| Literature DB >> 30487858 |
María Carbó-Carreté1, Joan Guàrdia-Olmos2, Climent Giné1, Robert L Schalock3.
Abstract
Background/Objective: Literature shows that practicing physical activity improves the general health and quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities. However, there is little empirical research on the specific benefits physical activity provides and to what extent these benefits occur. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of perceptions of physical activity and the individualized support on each of eight quality of life-related domains and three higher-order quality of life factors. Method: The sample consisted of adults with intellectual disability (n = 529), their assigned professionals (n = 522), and a family member (n = 462). Most participants attended day and residential services, and we applied the Personal Outcomes Scale and the Support Needs and Strategies for Physical Activity Scale to all of them.Entities:
Keywords: Instrumental study; Intellectual Disability; Physical Activity; Quality of Life; Structural Equation Models
Year: 2015 PMID: 30487858 PMCID: PMC6225033 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.11.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Clin Health Psychol ISSN: 1697-2600
Descriptive data of people with ID, professionals and family.
| Andalusia | Aragon | Catalonia | Castile and Leon | Castile-La Mancha | Madrid | Galicia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | |||||||
| Male | 58.6 | 61.9 | 53.8 | 62.9 | 52.6 | 56.5 | 53.3 |
| Female | 41.4 | 38.1 | 46.2 | 37.1 | 47.4 | 43.5 | 46.7 |
| | |||||||
| Rural | 21.1 | 14.3 | 4.5 | 37.1 | 19.2 | 3.3 | 16.7 |
| Semi-urban | 34.9 | 85.7 | 34.1 | 62.9 | 46.2 | 17.4 | 41.7 |
| Urban | 44.0 | - | 61.4 | 34.6 | 79.3 | 41.7 | |
| | |||||||
| Borderline | 10.8 | 14.3 | 5.3 | 2.9 | 19.2 | 4.3 | 1.7 |
| Mild | 31.5 | 23.8 | 36.4 | 62.9 | 33.3 | 30.4 | 20 |
| Moderate | 50.5 | 57.1 | 46.2 | 31.4 | 44.9 | 52.2 | 45 |
| Severe and/or profound | 7.2 | 4.8 | 12.1 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 13 | 33.3 |
| | |||||||
| Special work center | 1.8 | 9.5 | 22.7 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 12 | 1.7 |
| Occupational therapy services | 76.1 | 81 | 73.5 | 85.7 | 88.5 | 59.8 | 45 |
| Day center | 8.3 | 9.5 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 3.8 | 17.4 | 43.3 |
| Educational center | 5.5 | - | - | 5.7 | - | 5.4 | 5 |
| Others | 8.3 | - | - | 5.4 | 1.7 | ||
| | |||||||
| Residence | 8.7 | 9.5 | 5.3 | 17.6 | 6.6 | 8.7 | 3.4 |
| Supervised flat | - | - | 22 | 23.5 | 10.5 | - | 6.8 |
| Family home | 86.5 | 81 | 68.9 | 58.8 | 81.6 | 88 | 89.8 |
| Independent home | 4.8 | 9.5 | 3.8 | - | 1.3 | 3.3 | - |
| | |||||||
| Direct care (day) | 75 | 47.6 | 79.5 | - | 66.2 | 49.5 | 76.7 |
| Direct care (night) | - | - | 2.3 | - | - | - | - |
| Direct care (physical activity) | 6.7 | - | - | - | 13 | 29.7 | 5 |
| Technical staff of service | 13.5 | 42.9 | 17.4 | 100 | 20.8 | 6.6 | 11.7 |
| Others | 4.8 | 9.5 | - | - | - | 8.8 | 3.3 |
| | |||||||
| Secondary education | 22.1 | 9.5 | 9.1 | - | 17.9 | 6.6 | 16.7 |
| University degree | 58.7 | 42.9 | 64.4 | 94.3 | 51.3 | 42.9 | 41.7 |
| Higher university degree | 1.9 | - | 11.4 | 5.7 | 14.1 | 5.5 | 21.7 |
| Others | 17.3 | 47.6 | 15.2 | - | 16.7 | 45.1 | 20 |
| | |||||||
| Parent | 72.4 | 42.9 | 66.4 | 54.5 | 81.2 | 83.1 | 74.6 |
| Sibling | 21.8 | 52.4 | 21.8 | 36.4 | 15.9 | 12 | 22 |
| Other family member | 4.6 | 4.8 | 2.7 | - | 1.4 | 4.8 | 3.4 |
| Legal tutor | 1.1 | - | 9.1 | 9.1 | 1.4 | - | - |
| | |||||||
| No studies | 19.8 | 4.8 | 6.4 | - | 20 | 12.2 | 6.8 |
| Primary education | 41.9 | 23.8 | 42.2 | 60 | 47.1 | 20.7 | 52.5 |
| Secondary education | 18.6 | 38.1 | 26.6 | 30 | 15.7 | 24.4 | 18.6 |
| University studies | 16.3 | 14.3 | 18.3 | 10 | 11.4 | 32.9 | 15.3 |
| Others | 3.5 | 19 | 6.4 | - | 5.7 | 9.8 | 6.8 |
| | |||||||
| Rural | 19.5 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 23.3 | 21.4 | 3.6 | 16.9 |
| Semi-urban | 43.7 | 85.7 | 36.4 | 3.3 | 42.9 | 15.7 | 45.8 |
| Urban | 36.8 | - | 49.1 | 73.3 | 35.7 | 80.7 | 37.3 |
Figure 1Standarized estimation for each structural parameter of SEM for QoL.
Fit Index of Structural Equation Model of Figure 1.
| Index | Value |
|---|---|
| 5488.72 | |
| p | < .001 |
| Df | 1962 |
| Ratio | 2.797 |
| GFI | .978 |
| AGFI | .981 |
| BBNFI | .970 |
| BBNNFI | .973 |
| CFI | .954 |
| TLI | .943 |
| SRMSR | .021 (.01 - .03) |
| AIC | -5711.12 |
| BIC | -5989.19 |
Note. GFI= Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI= Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, BBNFI= Bentler Bonnet Normed Fit Index, BBNNFI= Bentler Bonnet Non Normed Fit Index, CFI= Comparative Fit Index, TLI= Tucker Lewis Index, SRMSR= Standardized Root Mean Standard Residual, AIC= Akaike Information Criteria, BIC= Bayesian Information Criteria.