Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: The Personal Wellbeing Index – Intellectual Disability

Cummins, Robert A.; Lau, Andy T. Y.; Davey, Gareth; McGillivray, Jane

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9650-0_3

Cited by 69 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be because they have higher wellbeing or it may be a direct result of lower scale sensitivity (for example, responding at 80 per cent of scale maximum because this is closer to the real score (72 per cent) than 60 per cent, therefore inflating their score by 8 per cent). This second explanation is less likely because the reduced scale has been validated (Cummins & Lau 2005). A third explanation could be the greater incidence in this group of families/carers answering on behalf of the person by proxy and possibly inflating scores.…”

Section: Easy English Questionnaires For People With Disabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The personal wellbeing index is a standard quantitative tool for measuring subjective wellbeing. The easy English version of the questionnaire included a validated modified version of the index for people with more profound cognitive or sensory disabilities, which included visual aids (Cummins & Lau 2005). The personal wellbeing index provides a set of basic outcomes that can be compared against the national disabled and non-disabled means.…”

Section: Section 1: About Your Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of Individual Funding Approaches for Disability Support

Fisher

Gleeson²,

Edwards³

et al. 2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Easy English Questionnaires For People With Disabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Section 1: About Your Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Individual Funding Approaches for Disability Support

Fisher

Gleeson²,

Edwards³

et al. 2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Four studies addressed quality of life using a number of rating scales. These included the 10-item Personal Wellbeing Index, 73 the only measure specifically designed for people with intellectual disabilities (S Trout, personal communication). Other measures employed were the Quality of Life Questionnaire, 74 used among both a medium secure (E Marks, personal communication) and female community sample, 64 and the Life Experience Checklist 67 in a community sample.…”

Section: Domain 3: Patient Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Researching outcomes from forensic services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities: a systematic review, evidence synthesis and expert and patient/carer consultation

Morrissey

Geach

Alexander³

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInpatient services for people with intellectual and other types of developmental disabilities (IDD) who also have forensic or risk issues are largely provided in secure hospitals. Although this is a health service sector with high levels of expenditure, there is limited empirical information on patient outcomes from such services. In order for a future substantive longitudinal outcomes study in forensic IDD services to be informed and feasible, more needs to be understood about the outcome domains that are of relevance and importance and how they should be measured. A preliminary series of studies was therefore undertaken.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence in relation to the outcome domains that have been researched in the existing literature from hospital and community forensic services for people with IDD, within the broad domains of service effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience. To identify a definitive framework of outcome domains (and associated measures and indicators) based both on this research evidence and on the views of patients, carers and clinicians. To synthesise the information gathered in order to inform design of future multisite longitudinal research in the sector.DesignThree linked studies were conducted. Stage 1 was a systematic review and evidence synthesis of outcome domains and measures as found within the forensic IDD literature. Stage 2 was a consultation exercise with 15 patients with IDD and six carers. Stage 3 was a modified Delphi consensus exercise with 15 clinicians and experts using the information gathered at stages 1 and 2.ResultsAt stage 1, 60 studies that researched a range of outcomes in forensic IDD services were identified from the literature. This resulted in the construction of an initial framework of outcome domains. The consultation with patients and carers at stage 2 added to these framework domains that related particularly to carer experience and the level of support post discharge in the community. The Delphi process at stage 3 confirmed the validity of the resulting framework for clinician. This survey also identified the outcome measures preferred by clinicians and those that are currently utilised in services. Thus, indicators of appropriate measures in some important domains were identified, although there was a paucity of measures in other domains.ConclusionsTogether, these three linked studies led to the development of an evidence-based framework of key outcome domains and subdomains. A provisional list of associated measures and indicators was developed, although with the paucity of measures in some domains development of specific indicators may be required. With further refinement this could eventually be utilised by services and commissioners for comparative purposes, and in future empirical research on outcomes in forensic IDD services. An outline research proposal closely linked to recent policy initiatives was proposed. Limitations of the study include the relatively small number of carers and patients and range of experts consulted.Future workThis would comprise a national longitudinal study tracking IDD in patients through hospitalisation and discharge.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016941.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

“…We included the SWLS (Diener et al 1985 ) , the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999 ) , Satisfaction with Domains of Life (SWDL; participants rated their satisfaction with 12 domains of life selected from Cummins 2006 ;Diener et al 1985 ;and Huebner et al 1999 ) , and the Psychological Well-Being Scales (SPWB; Ryff and Keyes 1995 ) to validate the items measuring eudaemonic well-being; the PANAS (Watson et al 1988 ) to validate the items associated with hedonic well-being; and the SWDL item that assesses satisfaction with one's own country, as well as total scores from the SWLS and SHS to validate the items related to global social well-being (see Fig. 3.1 ) .…”

Section: The Pemberton Happiness Index: Measuring Remembered and Expementioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Current Challenges in Cross-Cultural Measurement of Well-Being: The Pemberton Happiness Index

Vázquez

Hervás

2012

Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: The Personal Wellbeing Index – Intellectual Disability

Cited by 69 publications

References 33 publications

Effectiveness of Individual Funding Approaches for Disability Support

Effectiveness of Individual Funding Approaches for Disability Support

Researching outcomes from forensic services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities: a systematic review, evidence synthesis and expert and patient/carer consultation

Addressing Current Challenges in Cross-Cultural Measurement of Well-Being: The Pemberton Happiness Index

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About