Relationship between Self-Report and Proxy Ratings on Assessed Personal Quality of Life-Related Outcomes
Article first published online: 10 SEP 2012
© 2012 International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities
Volume 9, Issue 3, pages 159–165, September 2012
How to Cite
Claes, C., Vandevelde, S., Van Hove, G., van Loon, J., Verschelden, G. and Schalock, R. (2012), Relationship between Self-Report and Proxy Ratings on Assessed Personal Quality of Life-Related Outcomes. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9: 159–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00353.x
- Issue published online: 10 SEP 2012
- Article first published online: 10 SEP 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 5 JUN 2012
- Manuscript Received: 12 MAY 2011
- intellectual disability;
- quality of life;
- self-respondent and proxy ratings
Quality of life scores obtained from self-reports might not be the same as those obtained from a family member or direct support staff. The purpose of the two studies reported in this article was to evaluate further the impact on quality of life scores of self-report vs. proxy ratings. The Personal Outcomes Scale was administered to persons with an intellectual disability. The self-report version, as well as the direct observation version, was administered. In the use of the direct observation form, direct support staff and family members acted as respondents. Study 1, which evaluated the consistency between self-report and direct observation data using support staff as proxy respondents, found significant mean differences between the two respondent groups in three quality of life domains and an acceptable level of internal consistency for both self-report and direct observation strategies. Study 2, which evaluated the difference between self-report (by the client) and proxy ratings (of the same individual) using direct observation interviews with family and support staff as respondents, found some differences between client and staff ratings but no significant differences between client and family ratings. Correlations between respondent group scores fell within the “good category.” The authors noted the need for methodological pluralism in quality of life assessment, the importance of self-report by persons with intellectual disability, and the need to develop better and more reliably user-friendly strategies to evaluate quality of life outcomes for those individuals who either do not or cannot respond for themselves.