Operationalizing quality of life for people with profound multiple disabilities: a Delphi study.
Experts agreed on 91–85 % of QOL items, giving you a ready-made checklist for clients with profound multiple disabilities.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Petry et al. (2007) ran a Delphi study. They asked experts what counts as quality of life for people with profound multiple disabilities.
The panel rated each possible item three times. Items kept only if most experts said "highly relevant."
What they found
Most items earned 91–85 % expert approval. The final pool is ready to use with the most disabled clients.
High agreement shows the items make sense to clinicians, families, and researchers.
How this fits with other research
Cameranesi et al. (2022) extends this work. They used similar QOL domains and saw big gains after adults moved from large wards to small community homes.
Vos et al. (2010) sounds negative at first. They found lower subjective well-being in the same group. The difference is method: they asked how people felt right now, while K et al. asked experts what areas matter most.
Brown et al. (2013) acts as a successor. They argue Delphi lists can miss personal priorities. They push the Capabilities Framework instead, where each client picks his or her own goals.
Why it matters
You now have an expert-checked list that covers communication, comfort, social contact, and more. Use it to build your next program evaluation or annual plan. If a supervisor wants numbers, show the 91 % relevance score. If a parent wants individual voice, pair the list with client-choice methods from Ivan et al. Either way, you start with items already judged valid for the most complex cases.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one domain from the Delphi list, add a probe to your data sheet, and track it for a week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: In a recent study, we constructed an item pool that contains items on the quality of life (QOL) and related aspects of support of people with profound multiple disabilities (PMD). In the present study, a panel of experts assessed the content and the structure of this item pool in order to enhance its validity and usefulness. METHOD: A two-round Delphi study was set up. The panel consisted of 45 experts, of whom 12 were theory-experts, 12 practice-experts and 12 experience-experts from Belgium (n = 12), Germany (n = 12), the Netherlands (n = 11) and the UK/Ireland (n = 10). Both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis were applied to the data. RESULTS: The majority of the items were considered relevant for the QOL of people with PMD. In the first round, 91% of the items reached the 80% criterion of consensus. In the second round, 78.7% of the items reached the 85% criterion of consensus. There were no significant differences in opinion neither between types of experts nor between countries. Several items were reported as missing in the item pool and were added. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide some evidence that the item pool is a valid operationalization of QOL of people with PMD and can be used in an instrument to measure the QOL of this target group.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2007 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00882.x