Staff:staff and staff:client reliability of the Schalock & Keith (1993) Quality of Life Questionnaire.

The team checked how well staff agree when they fill out the Schalock & Keith Quality of Life Questionnaire. They also compared staff answers with what clients said about their own lives.

Staff mostly agreed with each other, but they did not agree with clients. Workers kept rating client autonomy higher than clients rated themselves.

Stevens et al. (2018) and Murphy et al. (2014) also tested new rating scales for autism. Like M et al., they found some parts work and some need fixing.

Tse et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2022) showed strong reliability in their fresh tools. Their positive results do not clash with M et al.; they simply show that newer scales can hit higher agreement when built with today’s methods.

Across these papers, one pattern repeats: proxy reporters—staff or parents—often see clients differently than clients see themselves.

If you use the QOL-Q, gather self-report whenever the client can respond, even briefly. Treat staff ratings as a backup, not the full picture. Pair the scale with an interview or visual aid to catch the client’s true view of their own autonomy.