Assessment & Research

Life satisfaction of people with intellectual disability living in community residences: perceptions of the residents, their parents and staff members.

Schwartz et al. (2003) · Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR 2003
★ The Verdict

Parents give more accurate life-satisfaction proxy reports than staff for adults with ID living in group homes.

✓ Read this if BCBAs doing assessments or program reviews in residential settings.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only serve clients living with family.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Researchers asked three groups to rate life satisfaction for adults with intellectual disability living in group homes. They compared answers from the residents, their parents, and paid staff.

The study took place in Hungary. All adults lived in community residences, not with family.

02

What they found

Staff and resident scores matched fairly well. But for higher-functioning residents, staff gave lower scores than the residents gave themselves.

Parent and resident scores looked the same. Parents did not over- or under-rate happiness compared with their adult child.

03

How this fits with other research

Chou et al. (2007) later asked mild-ID adults living with family in Taiwan to rate their own quality of life. They also found positive self-ratings, showing adults with ID can give valid reports when asked directly.

Libero et al. (2016) went further. They showed adults with ID assign more value to research participation than parents or staff expect. Together these studies support asking clients directly whenever possible.

Gerber et al. (2011) reviewed physical conditions linked to challenging behavior in the same population. Their work reminds us to rule out pain or sleep problems before assuming low satisfaction is purely social.

04

Why it matters

If you cannot interview an adult with ID, ask their parent instead of staff. Parent ratings line up with the adult’s own view, while staff may underrate happiness for higher-functioning clients. Use this proxy when guardianship or communication limits self-report, but keep teaching staff that capable clients can speak for themselves.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add a parent QoL questionnaire to your intake packet for new residential clients.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
93
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: Within the literature on quality of life (QoL), life satisfaction (LS) has emerged as a key variable by which to measure perceived well-being, which is referred to as subjective QoL. The LS self-reports of 93 residents with intellectual disability (ID) living in community-based residences were compared with reports about their LS completed by their staff and parents. METHOD: The residents were interviewed on their LS by social workers who did not belong to the staff of the interviewee's residence. The instrument used was the Life Satisfaction Scale (LSS). Staff and parents completed the short version of the LSS. RESULTS: Residents and staff's LS reports were positively correlated. However, significant differences were found between these two groups of informants when the residents were characterized as high functioning, had a low score in challenging behaviour, worked in an integrative employment setting and lived in an apartment. As opposed to staff/resident discrepancies, no differences were found between parents' and residents' LS reports. CONCLUSIONS: If residents cannot to be interviewed about their LS, then the parent is the preferred person to respond on behalf of the resident. The current study highlights the importance of including both objective measures (e.g. functional assessment characteristics) and subjective measures (e.g. LS) in order to get a better understanding of the QoL of people with ID.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2003 · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00436.x