Quality of life of adults with intellectual disabilities who live with families in Taiwan.
Adults with mild ID in Taiwan rate life highly, and simple questions about school, chores, and housing predict their scores.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked adults with mild intellectual disability who still live with family in Taiwan how they feel about life.
They used a survey that covers eight life areas like home, money, friends, and health.
Each person rated how important each area is and how well it is going for them.
What they found
Most adults said their quality of life is good.
The adults who had more daily-living skills, some school, and steady housing gave the highest scores.
Dad’s education level also mattered; higher dad education linked to higher life ratings.
How this fits with other research
Najdowski et al. (2003) asked the same questions earlier, but in group homes. Staff and resident answers matched only for lower-skill adults. The new Taiwan data show self-report works fine when adults live with family and have mild ID.
Lancioni et al. (2011) later asked caregivers in Bosnia the same questions. Caregivers there saw big gaps in money and support, while the Taiwan adults themselves felt pretty satisfied. The difference is who is talking: self versus proxy.
Y-Spanoudis et al. (2011) showed that families in Taiwan often make big health choices for women with ID. The current study adds that, despite little choice in some areas, adults still report positive life views when basic skills and schooling are in place.
Why it matters
You can trust adults with mild ID to tell you how life feels if they live at home and you give clear questions. Check daily-living skills, education history, and housing stability first; these three predict the answers you will hear. Use the same short survey to spot small changes after you add skill-building or parent training.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the eight-item QOL survey to your intake packet and note education level, IADL score, and housing type before you write goals.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Little research has been conducted about the quality of life (QOL) of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) in Taiwan, particularly their subjective QOL. This study examined the personal perceptions of these individuals as measured on internationally recognized core QOL domains and indicators. METHODS: A census interview survey was conducted in Hsin-Chu City in Taiwan; 233 adults aged over 16 years with mild ID and living with their families participated in the study. Data were collected using the Cross-Cultural QOL Indicators (CCQOLI) together with socio-demographic data that included 'activities of daily living' and 'instrumental activities of daily living' (IADL). The CCQOLI were based on the three most commonly reported indicators of each of the eight QOL domains: emotional well-being, interpersonal relations, material well-being, personal development, physical well-being, self-determination, social inclusion and rights. Each indicator has two sets of questions related to the indicator's 'importance' and 'use'. These are answered by the respondent using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The importance and use of the QOL indicators were evaluated positively by the respondents. The adults' individual characteristics, namely IADL and educational level, were significant predictors for the 'importance' while the adults' perceptions of 'use' for overall QOL were significantly affected by his/her socio-economic data, that is, residence location and father's educational level. CONCLUSIONS: The present study addressed the issue of self-reported QOL in people with ID in Taiwanese society, becoming a possible benchmark for similar measurements carried out by disability movements there. These results contribute to current advocacy efforts towards creating a supportive environment for people with ID.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2007 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.00958.x