Relationship between Resilience and Quality of life of male and female working adults aged 25-

50 years

Group 2

Supervisor: Dr.Gopal Chandra Mahakud

Research Methods and Statistics

Department of Psychology

University of Delhi.

DEEPAK KUMAR
ROLL NO- 20/153

Abstract-

The aim of this paper is to find the relationship between quality of life and resilience in male and

female samples. The results of any relationship between the male and female data are also

depicted in the study. This paper follows the analysis of scientific and methodological literature.
It was agreed to do a quantitative analysis for the research. The processing and analysis of data in

numeric form involves this design. So, for data collection, uniform scales have been chosen for the

two variables. Afterwards, the collected data will be pooled and statistical techniques that are t-test

and correlation is used for analysis

Resilience and Quality of life

The process of being able to adapt well and bounce back rapidly in times of stress is resilience.

This stress can manifest itself as issues with family or relationships, serious health problems, job

problems or even financial problems, to name a few. For the most part, humans have lived in

simple hunter-gatherer cultures. Agrarian cultures arose less than 5.000 years ago, and a ‘modern'

industrial civilization has only existed for the last 200 years. This industrial society is increasingly

developing into a digital knowledge society today. Concerns about current social issues also fuel

the illusion that life is getting worse. Deviant conduct, such as crime, substance use, and school
rejection, is one form of issue. Social conflicts, such as labour disputes, racial tensions, and

political terrorism, are another set of concerns that are seen as lowering the standard of life. The

deterioration of the church, the family, and the local society, as well as increasing divorce rates,

are seen as impoverishing the quality of life of modern people. A recent statement of this view can

be found in: ‘The progress paradox: How life gets better while people feel worse’ by Easterbrook (2003).

Quality of Life

It is defined as a term that encompasses the spiritual (emotional), social and physical well-being of

a person in economics, sociology and political science. In the middle of the 20th century, this idea

emerged in Western Europe when attempts were made to define the similarity of the traditional

material interests of society and newly developed needs compared to the potential of society.

Attempts to answer the quality of life question are included in Ancient stories, philosophy and

religions. Ancient Greek philosophers were searching for meaning and rules for life that might

have led to a higher degree of existence. In Plato and Aristotle's works, the idea of "good life" is

analyzed, but their ideas are different. Logically focused contemplation, which surpassed human

emotions, was the highest benefit for Plato. The view of Aristotle was different he declared that

life without feelings even if it involved risk was useless. Modern conceptions of health are based

on the opinions of these two great Philosophers: "Health is not absence of disease, but absolute

physical, psychological and social well-being" (Plato remembers this) and other modern theories

suggest that risk, stress are natural components of life.

The definition of' quality of life' was first used by A. C. Pigou in 1920, in his book on economic

well-being. There was no answer to this, and by the end of World War II it was ignored. The

World Health Organization (WHO) enlarged the meaning of health at that time and covered the

physical, psychological and social well-being definitions.

Quality of life (QOL) is described by the WHO as an individual purpose-aligned cultural and

value system by which an individual lives in relation to their aspirations, hopes, standards of living

and interests. This is a detailed term that integrates the physical and psychological wellbeing of

individuals, their degree of freedom, their social liaisons, and how they relate to their
environment. Greek philosophers were searching for the meaning of life that might help people to

pursue a higher existential level of their lives. In the past century, quality of life was defined as

material welfare or wealth. Later, perception changes in the meaning of life and values have

influenced the quality of life conception, and all factors have changed (Ferrer, 2002).Quality of

life evaluation must encompass all components.

A significant component of the quality of life is the quality of working life. Scientific literature has

analyzed this component of the quality of life. The quality of working life includes areas such as

the health and well-being of workers, job security, career preparation, skills development, life and

work balance, and others. The results of the assessment of the quality of work life factors could be

the possibility for social programmers establishment implementation and development in

organisations at national or international level.The aim of the paper is to study the relationship

between resilience and quality of life of male and female working adult assess improvements in

the quality of work life of employees after corrective steps in the research organization.

Factor Influencing Quality Of Life

It must also be noted that quality of life depends not only on the person’s age and state of health,

but also on the person’s emotional condition, and cognitive, as well as social functioning (Arnold,

1991; quoted from Brown et al., 2004). Life quality also depends on external conditions. Good

living conditions or conditions will decide a high quality of life, but if these situations differ, the

satisfaction of the person with his or her quality of life will also vary.Many different factors and

circumstances affect the quality of life, such as: accommodation, work, income, material well-

being, moral attitudes, personal and family life, social support, stress and emergencies, health-

related quality of life, health care facilities, working conditions, nutrition, educational

opportunities, environmental relationships, eco-factors, and others.

The domains of quality of life are (Ruževičius, 2012):

1. Physical state (health, working load, stamina, nourishment). 2. Material state (welfare, living

conditions, economics quality; average income, purchasing power, work and recreation

conditions, etc.).3. Psychological state (emotions, attitudes, values, self-esteem, job satisfaction,
stress; moral psychological climate within the family, an organisation, the community, the nation).

4. Education and self-development (learning, education quality, skills and application of

knowledge).5 Social relation (relationship with people, family, society, support).6. Self-expression

possibilities and leisure (recreation, hobby, creation, entertainment).7. Safety and environment

(physical personal security – body, legal, social; work environment, economic, political, juridical

environment).

Factor Affecting Quality Of Life

The biggest issue is that no universal determination of the quality of life exists. The physical and

mental health of a person, the degree of freedom, the social interaction with the environment and

other variables affect the quality of life. The quality of life can be described as the satisfaction of a

person with the dimensions of his or her life compared to his or her ideal life.

Usually, the view that life is getting worse is fuelled by worry about contemporary social issues.

Deviant behaviour, such as violence, drug use and school denial, is one form of problem. Social

tensions, such as labor disputes, ethnic problems and political terrorism, are another category of

problems that are seen to decrease the quality of life.This notion of degradation is also part of the

notion of civilization drifting away from human nature because, while human nature has not,

society has changed a lot. Society is not a piece of equipment in this view, but rather an

uncontrollable force that presses people into a way of life that really does not fit them.

Resilience

Resilience refers to the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats,

or even significant sources of stress (American Psychological Association, 2014). Resilience is an

active attempt to heal, cope with change, overcome and resume life after a traumatic situation.

Resilient individuals should use personal and social resources to manage the negative effects of

stress. Five aspects of resilience have been discussed in recent studies. Family coherence , Social-

environment coherence , Coherence with the physical surroundings , Consistency and a sense

of inner wisdom, and A positive mindset which supports the values of the individual.
These dimensions allow individuals in threatening and demanding circumstances to establish

suitable coping skills. Resilient people are able to monitor, empathy, optimistic self-concept,

organization, and motivation internally. Personal attributes are representative of the resilience

process and may contribute to a healthy result in a stressful circumstance.

Resilient individuals have certain characteristics, according to Conner and Davidson (2003). Such

features can include: Commitment , strong bonding to others , Personal or collective targets ,

Strengthening stress effect , Realistic sense of control/choice making , Action-oriented technique

, Through patience , Adaptability to Modify , Optimism.

Factor and Causes responsible for resilience

There are several ways that resilience can be improved. Any of those include having a strong

system of support, maintaining healthy relationships, having a good picture of oneself and having

a positive attitude.Some people come naturally from these talents, with personality characteristics

that make them stay unflappable in the face of challenge. These behaviors, however, are not all

inborn characteristics found in a very few people. Resilience 5 is very common, according to

many experts, and people are quite capable of learning the skills it takes to become more resilient.

Another important variable contributing to resilience is social support. In times of difficulty,

mentally strong individuals appear to have the aid of family and friends who help reinforce them.

Other resilience-associated factors include:Keeping positive thoughts about themselves and their

skills , Possessing the capacity to make and stick to realistic plans , Giving an internal locus of

control , Being a decent communicator , Seeing themselves rather than victims as warriors ,

Getting high emotional intelligence and efficiently controlling emotions.

Review of Literature-

Majorly studies on resilience and quality of life have been done with siding comorbidity (Demetris

Hadjicharalambous,DespoinaAthanasiadi-Charchanti,Loucia Demetriou,2020,Patricia Macía

,Mercedes Barranco,SusanaGorbeña,Ioseba Iraurgi,2020,KWOK Sin Tung, WONG Wai Ning,

Kris, LEE Tse Yan Alexander 2014,Asha vijayan1, Harshitha1, Niizh Savio1, G Radhakrishnan

2,2017,Abida Nawaz, Jamil A. Malik and Azra Batool 2012,Dweep Chand Singh 2014.)

According to the World Health Organization (2002, 2015), quality of life (QoL) can be defined as

a subjective perception of the self-positioning in life that combines a person's psychological and

PHY—cultural position, value system, expectations, aims and states, independence, and personal

beliefs—with the capacity to create relationships. From another viewpoint, the perspective

assumed in the theoretical framework of health-related QoL is based on a complex set of

relationships that involves biopsychosocial factors related to well-being (Bowling, 2001; Ekwall et

al., 2005; Gerino et al., 2015).

Although many older people maintain a satisfactory condition of life, risks related to loneliness

and psychological distress grow with age (Fry and Debats, 2002). As stated by Fry and Debats

(2002), in fact, some elderly people with self-expectancies or internalized beliefs about their aging

can experience severe anxiety connected with feelings of loneliness.

Resilience is related to the individual’s recovery from traumatic events, his rebound after stressful

situations, and his/her overcoming difficulties. Psychological resilience may be generally defined

as the ability to support or retrieve psychological well-being during or after addressing

stressful conditions. Unfortunately, being less resilient to social threats, such as pandemics,

may enhance the risk of developing psychiatric conditions. On the other hand, a significant

perception of social support is associated with a reduced likelihood of developing psychological

distress and psychiatric conditions (Cicchetti et al., 1993; Luthar, 1999; Grzankowska&Ślesińska-

Sowińska, 2016; Ogińska-Bulik, 2015).

Resilience is an ability of an individual to cope successfully with significant change, adversity and

risk. Researchers quote that cancer patients with similar diseases and treatment status are
significantly different levels of quality of life, which may be due to varying levels of patient

resilience. (Hailing Zhang,QinghuaZhao,,DPeiyeCao,andGuosheng Ren).Other researches show

that most of the adaptive coping strategies were positively related to resilience, especially the

strategies of “positive refocusing” and “positive revaluation”. López, Cantero and Marín agree

that the “positive thinking” strategy is one of the most commonly used by patients with cancer and

they describe it as a variable that predicts better health benefits for the short and long

term.(Patricia Macía, Mercedes Barranco, Susana Gorbeña, IosebaIraurgi)

In old age people experience profound changes and face important challenges, including

modification in their role, retirement, and the death of loved one’s. these experiences can increase

their levels of stress and lead to a decrease in the resources that individuals feel they have in

dealing with their daily lives (Sachs-Ericsson et al., 2014).Studiesanalyse psychological factors

that expose the elderly to the risk of malaise, it has been evidenced that depressive symptoms

affect the QoL of the elderly population (Beekman et al., 1999; Blane et al., 2008).

Working people dealt with changes in their daily routine caused by the state imposed quarantine

measures during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic crises and how these changes affected their

quality of life, their health and their psychological resilience. According to Xiao et al. (2020),

infectious disease epidemics affect the physical health of infected people and affect the

psychological health and well-being of the non-infected population. Also, several recent

research results (Brooks et al., 2020; Felix et al., 2020; Polizzi et al., 2020; Singer, 2018)

demonstrated that the implementation of public health policies such as quarantine, social isolation,

lockdown measures for significant periods might alter a person’s everyday life significantly with

both short- and long-term consequences for psychological distress and well-being.

Previous studies show that people with schizophrenia were having lowest QOL scores in the social

relationships domain of WHOQOL – BREF (Solanki et al 2012). Current studies support the
evidence that the people with schizophrenia who is attending in PRS having highest mean

satisfaction in social relationship (Mean±SD = 69.17±14.42), indicate maintenance of good

interpersonal relationship and good social supports given in PRS .This study proves that people

with mental illness have good quality of life and high level of resilience who are attending

rehabilitation centers, which support the effectiveness of rehabilitation services in quality of life

and resilience in people with mental illness and also confirm that positive correlation between

quality of life and resilience in mental illness aid in improving by therapy. (Asha vijayan,

Harshitha, Niizh Savio1, G Radhakrishnan ,2017)

Some research study was to test the relationship between resilience and quality of life in addition

to the effect of personal level and disease specific factors on both resilience and quality of life. A

low yet significantly positive relation appears between family income and environment aspect of

quality of life suggesting that increase in income may improve quality of life of diabetes patients

yet only the environmental aspect. (Abida Nawaz, Jamil A. Malik and Azra Batool)

Numerous studies have now reported high rates of stress-related conditions such as burnout,

anxiety and depression, and STS among the nursing workforce as well as significant relationships

among these variables. However, few studies have included a measure of resilience and examined

the relationship between resilience and psychological outcomes.

Rees et al. (2015) recently put forward a theoretical model of individual resilience in the

workplace that attempts to map essential key individual difference variables together with

resilience that may explain psychological functioning.

Studies have shown that a high level of Neuroticism (also known as Trait Negative Affect) is

consistently related to negative psychological outcomes such as high levels of depression and

anxiety (Drury et al., 2014; Rees et al., 2014; Craigie et al., 2015). Similarly, low levels of
mindfulness, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping behaviors have also been found to relate to

negative psychological outcomes (Saks, 1994; Arch and Craske, 2010; Li and Nishikawa, 2012).

Study found that students with better resilience generally exhibit lower stress and relate symptoms

while with better health and hence quality of life. Despite a high level of stress experienced by

students, they were generally unaware of the associated symptoms. Regularly monitoring students’

stress level and implementing appropriate intervention to help students

better cope with stress were recommended.Sing& Wong [9] and Chung & Cheung [8] established

that high level of stress is a predominant risk factor affecting sleep and subsequent psychosocial

and cognitive dysfunction among students in Hong Kong. Stewart, et al. also found that Hong

Kong adolescents generally exhibit somatic and cognitive symptoms when distressed.

Further research in older working adults from Wroclaw, Poland PA (Puciato et

al., 2017) has shown that PA is also an important determinant of QOL in older adults. In

this study, over one thousand men and women completed the IPAQ-SF and the

WHOQOL-BREF form. They found positive correlations between intensity of PA and

those who reported higher means for general quality of life, perceived health status, and

quality of life in the physical, psychological, social, and environmental domains. In fact,

the highest QOL values were from respondents who engaged in higher levels of PA

(3.8±0.8 points)

Since these studies also state that quality life and resilience affect a person negatively more with

people with comorbidities. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused feelings of

desperation,fear,terror, anxiety while it has brought radical changes in the inequality of life ,

resilience and psychological health of people world wide. Majorly studies indicate that people

who are pursuing a professional degree, are seeing with poor resilience and their quality of life is

also affected with comorbidity of higher level of stress and low well-being.
Rationale -

Resilience refers to the process of adapting well in face of adversity, trauma ,threats,or even

significant source of stress.many researches show that resilience is negative correlative with

indicators of mental illness such as depression ,anxiety , negative emotions and positively

correlated with positive indicator of mental health such as life satisfaction, subjective well-being

and positive emotions.

Quality of working life can be defined as synthesis of workplace strategies, processes and

environment, which stimulates employee job satisfaction.it depends on work condition efficiency

of the organization. An individual quality of working life directly influences the quality of life of

his/her life.

The analysis of the scientific literature on the concept of the quality of working life (QWL) and on

the factors which have an impact on the quality revealed that the aspect of the balance of work and

personal life is extremely relevant from both the theoretical and practical points of view.

The analysis of the scientific literature leads to several insights. Firstly, the balance of

work and personal life is becoming more expensive. This rise in price must be different for

individuals who have well-paid jobs in stable businesses or structures, and who can afford not

to search for additional jobs or can afford not to shorten (officially or not) their work days, for

328 .instance, on Fridays; these employees, after all, are not pressed by the necessity to work at

home or in the evening. On the other hand, those who do not have fixed or stable jobs, or who

have inadequate income, or those whose income significantly depends on their performance

an results at work would probably sacrifice their personal time for extra income; such workers

would more often resort to taking on additional jobs, or would do overtime if this resulted in extra

income.

In this COVID-19 time quality of life has been affected by many reasons one of the major one is

resilience to the pandemic by the people especially by the working adult as they weren't able to

cope up with the stress of pandemic, working from home,reducing salary. Through the above
mentioned literature we can see that working adults incentives, proper working environment have

a major role in quality of life.

In the current research we would like to examine the relationship between resilience and quality of

life in female and male working adults aged 25-50 years ,through various researches and our

statistical analysis keeping in mind various constraints one faces in quality of life with relation to

resilience.

METHOD

Objectives

1. To find out the quality of life of male working adults.

2. To find out the quality of life of female working adults.

3. To observe the level of resilience of male working adults.

4. To observe the level of resilience of female working adults.

5. To see the relationship between resilience and quality of life of male working adults.

6. To see the relationship of life of female working adults.

7. To compare the resilience between male and female working adults.

8. To compare the quality of life between male and female working adults.

Hypothesis

1. There will be a significant relationship between resilience and quality of life of male

working adults.

2. There will be a significant relationship between resilience and quality of life of female

working adults.

3. There will a significant difference of resilience between male and female working adults

4. There will be a significant difference of quality of life between male and female working

adults.

Sample

For the current study, it is proposed that purposive random sampling will be utilized to select
Participants. The range of participants selected was from the age of 25 -50 years. The following

sample was selected to assess the relationship between Resilience and Quality of life of male and

female working adults aged 25-50 years. An equal number of male and female were selected

resulting in a total of 136 participants in the study.

Material

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale is a test that measures resilience or how well one is

equipped to bounce back after stressful events, tragedy, or trauma.Resilience gives us the ability to

thrive in the face of adversity. Those who are resilient are better able to move through the traumas

of life.The Connor Davidson Resilience Scale measures several components of resilience:

• The ability to adapt to change.

• The ability to deal with what comes along.

• The ability to cope with stress.

• The ability to stay focused and think clearly.

• The ability to not get discouraged in the face of failure.

• The ability to handle unpleasant feelings such as anger, pain or sadness.

According to Scali et al. (2012), the original 25-item scale was designed to assess resilience, with

higher scores being an indicator of high resilience.Each item is rated on a 5-point scale ranging

from not true at all or zero to true nearly all of the time or four.The total possible scores range

from 0–100.

The CD-RISC consists of 25 items, which are evaluated on a five point Likert scale ranging from

0-4: not true at all (0), rarely true (1), sometimes true (2), often true (3), and true nearly all of the

time (4) - these ratings result in a number between 0- 100, and higher scores indicate higher

resilience

Construct validity of CD-RISC

Parallel analysis suggested five factors should be extracted. Therefore, EFAs were performed on

subsamples 1 and 2 and five factors were initially extracted. However, a few problems emerged.

In both subsamples, two of the obtained factors contained only three (i.e., items 3, 9, and 20) and

two items (i.e., items 2, 13) respectively. Also factor stability across two subsamples was low, as

these were the only factors which had the same factor loadings across two subsamples (the

criterion loading of ≤ .32 was used). In addition, correlations between three factors were moderate

to high (r > 0.6). Finally, two items cross-loaded on different factors.

Discriminant validity of the 25-item CD-RISC

Further, discriminant validity of CD-RISC was investigated by exploring its relationship with

DERS-16. A CFA was performed on the subsample 3 (n = 867), utilising 25 items which were

retained in the final model, as well as 16 items comprised within DERS-16. A two-factor structure

was compared to a one-factor structure. Due to the issues with normality of the data, robust

estimators and indices are reported.

Test–retest reliability. Test–retest reliability was assessed in 24 subjects from the clinical trials of

GAD and PTSD in whom little or no clinical change was observed from time 1 to time 2. The

mean (sd) CD-RISC scores at time 1 [52.7 (17.9)] and time 2 [52.8 (19.9)] demonstrated a high

level of agreement, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87.

The world health organization quality of life instruments (WHOQOL)

The WHOQOL-100 produces scores relating to particular facets of quality of life (e.g. positive

feelings, social support, financial resources), scores relating to larger domains (e.g. physical,

psychological, social relationships) and a score relating to overall quality of life and general

health. The WHOQOL-BREF produces domain scores, but not individual facet scores.

The WHOQOL-BREF contains two items from the Overall Quality of Life and General Health,

and one item from each of the remaining 24 facets included in the WHOQOL-100. Recent

analysis of the WHOQOL-100 structure has suggested the possibility of merging domains 1 and 3,

and also merging domains 2 and 6, thereby creating four domains of quality of life. In our current
approach to scoring the WHOQOL-BREF, these domains have been merged therefore and four

major domains are assessed: physical, psychological, social relationships and environment. The

WHOQOL-BREF is currently being field tested.

Discriminant validity, content validity and test-retest reliability. Their sensitivity to change is

currently being assessed. Domain scores produced by the WHOQOL-BREF have been shown to

correlate at around 0.9 with the WHOQOL-100 domain scores.

Research design-

The current study aims to study the relationship between Resilience and Quality of life of male

and female working adults aged 25-50 years. It was agreed to do a quantitative analysis for the

research. The processing and analysis of data in numeric form involves this design. So, for data

collection, uniform scales have been chosen for the two variables. Afterwards, the collected data

will be pooled and statistical techniques that are t-test and correlation is used for analysis.

Setting

The data was collected in the natural home settings of the participants.

Ethical Guidelines-

1. Consent was taken.

2. The study was explained.

3. Confidentiality was maintained by the researchers

4. Voluntary participation.

calculated and then the statistical technique was used to analyze the data.

Procedure -

At first the participant was approached and rapport formation was made with the participant.

Secondly the participants were told the instruction about the study and our aim of the research,

consent was taken by every participant and it was a voluntary participation. Thirdly the data was
Introspective report-

Participant 1- The researcher was very nice, she had talked to me and explained ever step carefully

and took my consent and enjoyed every bit of it.

Participant 2 – I enjoyed the question looking forward to know my score.

Participant 3- she actually explained me everything and took a good watch when I got stuck.

looking forward to know my know my result.

Participant 4 – the questionnaire was explained and it was a easy the researcher was making me

feel comfortable.

Behavioral report-

All the participants were made to sit in a quite environment. All were doing it calmly, if they

found it difficulty in any question they didn’t panic rather calmly asked or re-read the question. No

item was left or skipped by the participant

DATA ANALYSIS-

The SPSS software version 25 was used to carry out the analysis. Both descriptive and inferential

statistics was performed and normal distribution of variables was confirmed. After calculating the

mean and standard deviation, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine the

correlation between the variables..The descriptive analysis was conducted to evaluate the

homogeneity of two groups: Male and Female students. Independent t test was used to compare

the resilience and quality of life.

RESULT ANALYSIS-

1. Description of the Sample-

Table 1: Description of Age (n=136)

AGE RANGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

 25-29 56 41.1

30-34 26 19.1

35-39 17 12.5

40-44 14 10.2

45-49 20 14.7

50-54 3 2.20

Total 136

Table 2: Description of gender (n=136)

Gender Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 68 50.0
Female 68 50.0
Total 136

Table 3: Description of SES (n=136)

SES Frequency Percentage (%)

High 8 5.9
Low 5 3.7
Medium 123 90.4
Total 136

Table 4: Description of Marital status (n=136)

Marital Status Frequency Percentage (%)

In a relationship 14 10.3
Marital status Frequency Percentage %
Married 80 58.8
Single 42 30.9
Total 136

Table 5: Description of No. of Family Members:

No. of Family Members Frequency Percentage (%)

0 5 3.7
2 7 5.1
3 25 18.4
4 46 33.8
5 36 26.5
6 7 5.1
7 2 1.5
8 4 2.9
9 1 0.7
10 1 0.7
11 1 0.7
13 1 0.7
Total 136

Table 6: Description of No. of Children:

No. of Children Frequency Percentage (%)

0 82 60.3
1 21 15.4
2 31 22.8
3 2 1.5
Total 136

Table 7:Brief description of educational background (n=136)

Marker Frequency Percentage (%)
Class 12th 2 1.47
Graduate 61 44.85
Postgraduate 70 51.47
Marker Frequency Percentage %
PhD 3 2.20
Total 136
 Table 8 – Table representing the Occupational Statistics of the participants

Job categories Frequency of categories Percentage

Government job (eg. Clerk) 11 14.66
Academic (eg. Teacher, 15 20
researcher)
Finance and accounts (eg. 10 13.33
CA)
Business and 9 12
entrepreneurship (eg.
Marketing)
Soft skills (eg. Photography) 3 4
Non salaried 9 12
(eg. Housewife, self-
employed, advocate)
Technical 13 17.32
(eg. Analyst, engineer)
Others 5 6.66
Total 75 100

Table 9: Scores on different domains of Quality of life belonging to low range, average range
and high range (n=136)

Physical health Psychological Social Environment

health support
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
High 1 0.7 17 12.5 1 0.7 45 32.9
Average 135 99.2 119 87.4 59 43.4 53 65.7
Low 0 0 0 0 76 55.9 2 1.4
Table 10 Scores on different domains of CD-RISC belonging to low range, average range
and high range (n=136)

Table 1 represents that from 136 people 41.1% were of age range 25-29 (f=56), 19.1% were of age

group 30-34 (f=26), 12.5% were of age range 35-39 (f=17), 10.2% were of age range 40-44

(f=14), 14.7% were of age range 45-49 (f=20), 2.20% were of age range 50-54 (f=3),

Table 2 represents the frequency of males (68) and female (68). An equal percentage of males and

females were chosen total accounting for 136 participants data.

Table 3 represents the socio economic status of the participants. 5.9% of participants belonged to a

high socio economic status, 3.7% belonged to a lower socio economic strata and 90.4% of the

participants belonged to a medium socio economic status.

Table 4 represents the marital status of the participants. Out of 136, 10.3% were in a relationship,

58.8% were married and 30.9% participants were single.

Table 5 represents the no of family members in the participant’s family. 3.7% of the participants

had 0 family members ,5.1% of the participants had 2 family members ,18.4% of the participants

had 3 family members,33.8% of the participants had 4 family members ,26.5% of the participants

had 5 family members,5.1% of the participants had 6 family members ,1.5% of the participants

had 7 family members ,2.9% of the participants had 8 family members ,0.7% of the participants

had 9 family members,0.7% of the participants had 10 family members ,0.7% of the participants

had 11 family members,0.7% of the participants had 13 family members.

Table 6 represents the no of children in the family. 60.3% of the 136 participants had 0 children in

their house. 15.4% of the participants had 1 child in their house. 22.8% of the participants had 2

children in their house and 1.5% of the participants had 3 children at their house.

Table 7 represents a description of educational background. Out of 136 participants 1.47% (f=2)

people have completed their education up to class 12th. 44.85% (f=61) people have completed

their education up to Graduation. 51.47% (f=70) of the people have completed their education up

to post graduation and 2.20% (f=3) have completed pr are currently pursuing a post doctoral.

Table 8 represents the occupational domain of the participants. Out of 136, 14.66% (f=11) of the

participants belonged to Government sector, 20% (f=15) belonged to the academic sector, 13.33%

(f=10) belonged to the finance and accounts sector, 12% (f=9) belonged to business and

entrepreneurship sector, 4% (f=3) belonged to soft skill like photography, another 12% (f=9) were

no salaried examples Housewives or were self employed. 17.32% (f=13) belonged to the technical

sector, 6.66% (f=5) belonged to the others.

Table 9 represents the scores of different domains of quality of life belonging to low range,

average range and high range. On the physical health domain, 0.7% (f=1) of the participants

belonged to the high range, 99.2% (f=135) belonged to average range and 0% belonged to the low

range. On the psychological health domain, 12.51 % (f=17) belonged to the high range, 87.4%

(f=119) belonged to the average range and 0% people belonged to the low range. On the social

support domain, 0.7% (f=1) belonged to the high range, 43.4% (f=59) belonged to the average

range and 55.9% (f=76) belonged to the low range. On the environment domain, 32.9% (f=45)

belonged to the high range, 65.7 (f=53) belonged to the average range and 1.4% (f=2) belonged to

the low range.

Table 10 represents scores on different domains of resilience belonging to low range, average

range and high range. On the personal competency and tenacity domain 1.5% (f=2) belonged to

low range, 53.7% (f=73) belonged to average range and 44.8% (f=61) belonged to high range. On

the trust in one’s instincts and tolerating negative affects 0.7% (f=1) belonged low range , 81.6%
 (f=111) belonged to the average range and 62% (f=24) belonged to high range. On the positive

acceptance of change and secure relationship domain, 0% were on low range, 54.4% (f=74)

belonged to average range and 45.6% (f=32) belonged to the high range. On the control domain ,

2.9% (f=4) belonged to the low range, 55.9%(f=76) belonged to the average range and

41.2%(f=56) belonged to a high range. On the spiritual influence domain , 1.5% (f=2) belonged to

low range, 44.1(f=60) belonged to average range and 54.4%(f=74) belonged to lower range. Total

resilience accounted for 0.7% (f=1) people on lower range, 75.7% (f=103) belonged to average

range and 23.6% (f=32) belonged to high range.

2. Correlation of the Sample-

Table 1: Correlation value for female sample-

Mean

Variabl (N=68 Dom Dom Dom Total.

SD Dom 4 Res 1 Res 2 Res 3 Res 4 Res 5
e ) 1 2 3 R

Dom 1 89.47 ±11.21 1

Dom 2 85.12 ±8.08 .49** 1

Dom 3 45.88 ±7.52 .36** .29* 1

119.4
Dom 4 ±15.60 .48** .48** .26* 1
7

Res 1 22.14 ±4.90 .28* .47** -.02 .27* 1

Res 2 16.57 ±3.48 .25* .39** -.05 .13 .69** 1

Res 3 14.17 ±2.32 .34** .25* .02 .26* .59** .60** 1

Res 4 7.72 ±1.79 .47** .45** .17 .47** .66** .53** .52** 1

Res 5 5.84 ±1.46 .13 .13 .04 .06 .12 .17 .32** .14 1

Mean
Variabl Dom Dom Dom Total.
(N=68 SD Dom 4 Res 1 Res 2 Res 3 Res 4 Res 5
e 2 3 R
) 1

Total. R 66.46 11.06 .37** .48** .01 .29* .91** .85** .79** .75** .33** 1
 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Table 2: Correlation value for sample of males-

Mean

Variabl (N=68 Dom Dom Dom Total.

SD Dom 4 Res 1 Res 2 Res 3 Res 4 Res 5
e ) 1 2 3 R

Dom 1 91.70 ±12.61 1

Dom 2 83.41 ±9.43 .49** 1

Dom 3 47.29 ±8.49 .36** .79** 1

Dom 4 117.41 ±20.34 .56** .63** .54** 1

Res 1 22.58 ±5.31 .49** .52** .30* .65** 1

Res 2 17.60 ±3.72 .47** .44** .33** .64** .70** 1

Res 3 14.19 ±2.82 .41** .41** .35** .65** .68** .65** 1

Res 4 8.08 ±1.96 .48** .43** .54** .50** .62** .57** .53** 1

Res 5 5.54 ±1.41 .35** .46** .35** .50** .54** .56** .55** .49** 1

Total. R 68.01 ±12.92 .54** .55** .42** .72** .92** .87** .83** .74** .96** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Table 3: Total Correlation between the samples –

Mean
Dom Dom Dom Dom Res Res Res Res Res Total.
Variable (N=136) SD
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 R
Dom 1 90.59 ±11.94 1
Dom 2 84.26 ±8.79 .48** 1
Dom 3 46.59 ±8.02 .37** .39** 1
Dom 4 118.44 ±18.09 .52** .57** .42** 1
Res 1 22.37 ±5.10 .40** .50** .16 .49** 1
Res 2 17.09 ±3.63 .38** .40** .17* .41** .70** 1
Res 3 14.18 ±2.58 .38** .35** .21* .50** .65** .62** 1
Res 4 7.90 ±1.88 .48** .43** .38** .48** .64** .56** .53** 1
Res 5 5.69 ±1.44 .23** .31** .19* .31** .33** .35** .44** .31** 1
Total. R 67.24 ±12.01 .47** .51** .25** .55** .91** .86** .81** .75** .51** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Table 1 represents the correlation of domains in female samples. We can see that there was a

significant positive relationship between domain 1(r=.37) of quality of life with total resilience

and is significant since p<0.01, domain 2 (r=.488) of quality of life with total resilience and is

significant since p<0.01. Therefore,proving our second hypothesis, that there will be a significant

relationship between resilience and quality of life in females.Other researches show that most of

the adaptive coping strategies were positively related to resilience, especially the strategies of

“positive refocusing” and “positive revaluation”. López, Cantero and Marín agree that the

“positive thinking” strategy is one of the most commonly used by patients with cancer and they

describe it as a variable that predicts better health benefits for the short and long term.(Patricia

Macía, Mercedes Barranco, Susana Gorbeña, IosebaIraurgi)

Table 2 represents the correlation of domains in male samples. We can see that there was a

significant positive relationship between domains 1(r=.544), 2 (r=.55), 3(r=.42) and 4(r=.72) with

the total resilience since p<0.01. Therefore, proving our first hypothesis, that there will be a

significant relationship between resilience and quality of life in males.Some study proves that

people with mental illness have good quality of life and high level of resilience who are attending

rehabilitation centers, which support the effectiveness of rehabilitation services in quality of life

and resilience in people with mental illness and also confirm that positive correlation between

quality of life and resilience in mental illness aid in improving by therapy. (Asha vijayan,

Harshitha, Niizh Savio1, G Radhakrishnan ,2017)

 3. T test analysis-

Table 1 – Independent T test sample for Quality of Life between male and female data -

QUALITY OF LIFE MALE FEMALE t(134) Sig.Value

DOMAINS (p)
M SD M SD
Physical Health 91.71 12.62 89.47 11.21 1.092 .277

Psychological Health 83.41 9.43 85.12 8.08 1.132 .259

Social Relationships 47.29 8.49 45.88 7.52 1.026 .307

Environment 117.41 20.34 119.47 15.60 0.662 .509

Table 2 – Independent T test sample for Resilience between Male and Female data-

RESELIENCE MALE FEMALE

DOMAINS
M SD M SD t(134) Sig.Value(p)
Personal 22.59 5.31 22.15 4.90 .503 .616
competence, high
standards, and
tenacity
Trust in one's 17.60 3.72 16.58 3.45 1.665 .098
instincts, tolerance
of negative effect,
and strengthening
effects of stress
Positive acceptance 14.19 2.83 14.18 2.32 .033 .974
of change and
secure
relationships
Control 8.09 1.96 7.72 1.76 1.143 .255

Spiritual 5.54 1.42 5.84 1.46 -1.190 .236

influences

Total Resilience 68.01 12.93 66.46 11.06 .755 .451

Considering value of significance at p<0.05, and when equal variances are assumed for the

Quality of life dimension (Table 1) the physical health domain of quality of life there was found to

be an average increase in physical health of males (M=91.71, SD=12.62) than females (M=89.4,

SD=11.2) but this difference is not significant because the value of t (134) = 1.092 and
Significance value = .277 which are greater than .05(p>.05). On the psychological health domain,

the average health of males (M=83.41, SD-9.34) is found to be lower than that of females

(M=85.12, SD=8.08) but this difference is not significant because t(134)=1.132 and significance

value =.259, i.e. p>.05. On the social relationship’s domain the mean for Males (M=47.29,

SD=8.49) is greater than the mean for females (M=45.88, SD=7.52) but this relationship is also

not significant since t(134)=1.026 and p=.307 i.e. p>0.05. On the environment domain males

(M=117.41, SD=20.34) have a mean lower than females (M=119.47,SD=15.60) but this

relationship is also not significant since t(134)=0.662 and p=.509 i.e. p>0.05.

In table 2 Considering value of significance at p<0.05, and when equal variances are assumed for

the Resilience dimension (Table 2) on average there was more resilience in males

(M=68.0147,SD=12.93) than in females (M=66.4559,SD=11.0635), but this difference is not

significant since value of t(134) = .755 and p=.451 which is greater than .05 . At the domain of

Personal competence, high standards, and tenacity it was observed that the mean value for males

(M=22.59,SD=5.31) is slightly higher than that of females (M=22.15,SD=4.90) and it will not be

considered as significant since the value of p >0.05 (p=.616). Next on the domain of Trust in one's

instincts, tolerance of negative effect, and strengthening effects of stress mean for males

M=17.60,SD=3.72) is greater than that of females (M=16.58,SD=3.45) , but it will not be

considered as significant since the value of p >0.05 (p=.098). On the domain of Positive

acceptance of change and secure relationships mean of males (M=14.19,SD=2.83) is .01 units

more than the mean of females (M=14.18,SD=2.32), but it will not be considered as significant

since the value of p >0.05 (p=.974).Next on the domain of Control we observe that the mean of

males (M=8.09,SD=1.96) is higher than females (M=7.72,SD=1.76), and it will not be considered

as significant since the value of p >0.05 (p=.255). Lastly, on the domain of Spiritual influences we

observe that the mean of males (M=5.54, SD=1.42) is less than females (M=5.84,SD=1.46), and it

will not be considered as significant since the value of p >0.05 (p=.236).

The current study was aimed at finding the relationship between resilience and quality of life in

males and females. Resilience refers to the process of adapting well in face of adversity, trauma
,threats, or even significant source of stress. Many researches show that resilience is negative

correlative with indicators of mental illness such as depression ,anxiety , negative emotions and

positively correlated with positive indicator of mental health such as life satisfaction, subjective

well-being and positive emotions and Quality of working life can be defined as synthesis of

workplace strategies, processes and environment, which stimulates employee job satisfaction. It

depends on work condition efficiency of the organization. An individual quality of working life

directly influences the quality of life of his/her life. In this study a sample of 136 participants from

age range 25- 50 were considered. It was observed that there was significant relationship between

resilience and quality of life of both males and females thus proving our first two hypotheses. Our

hypothesis three and four were rejected since there was seen no significant relationship between

the data of male and females on the domain of resilience and quality of life.

In line with the literature (Fry and Debats, 2010), the results of our study seem to indicate that

people with greater levels of resilience can mobilize emotional and psychological resources to face

the stressful elements of their lives, and therefore, to express and feel more QoL satisfaction.

Conclusion-

Nowadays, when our society's basic human needs are almost met, questions about overall quality

of life are frequently raised. In such a situation, the most important question is what the concept is

in the first place, and it is also unclear how to evaluate it in the best possible way. All domains and

elements, including the quality of working life, must be included in the integrated quality of life

assessment.Job satisfaction, participation in work success, motivation, efficiency, productivity,

fitness, safety, and welfare at work, stress, work load, burn-out, and other aspects of working life

are all connected to the idea of quality of life. The quality of life is affected by the physical and

mental health of a person, the degree of freedom, the social interaction with the community.A

person's satisfaction with his or her life dimensions in relation to his or her ideal life can be

described as quality of life. The quality of life appraisal relies on one's belief system. The quality

of working life can be described as a synthesis of the strategies, processes and atmosphere of the

workplace that stimulates the satisfaction of employees. The concept of quality of working life
encompasses the following factors: job satisfaction, involvement in work performance,motivation,

efficiency, productivity, health, safety and welfare at work, stress, work load, burn-out, etc.

Quality of life is influenced by an individual’s physical and mental health, the degree of

independency, the social relationship with the environment, and other factors. Quality of life could

be defined as an individual’s satisfaction with his or her life dimensions compared with his or her

ideal life. The evaluation of quality of life depends on one’s value system. The quality of working

life could be defined as synthesis of the work place’s strategies, processes and environment, which

stimulates employee’s job satisfaction. It also depends on work conditions and the efficiency of

the organisation. The concept of quality of working life encompasses the following factors: job

satisfaction, involvement in work performance, motivation, efficiency, productivity, health, safety

and welfare at work, stress, work load, burn-out, etc.

LIMITATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF FUTURE RESEARCH-

Critically analyzing the outcomes of the present study, it could be interesting to consider the

results in the context of the study's limitations. First, self-report tools were used, and they are not

exempt from limitations, such as, inaccurate reporting and social desirability bias. Second, the

participation in the study was voluntary; consequently, the sample composition may not represent

the characteristics of the general Italian population. Third, the did not considered the variables of

being in a couple (Ha, 2016), having siblings (Cicirelli, 2013), or being in a twin relationship

(Brustia et al., 2013; Prino et al., 2016).

Future studies should examine and consider the relationship between mental health—in terms of

anxiety, depression, resilience, and QoL—from a longitudinal perspective. For example, research

could compare people's conditions at different stages in the Third Age or monitor longitudinal

changes in the relationships between these factors in the lifecycle.

 REFERENCES-

1) Akranavičiūtė, D., Ruževičius, J. (2007). Quality of life and its components’

measurement. Engineering Economics, Vol. 2, p. 43-48.

2) Arts, E. J., Kerksta, J., Van der Zee (2001). Quality of working life and workload in

home help. Nordic College of Caring Sciences, p. 12-22.

3) Brown J., Bowling A., Flynn T. (2004). Models of Quality of Life: A Taxonomy,

Overview and Systematic Review of the Literature. European Forum on Population

Ageing Research.

4) Chung, M. Ch. (1997). A critique of the concept of quality of life. International Journal

of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 80-84.

5) Considine, G., Callus R. (2002). The Quality of Work Life of Australian Employees –

the development of an index. University of Sydney

6) Cummins, R. A. (2005). Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. Journal of

Intellectual Disability Research, 49, p. 699-706.

7) Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2009). Decoding the code of excellence – for achieving

sustainable excellence. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 1,

No. 1, p. 5-29.

8) Diener, E., Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective

indicators. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, p. 189-216.

9) Dooris M. (1999). Healthy Cities and Local Agenda 21: The UK Experiences –

Challenges for the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Internet:

http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/365.full (accessed: 25/01/2013).

10) Ferrer, A. (2004). Hapiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculate Approach. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Gilgeous, V (1998). Manufacturing managers: their quality of

working life. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9, p. 173-181.

11) James, G. (1992). Quality of Working Life and Total Management. International

Journal of Manpower, Vol.13, No. 1, p. 41-58. Juniper, E. F. (2002). Can quality of life

be quantified? Clinical and Experimental Allergy Reviews, Vol. 2, p. 57-60.

12) Kajzar, P., Kozubkova, M. (2007). Quality of work life and job satisfaction. Life

quality conditions in societies basing on information: proceedings, Vol. II, p. 289-295.

13) Kazlauskaitė M., Rėklaitienė R. (2005).

VidutinioamžiausKaunogyventojųgyvenimokokybė [Quality of life of Kaunas city

habitants].

14) Medicina, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 155-161. McCall, S. (2005). Quality of life. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

15) Merkys, G., Brazienė, R., Kondrotaitė, G. (2008).

Subjektyvigyvenimokokybėkaipsocialinisindikatorius: viešojosektoriauskontekstas

[Subjective quality of life as a social indicator]. Viešojipolitikairadministravimas, Vol.

23, p. 23-38.

16) Olfert, S. (2005): Quality of life leisure indicators. Community–University Institute for

Social Research. Pichler. F. (2009). Determinants of Work-life Balance: Shortcomings

in the Contemporary Measurement of WLB in Large-scale Surveys. Social Indicators

Research, Vol. 92, No. 3, p. 449-469. Quality of living worldwide city ranking –

Mercer survey 2012. Internet: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-

report-2012 (accessed: 25/01/2014).

17) Rode, J. C., Rehg, M. T., Near, J. P., Underhill J. R., (2007). The Effect of

Work/Family Conflict on Intention to Quit: The Mediating Roles of Job and Life
 APPENDIX-

1. Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-

Item no. Description

1. Able to adapt to change

2. Close and secure relationships

3. Sometimes fate or God can help

4. Can deal with whatever comes

5. Past success gives confidence for new challenge

6. See the humorous side of things

7. Coping with stress strengthens

8. Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship

9. Things happen for a reason

10. Best effort no matter what

11. You can achieve your goals

12. When things look hopeless, I don’t give up

13. Know where to turn to for help

14. Under pressure, focus and think clearly

15. Prefer to take the lead in problem solving

16. Not easily discouraged by failure

17. Think of self as strong person

18. Make unpopular or difficult decisions

19. Can handle unpleasant feelings

20. Have to act on a hunch

21. Strong sense of purpose

22. In control of your life

23. I like challenges

 24. You work to attain your goals

25. Pride in your achievements

The author drew inspiration for the scale’s content from the work of previous researchers of

hardiness. Most notably S.C.Kobasa and M.Rutter. The CD-RISC consists of 25 items which are

evaluated on 5 point Likert scale ranging from 0-4; not true at all (0), rarely true(1), sometimes

true(2), often true (3), and true nearly all of the time(4).These ratings result in a number between

0-100, and higher scores indicate higher resilience.

WHOQOL-BREF

The following questions ask how you feel about your quality of life, health, or other areas of

your life. I will read out each question to you, along with the response options. Please choose

the answer that appears most appropriate. If you are unsure about which response to give

to a question, the first response you think of is often the best one.

Please keep in mind your standards, hopes, pleasures and concerns. We ask that you think

about your life in the last four weeks.

Very poor Poor Neither Good Very good

1. How would you rate poor
1 2 3 4 5
your quality of life? nor good
 Very Neither Very
Dissatisfie Satisfied
dissatisfi satisfied satisfi
2. How satisfied are you with d
1 2 3 4 5
ed nor ed
your health?
dissatisfie
The following questions ask about how much you have experienced certain things in the last

four weeks. d

Not at all A little A Very An

3. To what extent do you feel modera much extrem

5 4 3 2 1
that physical pain prevents te e

4. you from
How much do you need amount amount
5 4 3 2 1
doing what
any youtreatment
medical need to do?
5. How much do you enjoy 1 2 3 4 5
to function in your daily
6. To what extent do you feel
life? 1 2 3 4 5
life?
your life to be meaningful?

Not at all A little A Very Extremely

7. How well are you modera much
1 2 3 4 5

8. able to
How safeconcentrate?
do you feel in te
1 2 3 4 5
your healthy
daily life? amount
9. How is your
1 2 3 4 5
physical environment?
The following questions ask about how completely you experience or were able to do certain

things in the last four weeks.

Not at all A little Moderatel Mostly Completel

10. Do you have enough
1 2 y 3 4 y 5

11. energy
Are youfor
ableeveryday
to acceptlife?
1 2 3 4 5

12. your bodily

Have you enough
1 2 3 4 5
appearance?
money to meettoyour
13. How available you is
1 2 3 4 5
needs?
the information that
14. To what extent do you have
you need in your day- 1 2 3 4 5
the opportunity for leisure
to-day life?
activities?
Very poor Poor Neither Good Very good
15. How well are you able to poor
1 2 3 4 5
get around? nor good

Very Neither Very

Dissatisfie Satisfied
dissatisfi satisfied satisfi
16. How satisfied are you with d
1 2 3 4 5
ed nor ed
17. your satisfied
How sleep? are you
1 2 dissatisfie
3 4 5
with your ability to
d
18. How satisfied are you
perform your daily 1 2 3 4 5

19. with your capacity

How satisfied for
are you
living activities? 1 2 3 4 5
work?
with yourself?
 35

20. How satisfied are you with

1 2 3 4 5

21. your personal are

How satisfied relationships?
you
1 2 3 4 5

22. with your sex are

How satisfied life?you with
1 2 3 4 5
the support you get from
23. How satisfied are you with
your friends? 1 2 3 4 5

24. the satisfied

How conditionsareofyou
yourwith
1 2 3 4 5
living place?to health
your satisfied
access
25. How are you
1 2 3 4 5
services?
with your transport?
The following question refers to how often you have felt or experienced certain things in

the last four weeks.

Never Seldom Quite Very Always

26. How often do you have
often often
5 4 3 2 1
negative feelings such as

blue mood, despair,

Do you have any comments about the assessment?
anxiety,

depression?

[The following table should be completed after the interview is finished]

Transformed
Equations for computing domain Raw
4-20 0-100
scores*
27. Domain 1 (6-Q3) + (6-Q4) + Q10 + Q15 + Q16 + Q17
scores score
a. = b: c:
+ Q18
28. Domain 2 Q5 + Q6 + Q7 + Q11 + Q19 + (6-Q26)
a. = b: c:
+ + + + + +
+ + + + +
 36

29. Domain 3 Q20 + Q21 + Q22

a. = b: c:

30. Domain 4 Q8 ++ Q9 ++Q12 + Q13 + Q14 + Q23 + Q24

a. = b: c:
+ Q25

+ + + + + + +