Jenny Downs1,2, Peter Jacoby3, Helen Leonard3, Amy Epstein3, Nada Murphy3, Elise Davis4, Dinah Reddihough5,6,7, Andrew Whitehouse3, Katrina Williams5,6,7. 1. Telethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, P.O. Box 855, Perth, WA, 6872, Australia. jenny.downs@telethonkids.org.au. 2. School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. jenny.downs@telethonkids.org.au. 3. Telethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, P.O. Box 855, Perth, WA, 6872, Australia. 4. The Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Neurodevelopment and Disability, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children with intellectual disability encounter daily challenges beyond those captured in current quality of life measures. This study evaluated a new parent-report measure for children with intellectual disability, the Quality of Life Inventory-Disability (QI-Disability). METHODS: QI-Disability was administered to 253 primary caregivers of children (aged 5-18 years) with intellectual disability across four diagnostic groups: Rett syndrome, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or autism spectrum disorder. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted and goodness of fit of the factor structure assessed. Associations between QI-Disability scores, and diagnostic and age groups were examined with linear regression. RESULTS: Six domains were identified: physical health, positive emotions, negative emotions, social interaction, leisure and the outdoors, and independence. Goodness-of-fit statistics were satisfactory and similar for the whole sample and when the sample was split by ability to walk or talk. On 100 point scales and compared to Rett syndrome, children with Down syndrome had higher leisure and the outdoors (coefficient 10.6, 95% CI 3.4,17.8) and independence (coefficient 29.7, 95% CI 22.9, 36.5) scores, whereas children with autism spectrum disorder had lower social interaction scores (coefficient - 12.8, 95% CI - 19.3, - 6.4). Scores for positive emotions (coefficient - 6.1, 95% CI - 10.7, - 1.6) and leisure and the outdoors (coefficient 5.4, 95% CI - 10.6, - 0.1) were lower for adolescents compared with children. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation suggests that QI-Disability is a reliable and valid measure of quality of life across the spectrum of intellectual disability. It has the potential to allow clearer identification of support needs and measure responsiveness to interventions.
PURPOSE:Children with intellectual disability encounter daily challenges beyond those captured in current quality of life measures. This study evaluated a new parent-report measure for children with intellectual disability, the Quality of Life Inventory-Disability (QI-Disability). METHODS: QI-Disability was administered to 253 primary caregivers of children (aged 5-18 years) with intellectual disability across four diagnostic groups: Rett syndrome, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or autism spectrum disorder. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted and goodness of fit of the factor structure assessed. Associations between QI-Disability scores, and diagnostic and age groups were examined with linear regression. RESULTS: Six domains were identified: physical health, positive emotions, negative emotions, social interaction, leisure and the outdoors, and independence. Goodness-of-fit statistics were satisfactory and similar for the whole sample and when the sample was split by ability to walk or talk. On 100 point scales and compared to Rett syndrome, children with Down syndrome had higher leisure and the outdoors (coefficient 10.6, 95% CI 3.4,17.8) and independence (coefficient 29.7, 95% CI 22.9, 36.5) scores, whereas children with autism spectrum disorder had lower social interaction scores (coefficient - 12.8, 95% CI - 19.3, - 6.4). Scores for positive emotions (coefficient - 6.1, 95% CI - 10.7, - 1.6) and leisure and the outdoors (coefficient 5.4, 95% CI - 10.6, - 0.1) were lower for adolescents compared with children. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation suggests that QI-Disability is a reliable and valid measure of quality of life across the spectrum of intellectual disability. It has the potential to allow clearer identification of support needs and measure responsiveness to interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescence; Child; Intellectual disability; Measurement; Quality of life; Test validation
Authors: Rolanda M Baars; Clare I Atherton; Hendrik M Koopman; Monika Bullinger; Mick Power Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2005-11-13 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Peter Jacoby; Andrew Whitehouse; Helen Leonard; Jacinta Saldaris; Scott Demarest; Tim Benke; Jenny Downs Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Jenny Downs; Peter Jacoby; Jacinta Saldaris; Helen Leonard; Tim Benke; Eric Marsh; Scott Demarest Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 5.296
Authors: Daniel Ta; Jenny Downs; Gareth Baynam; Andrew Wilson; Peter Richmond; Helen Leonard Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Barbara Gugała; Beata Penar-Zadarko; Danuta Pięciak-Kotlarz; Katarzyna Wardak; Aneta Lewicka-Chomont; Magdalena Futyma-Ziaja; Józef Opara Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 3.390