Testing the factor structure of the Family Quality of Life Survey - 2006.
Keep the FQOLS-2006 short—skip Importance and Stability, trust the remaining four domains for a solid family quality snapshot.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the FQOLS-2006. They wanted to see if all six planned domains really hang together.
Data came from families across several countries. The goal was a shorter, cleaner tool for practitioners.
What they found
The Importance and Stability sub-scales did not load well. Dropping them left a four-factor model that fit the data nicely.
Opportunities, Initiative, Attainment, and Satisfaction stayed in. The overall Family Quality of Life score now tracks these four areas.
How this fits with other research
Nevin et al. (2005) kept all five original Beach Center domains in their Spanish version. The 2012 study supersedes that work by showing two of those domains are weak.
Cançado et al. (2011) warned the field needed tighter measurement. Leaf et al. (2012) answered by trimming fat from the FQOLS-2006.
Grindle et al. (2012) used the same 2012 survey but added extra items for practical vs. emotional support. Their tweak and the current trim complement each other—one shortens the core, the other deepens content.
Why it matters
You can now give the FQOLS-2006 without the Importance and Stability pages. You will save families about five minutes and still get reliable data for treatment planning or program evaluation. Use the four retained domains to guide goals and track progress in your quarterly reviews.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Reprint the survey without the two dropped sections and update your scoring sheet to average the four retained domain scores.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Family Quality of Life Survey - 2006 (FQOLS-2006) is being used in research, there is little evidence to support its hypothesised domain structure. The purpose of this study was to test the domain structure of the survey using confirmatory factor analysis. METHOD: Samples from Australia, Canada, Nigeria and the USA were analysed using structural equation modelling. The data from Australia, Canada and the USA were combined on the assumption that these countries are similar, at least to some degree, in economic development, language and culture. The Nigerian data were analysed on its own. The analysis was undertaken in two phases. First, the hypothesis that each of nine domains of the FQOLS-2006 is a unidimensional construct that can reliably measure the dimensions Importance, Stability, Opportunities, Attainment, Stability and Satisfaction was tested. Second, the hypothesis that family quality of life (FQoL) is a single latent construct represented by the nine domains measured in the FQOLS-2006 was tested. RESULTS: In the first phase of the analysis, the Importance dimension was dropped because of skewness and lack of variance. The Stability dimension did not fit well within the individual domain model in both the Nigerian and the combined three countries' data. When Importance and Stability were excluded, the individual domain models showede good or acceptable fit when error variances of some dimensions were allowed to correlate. In the second phase of the analysis, the overall model, FQoL, represented by the nine domains of the FQOLS-2006 showed good fit in both data sets. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model of the FQOLS-2006 was supported with some qualifications. Each domain on the survey can be reliably measured by four dimensions Opportunities, Initiative, Attainment and Satisfaction. The dimensions of Importance and Stability, however, did not fit. Data reported on these dimensions from past and current studies should be interpreted with caution. The construct of FQoL is also reliably measured by the domains of the FQOLS-2006. Further research into the psychometric properties of the survey, particularly from a cross-cultural perspective, is needed.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2012 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01392.x