, 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gomez, L. E., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., & Navas, P. (2012). An outcomes-based assessment of quality of life in social services. Social Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/x11205-011-9794-9 Google Scholar
  22. Gomez, L. E., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., Tasse, M. J., & Brown, I. (2015). Operationalization of quality of life for adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59, 925–941.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gomez, L. E., & Verdugo, M. A. (2017). Outcomes evaluation. In R. L. Schalock & K. D. Keith (Eds.), Cross-cultural quality of life: Enhancing the lives of persons with intellectual disability (2nd ed.) (pp. 71–81).  Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
  24. Gomez, L. E., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., & Schalock, R. L. (in preparation). The role of moderator and mediator variables in an evaluation-focused program logic models.Google Scholar
  25. Gomez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., Arias, B., & Arias, V. (2011). A comparison of alternative models of individual quality of life for social service recipients. Social Indicators Research, 101, 109–126. doi: 10.1007/s/11205-010-9635-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grimshaw, J., Campbell, M., Eccles, M., & Steen, N. (2000). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for evaluating guideline implementation strategies. Family Practice, 17, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gugiu, P. C. (2015). Hierarchy of evidence and appraisal limitations (HEAL) grading system. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 149–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart, K. E., & Sasso, T. (2011). Mapping the contours of contemporary positive psychology. Canadian Psychology, 52, 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hogue, A., & Dauber, S. (2013). Assessing fidelity to evidence-based practices in usual care: The example of family therapy for adolescent behavior problems. Evaluation and Program Planning, 37, 21–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jenaro, C., Verdugo, M. A., Caballo, C., Balboni, G., Lachapelle, Y., & Otrebski, W. (2005). Cross-cultural study of person-centered quality of life domains and indicators. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 734–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  32. McKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Mansell, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2012). Active support: Enabling and empowering people with intellectual disabilities. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Means, S. N., Magura, S., Burchardt, J. T., & Scheroter, D. C. (2015). Comparing rating paradigms for evidence-based program registers in behavioral health: Evidentiary criteria and implications for assessing programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 100–116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Mihalic, S. F., & Elliott, D. S. (2015). Evidence-based program registry: Blueprint for healthy youth development. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 124–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Morin, D., Crocker, A. G., Beaulieu, B., Bergeron, R., & Caron, J. (2013). Validation of the attitudes toward intellectual disability-ATTID Questionnaire. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57, 268–278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Navas, P., Gomez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). Rights of persons with intellectual disabilities: Implications of the UN Convention. Siglo Cero, 43, 7–28.Google Scholar
  38. Neutens, J. J., & Rubinson, L. (2010). Research techniques for the health sciences. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  39. Norwood, S. L. (2010). Research essentials: Foundations of evidence-based practices. Boston: Pearson Electronic.Google Scholar
  40. Nussbaum, M. C. (2009). The capabilities of people with cognitive disabilities. Metaphilosophy, 40(3–4), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petry, K., Maes, B., & Vlaskamp, C. (2005). Domains of quality of life of people with profound multiple disabilities: The perspective of parents and direct support staff. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 18, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petry, K., Maes, B., & Vlaskamp, C. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire to measure the quality of life of people with profound multiple disabilities (QOL-PMD). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1326–1336.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinker, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information to the conceptual age. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  45. Pronovost, P., Berenholtz, S., & Needham, D. (2008). Translating evidence into practice: A model for large scale knowledge translation. British Medical Journal, 337, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reinders, H., & Schalock, R. L. (2014). How organizations can enhance the quality of life of their clients and assess their results: The concept of quality of life enhancement. American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Renwick, R., Brown, I., & Raphael, D. (2000). Person-centered quality of life: Contributions from Canada to an international understanding. In K. D. Keith & R. L. Schalock (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on quality of life (pp. 5–21). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
  48. Sackett, D. L., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill-Livingstone.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schalock, R. L., Gardner, J. F., & Bradley, V. J. (2007). Quality of life for person with intellectual and other developmental disabilities: Applications across individuals, organizations, communities, and systems. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
  50. Schalock, R. L., Gomez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., & Claes, C. (2015). A systematic approach to establishing evidence based practices in the field of intellectual disability. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  51. Schalock, R. L., Keith, K. D., Verdugo, M. A., & Gomez, L. E. (2010). 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 (pp. 17–32). New York: Springer Science and Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schalock, R. L., & Luckasson, R. (2014). Clinical judgment (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2008). Quality of life from concept to application in the field of intellectual disability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 181–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012). A leadership guide for today’s disabilities organizations: Overcoming challenges and making change happen. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  56. Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013a). The impact of the quality of life concept on the field of intellectual disability. In M. L. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 37–47). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013b). The transformation of disabilities organizations. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 273–286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2014). Quality of life as a change agent. In R. I. Brown & R. Faragher (Eds.), Challenges for quality of life: Application in education and other social contexts (pp. 60–72). New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  59. Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Gomez, L. E. (2011). Evidence-based practices in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: An international consensus approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 273–282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Gomez, L. E., & Reinders, H. (2016). Moving us toward a theory of individual quality of life. American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 12, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Jenaro, C., Wang, M., Wehmeyer, M., Xu, J., et al. (2005). Cross-cultural study of quality of life indicators. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 298–311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  63. Shogren, K. A., Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L. (2014). The definition of “context” and its application in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11, 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shogren, K. A., Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L. (2015). Using context as an integrative framework to align policy goals, supports, and outcomes in intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53, 367–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson, J. R., Schalock, R. L., Agosta, J., Teninty, L., & Fortune, J. (2014). How the supports paradigm is transforming service systems for persons with intellectual disability and related developmental disabilities. Inclusion, 2, 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Turnbull, H. R., & Stowe, M. J. (2014). Elaborating on the AAIDD public policy framework. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 1–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. United Nations (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from: www.un.org/disabilities/convention
  68. Verdugo, M. A., Navas, P. A., Gomez, L. E., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). The concept of quality of life and its role in enhancing human rights in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1036–1045.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Verdugo, M. A., Schalock, R. L., Keith, K. D., & Stancliffe, R. (2005). Quality of life and its measurement: Important principles and guidelines. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 707–717.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang, M., Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Jenaro, C. (2010). Examining the factor structure and hierarchical nature of the quality of life construct. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 115, 218–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Wehmeyer, M. L. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Zuna, N., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, A. P., Hu, X., & Xu, S. (2010). Theorizing about family quality of life. In R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: From theory to practice (pp. 241–278). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Schalock
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Verdugo
    • 2
  • Laura E. Gomez
    • 3
  1. 1.Hastings CollegeChewelahUSA
  2. 2.University of SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  3. 3.University of OviedoOviedoSpain

Personalised recommendations