Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Family Quality of Life Survey (FQOLS-2006) was developed as the result of increased interest in family quality of life (FQOL) among families with a member who has an intellectual disability (ID). The instrument includes nine life domains and six dimensions reflecting the main areas and characteristics of FQOL. The aim of the current study was to provide a descriptive analysis of the domains and dimensions of the survey and to explore their relationship to one another and to global satisfaction. Method A convenience sample of 35 participants with a family member who had ID completed the FQOLS-2006 in a large urban centre in Canada. The data were analysed using descriptive analyses. Results The findings showed that although participants differentiated between different domains and dimensions, as reflected in their variability, stability was also found. For example, support from others was rated lowest across most dimensions, while family relationships and health of the family were generally rated higher. Conclusions The findings strengthen the importance of examining both the overall perception of FQOL as well as the perceptions in individual life domains. Moreover, they highlight the need to examine each life domain according to its various dimensions. In sum, the results call for further examination of the FQOLS-2006 as a useful tool for assessing FQOL and for implementing services based on it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: To date, little attention has been given to the concept of quality of life around human resources employment programmes for staff working with persons with a dual diagnosis. METHOD: This article describes the implementation of quality of life principles to service provision for people with dual diagnosis and its application to staff training. RESULTS: This type of experiential training facilitated change in staff's attitude to, and treatment of, the people served. CONCLUSION: Human resources development programmes should be based on the same core quality of life principles and domains that guide service delivery on the individual level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]