Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2013
Relationships between Leisure Participation and
Quality of Life of People with Developmental
Disabilities

Verdugo*, Ana M. Ull
an† and Magdalena Mart
ınez*
Marta Badia*, Mar
ıa Bego~na Orgaz†, Miguel A.
*INICO, Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain; †Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Accepted for publication 2 November 2012
Background Studies of people with developmental
disabilities suggest that participation in leisure activities
might be a key factor for good quality of life. This study
explores the relationships between objective and
subjective quality of life and leisure participation of
adults with developmental disabilities.
Materials and Methods A cross-sectional design was used
with a convenience sample of 125 people, aged 17–65,
living in the community. Participants completed the
subjective scale of Integral Quality Scale and the Leisure
Assessment Inventory in the form of an individual
interview. Staff completed the GENCAT Scale.
Results No relationship was found between objective
quality of life and leisure participation. However,
correlations between some leisure participation
Introduction
The concept of quality of life is becoming increasingly
common in the sphere of disabilities as a framework
from which to plan support services and to assess
personal results (Schalock et al. 2008). Quality of life,
according to the model proposed by Schalock &
Verdugo (2002), is a concept that reflects the desired
conditions in eight essential needs that represent the
core of a person’s life dimensions: emotional well-being,
interpersonal relationships, material well-being, personal
development, physical well-being, self-determination,
social inclusion and rights (p. 108). These eight domains
have been described as quality indicators through the
analysis of the scientific literature on quality of life
(Schalock & Verdugo 2002; Schalock 2004; Schalock et al.
2005). Quality of life has both objective and subjective
aspects. Subjective measures are used to determine
whether people are satisfied with life, whereas objective
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
dimensions and specific subjective quality of life
domains were observed. The results establish a
predictive relationship between leisure participation and
material, emotional, and physical well-being. Personal
and environmental variables analyzed were not found
to have a moderating effect on the relationship between
leisure participation and quality of life.
Conclusions These findings indicate that some aspects of
leisure participation may significantly contribute to
enhancing the quality of life of young people and adults
with developmental disabilities living in the community.
Keywords: adults, developmental disabilities, leisure
participation, quality of life
indicators are used to assess the service programmes in
order to improve professional practices (Schalock &
Felce 2004). According to Felce & Perry (1995), objective
quality of life is the sum of a range of objectively
measurable life conditions experienced by an individual
and which include physical health, personal circum-
stances, social relationships, functional activities and
wider societal and economic influences.
Theoretical models of human functioning, such as the
International Classification of Functioning, Disability,
and Health (ICF) (World Health Organization 2001) and
the model of the American Association of Intellectual
Disabilities and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD)
(Schalock et al. 2010), include participation as an
essential dimension. According to the ICF, participation
is defined as the act of engaging in a life situation. Some
examples of life situations in which adults usually
participate include relations with friends and family,
domestic life, learning and applying knowledge and
10.1111/jar.12052
2 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites
community, social and civic life, including leisure
activities. The AAIDD manual considers participation as
‘the performance by people of life activities, and it is
related to the person’s functioning in society’ (Schalock
et al. 2010, p. 10). Participation includes the social roles
that are considered normal for the specific age group,
for example, leisure activities.
Leisure can be understood as a distinct and major life
domain, similar to the domains of family, education,
work and participation in the community. The AAIDD
defines leisure as available free choice time and the
individually selected activities that characteristically are
not related to work or to other obligatory forms of
activity and which are expected to promote feelings of
pleasure, friendship, happiness, spontaneity, fantasy or
imagination, fulfilment, creativity, self-expression and
self-development (AAIDD 2010).
According to Hammel et al. (2008), participation
should be conceptualized to reflect and prioritize the
viewpoints and life experiences of people with dis-
abilities. Objective measures of participation in activities
do not adequately reflect the meaning of participation
(Wade & Halligan 2003), and therefore, the assessment of
participation should include subjective measures from
the perspective of the people with disabilities. Whiteneck
& Dijkers (2009) recommend incorporating subjective
measures of participation (preference and interest) and
environmental factors that affect people’s ability to
engage in activity.
Past research has shown that participation in
recreational activities helps people with developmental
disabilities to become integrated in the community, to
gain a better perception of life quality and to acquire
adaptive skills (Duvdevany 2002; Law 2002; Duvdevany
& Arar 2004; Orsmond et al. 2004; Van Naarden Braun
et al. 2006; Poulsen et al. 2007). Evidence also supports
that participation in satisfactory physical, recreational
and cultural activities can enhance emotional and
physical well-being (Dattilo & Schleien 1994; Brodin
2000) and that both developing self-determination and
engaging in leisure can have an important impact on
the quality of life of individuals with disabilities (Dattilo
et al. 1998; Wehmeyer & Schwartz 1998).
However, there are currently no studies that explore
the relationship between quality of life and the diverse
components of leisure participation of people with
developmental disabilities. The purpose of this study is to
examine the relations between participation, preference,
interest and constraints to leisure activities and the
objective and subjective quality of life of people with
developmental disabilities. In addition, the present
authors shall attempt to examine the moderating effect
of the personal and environmental variables on these
relations. The three research hypotheses were as
follows: (i) we expect to obtain significant relations
between quality of life dimensions and leisure
participation dimensions (leisure activities, preference,
interest and constraints) but these relations will be
more important in the more subjective aspects of
participation; (ii) we expect the dimensions of quality of
life that are related to self-determination, social
inclusion and material, emotional and physical well-
being will also be related to subjective leisure par-
ticipation; (iii) we expect subjective leisure participation
and personal and environmental variables to predict
subjective dimensions of quality of life; and (iv) we
expect to find a moderating effect of personal and
environmental variables on the relations between
subjective leisure participation and subjective quality of
life.
Materials and Methods
Participants
A convenience sample of adults with developmental
disabilities was obtained from various services
(occupational centres, special employment centre and
supported employment service) that depend on the
Spanish Confederation of Organizations in favor of
People with Intellectual Disabilities (FEAPS) in diverse
regions of Spain. Recruitment criteria included expressive
and comprehensive skills and being aged between 17 and
65 years. An exclusion criterion for the developmental
disabilities group was the presence of mental health
problems.
A total of 125 adults participated in the study, all of
them were people with intellectual disability (ID). Of
them, 79.8% had a higher than 65% disability degree
(according to the system of acknowledgement,
declaration and classification of the degree of disability
of the Ministry of Health and Social Policies – Spain);
more than one half (55.2%) had a moderate or severe
level of ID.
As shown in Table 1, there was a slightly higher
percentage of females (52.8%) than of males (47.2%);
their age ranged between 17 and 64 years (M = 34.97,
SD = 11.36); except for one interviewee, the rest of those
who indicated their civil status were single; most of
them said they had no partner (80.3%). With regard to
the socio-economic level, the majority were from a
medium level (72.0%) and they lived in urban settings
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites 3

Table 1 Sociodemographic variables of the participants measure leisure behaviour in adults (Hawkins et al. 2002)
(N = 125) and has four indexes: (i) the Leisure Activity
Participation Index (LAP) reflects the level of leisure
Variable n (% of valid n) repertory and is a measure of the person’s engagement in
the activity. The Leisure Preference Index (L-PREF)
Gender
provides a measure of the leisure activities that please a
Male 59 (47.2)
person and that can be useful to increase participation.
Female 66 (52.8)
Age The Leisure Interest Index (L-INT) measures the person’s
17–30 60 (48.0) level of interest in certain leisure activities in which the
31–65 65 (52.0) person does not currently participate or is prevented
Percentage level of disability from participating. And, lastly, the Leisure Constraints
 65% 95 (79.8) Index (L-CON) assesses the degree of internal and
< 64% 23 (20.2) external barriers that impede participation in leisure
IQ level activities.
Severe–moderate 64 (55.2) The inventory is applied in the format of an
Mild–borderline 52 (44.8)
individually structured interview with a mean duration
Partner
of 45 min, and it has three parts. The first part includes
Yes 23 (19.7)
53 images portraying participation in leisure activities.
No 94 (80.3)
Educational level The interviewer presents each image to the participants
Up to elementary school 60 (65.9) and asks them whether they have performed the
Higher than elementary school 31 (34.1) activity in the past year and, if so, whether they would
Type of schooling like to perform it more often, less often or with the
Special school 35 (38.0) same frequency. After responding to all the images,
Regular school 57 (62.0) participants are asked whether they would like to
Occupation perform any of the leisure activities portrayed in which
Unemployed 25 (20.3) they do not currently participate. The second part
Employed (ordinary job, job with 98 (79.7)
includes 20 closed questions about the internal and
support, special employment centre
external barriers that prevent them from participating in
or occupational centre)
interesting leisure activities in which they do not
Socio-economic level
High 5 (4.0) currently take part.
Medium 89 (72.0) The scores of the LAP, L-PREF and L-INT indexes are
Low 30 (24.0) calculated from the 53 items about leisure activities. The
Residence location score of the LAP index is the sum of the activities in
Rural area 35 (28.7) which the subject participates; the L-PREF score is
Urban area 87 (71.3) obtained by adding the leisure activities performed and
Residential placement the activities they would like to perform more
Family 76 (63.9) frequently; the score of the L-INT index is the sum of
Other (residence, supported or 43 (36.1)
the leisure activities that they do not perform, but
supervised housing)
would like to; and lastly, the L-CON score is calculated
by adding the reported restrictions or barriers to
performing pleasing activities in which they do not take
(71.3%) and in the family home (63.9%). Regarding the part.
educational level, 62.2% had attended school in a The analyses of construct validity and discriminant
regular school rather than in a special school but had and convergent validity of the Spanish version of the
not gone beyond primary studies. And, lastly, with instrument showed that the LAI indexes are valid
regard to their job situation, 79.7% were working. measures of the attributes of leisure behaviour.
Moreover, the LAI showed high test–retest
reproducibility: the test–retest reliability of the
Measures
instrument, calculated from the intraclass correlation
The Spanish version of the Leisure Assessment Inventory (ICC), for the Participation (0.878), Preference (0.980),
(LAI) was used. This instrument was developed to and Interest (0.934) indexes was excellent (Badia et al.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

4 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites
2011b) according to a commonly used ranking (Fleiss
1981). Normative data are available per indexes.
The GENCAT Scale (Verdugo et al. 2010) was used
to assess quality of life of social service clients in an
objective way and based on a multidimensional model
(emotional well-being, interpersonal relations, material
well-being, personal development, physical well-being,
self-determination, social inclusion and rights) pro-
posed by Schalock & Verdugo (2002). It provides a
profile of the person’s quality of life that serves to
develop individualized support plans. Objective
quality of life is assessed through 69 items that
measure diverse indicators (e.g. housing conditions,
health care and technical assistance) and that make up
the eight dimensions. All the items refer to observable,
concrete and easily comprehensible aspects, using a
4-point Likert scale (‘Never or almost never’, ‘Sometimes’,
‘Frequently’, ‘Always or almost always’). This is a self-
administered questionnaire in which the informer
responds to questions about the user’s quality of life.
The informer should be working directly with the
person whose quality of life is being assessed and
should know the person well (since at least 3 months
prior to the interview). The results of the
psychometric properties of the GENCAT Scale show
that it is a valid and reliable instrument for the
objective measurement of quality of life. The objective
scale scores for each dimension were converted into
T-scores where higher values indicate a higher quality
of life.
The subjective subscale of Integral Quality of Life
Scale (Verdugo et al. 2011) measures satisfaction with
eight domains: self-determination, social inclusion, job
well-being, material well-being, family well-being and
emotional and physical well-being) of people with ID.
This instrument is based on the theoretical model of
quality of life proposed by Schalock & Verdugo (2002),
which reflects the quality of life from the perspective of
the person with disabilities. This scale is made up of 39
Likert-type items with four response options (‘Strongly
disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly agree’). This
scale can be applied as a self-report measure but the
present authors recommend its use by an interviewer to
ensure the full comprehension of the items and the
response format. Psychometric analysis showed that the
instrument is reliable and valid to assess subjective
quality of life. The instrument provides a direct score
for each quality of life domain, which is converted to a
standard score.
Age, place of residence, gender, civil status,
educational level, residential modality and type of
disability of the young people and adults were collected
in a sociodemographic questionnaire.
Procedure
The ethics approval was received from the Bioethical
Committee of the University.
The present authors recruited participants by
contacting the directors of the centres by mail. Then,
the directors who were interested contacted the
research team to schedule a time to administer the
instrument. The data of the LAI and the Integral
Subjective Scale were collected in the form of
individual interviews carried out by professionals, who
received formal training from a research assistant
before beginning the study. To avoid possible biases,
none of the test applicators had any knowledge of the
goals of the investigation, and each instrument was
applied to each participant by different people. The
objective scale of the Integral Quality of Life Scale and
the GENCAT Scale were completed by professionals
who had known the participant for at least 3 months.
The psychologist of each centre completed the
sociodemographic questionnaire.
Statistical analysis
To test the hypotheses of the study, first the present
authors obtained bivariate correlations from the Pearson
correlation coefficients between the diverse indexes of
the LAI and the diverse dimensions of quality of life,
assessed with the GENCAT Scale and the subjective
scale of Integral Quality of Life Scale.
Second, regression analysis was also used to
determine what variables predict levels of quality of life,
including as predictors LAI indexes and personal and
environmental variables, which would subsequently be
included as moderators. Specifically, only the LAI
indexes and quality of life dimensions between which
the present authors had previously obtained significant
relations were included.
Lastly, and to analyse the moderating effect of the
personal variables – gender, age level, level of ID – and
environmental variables – residence location and
residential placement – on the relationship between LAI
indexes and subjective quality of life (subjective subscale
of Integral Quality of Life), the present authors used the
procedure for testing moderating relationship described
by Baron & Kenny (1986). This procedure tests the
existence of a moderating relationship via a multiple
regression analyses in which variables are regressed onto
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites 5

the target variable, in the present study, the dimensions
of quality of life subjective. First, the predictor variable
(LAI indexes) is entered, and then, the variable
hypothesized to be a moderator is entered (personal or
environmental variables). Lastly, the product of the two
variables is entered as an interaction term (LAI
indexes 9 personal or environmental variables).
All the analyses were conducted with the SPSS 18
statistical package, setting the critical level of significance
at 0.05. The present authors consider relations statistically
significant when their level of significance is lower than
0.05.
increasing their participation in leisure activities that
they already performed showed higher levels of
material, emotional and physical well-being. However,
the perception of constraints correlated negatively with
the dimensions of material, emotional and physical
well-being; in this case, the participants who perceived
a greater number of constraints to leisure activities had
lower levels of material, emotional and physical well-
being (see Table 3).
However, according to Cohen’s (1988) standards, the
significant correlations between subjective quality of life
dimensions and LAI indexes were only small.

Results Predictors of quality of life dimensions

Relationship between LAI indexes and quality of life
dimensions
First, the present authors analysed the correlations of the
diverse LAI indexes (leisure activities, preference,
interest and constraints) with the quality of life
dimensions of the GENCAT Scale on the one hand and
with the subjective scale of Integral Quality of Life Scale,
on the other. The present authors confirmed that the LAI
indexes did not correlate significantly with the quality of
life dimensions of the GENCAT Scale (see Table 2).
In the case of the subjective scale of Integral Scale, the
LAP index did not correlate significantly with any of
the quality of life dimensions. However, the present
authors obtained significant relations of the L-PREF
index with the dimensions of material, emotional and
physical well-being; in all cases, the relation was
positive: participants with higher levels of preference for
As function of the correlations obtained, the present
authors used regression analysis to explain quality of
life dimensions of material, emotional and physical
well-being, including only the L-PREF and L-CON
indexes as predictors. Below, first, the present authors
present the results obtained for the dimension of
material well-being and then for the emotional and
physical well-being domain.
The results of the regression analysis for material
well-being indicated that the model was significant,
with a R-squared of 0.17 (adjusted R2 = 0.11) [F(7,
94) = 2.79, P = 0.011]. The model showed that only
L-PREF (b = 0.25, t = 2.60, P < 0.05) and L-CON
(b = 0.27, t = 2.88, P < 0.01) were significant
predictors for levels of material well-being (see Table 4).
The results of the regression analysis for emotional
and physical well-being indicated that the model was

Table 3 Correlations between the Leisure Assessment

Table 2 Correlations between the Leisure Assessment Inventory indexes and the dimensions of subjective scale of
Inventory indexes and the dimensions of the GENCAT Integral Quality of Life Scale

GENCAT Leisure Assessment Inventory indexes Integral quality of life scale Leisure Assessment Inventory indexes

Quality of life domains LAP L-PREF L-INT L-CON Quality of life domains LAP L-PREF L-INT L-CON
Emotional well-being 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.13 Self-determination 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.20
Interpersonal relations 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.13 Social inclusion 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.18
Material well-being 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.08 Job well-being 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01
Personal development 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.03 Material well-being 0.03 0.22** 0.17 0.29**
Physical well-being 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.02 Emotional and physical 0.05 0.22** 0.11 0.27**
Self-determination 0.16 0.00 0.12 0.11 well-being
Social inclusion 0.17 0.15 0.05 0.01 Family well-being 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.15
Rights 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.01
LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity
LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-INT, leisure interest; L-CON, leisure constraints.
preference; L-INT, leisure interest; L-CON, leisure constraints. **P < 0.01.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

6 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites

Table 4 Summary of regression analysis for variables [b = 0.19, t = 0.59, P = 0.56; Fchange(1, 111) = 0.34,
predicting material well-being P = 0.56], residence location [b = 0.18, t = 0.44,
P = 0.66; Fchange(1, 117) = 0.20, P = 0.66] and residential
Variable B b t P placement [b = 0.05, t = 0.15, P = 0.88; Fchange(1,
114) = 0.02, P = 0.88]. The results indicate that gender,
Gender 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.883
age, ID, residence location and residential placement do
Age 0.81 0.12 1.26 0.188
not have a moderating effect on the relationship
Level of DI 0.49 0.07 0.76 0.449
Residence location 0.12 0.02 0.17 0.867 between L-PREF and material well-being.
Residential placement 0.74 0.11 1.05 0.243 The results of the moderator analysis of the
L-PREF 0.09 0.25 2.60 0.011 relationship between material well-being and L-CON
L-CON 0.27 0.27 2.88 0.005 are shown in Table 7. In all cases, the interaction term
was not significant and the addition of the interaction
L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-CON, leisure constraints. term failed significantly to improve the model
significantly: gender [b = 0.41, t = 1.25, P = 0.22;
Table 5 Summary of regression analysis for variables Fchange(1, 113) = 1.56, P = 0.22], age [b = 0.26, t = 0.77,
predicting emotional and physical well-being P = 0.45; Fchange(1, 113) = 0.59, P = 0.45], ID [b = 0.41,
t = 1.30, P = 0.20; Fchange(1, 104) = 1.68, P = 0.20],
Variable B b t P residence location [b = 0.75, t = 1.93, P = 0.06;
Fchange(1, 110) = 3.71, P = 0.06] and residential
Gender 0.40 0.07 0.67 0.507 placement [b = 0.08, t = 0.22, P = 0.83; Fchange(1,
Age 0.27 0.05 0.47 0.188 108) = 0.05, P = 0.83]. The results indicate that gender,
Level of DI 0.26 0.04 0.44 0.660 age, ID, residence location and residential placement do
Residence location 0.25 0.04 0.38 0.703
not have a moderating effect on the relationship
Residential placement 0.98 0.16 1.55 0.125
between L-CON and material well-being.
L-PREF 0.07 0.21 2.23 0.028
The results of the moderator analysis of the
L-CON 0.27 0.29 3.09 0.003
relationship between emotional and physical well-being
L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-CON, leisure constraints. and L-PREF are shown in Table 8. In all cases, the
interaction term was not significant, and the addition of
the interaction term failed to improve the model
significant, with a R-squared of 0.18 (adjusted R2 = 0.12) significantly: gender [b = 0.21, t = 0.60, P = 0.55;
[F(7, 94) = 3.03, P = 0.006]. The only variables that were Fchange(1, 120) = 0.36, P = 0.55], age [b = 0.39,
significant predictors of levels of emotional and physical t = 1.31, P = 0.19; Fchange(1, 120) = 1.71, P = 0.19], ID
well-being were L-PREF (b = 0.21, t = 2.23, P < 0.05) [b = 0.52, t = 1.59, P = 0.11; Fchange(1, 111) = 2.54,
and L-CON (b = 0.29, t = 3.09, P < 0.01) (see P = 0.11], residence location [b = 0.15, t = 0.36,
Table 5). P = 0.72; Fchange(1, 117) = 0.13, P = 0.72] and residential
placement [b = 0.07, t = 0.23, P = 0.82; Fchange(1,
114) = 0.05, P = 0.82]. The results indicate that gender,
Moderating effect of personal and environmental
age, ID, residence location and residential placement do
variables on the relationship between LAI indexes and
not have a moderating effect on the relationship
subjective quality of life dimensions
between L-PREF and emotional and physical well-being.
The analysis was carried out first for material well-being The results of the moderator analysis of the
and second for emotional and physical well-being and relationship between emotional and physical well-being
separately for L-PREF and L-CON. and L-CONT are shown in Table 9. In all cases, the
The results of the moderator analysis of the interaction term was not significant and the addition of
relationship between material well-being and L-PREF the interaction term failed to improve the model
are shown in Table 6. In all cases, the interaction term significantly: gender [b = 0.32, t = 0.97, P = 0.33;
was not significant and the addition of the interaction Fchange(1, 113) = 0.94, P = 0.33], age [b = 0.17,
term failed significantly to improve the model t = 0.51, P = 0.61; Fchange(1, 113) = 0.26, P = 0.61], ID
significantly: gender [b = 0.34, t = 0.93, P = 0.36; [b = 0.23, t = 0.72, P = 0.48; Fchange(1, 104) = 0.51,
Fchange(1, 120) = 0.87, P = 0.36], age [(b = 0.16, P = 0.48], residence location [b = 0.22, t = 0.55, P = 0.59;
t = 0.54, P = 0.59; Fchange(1, 120) = 0.29, P = 0.59], ID Fchange(1, 110) = 0.30, P = 0.59] and residential

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites 7

Table 6 Moderator analysis for L-PREF with material well-being

Predictor: L-PREF B b R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change F change

Moderating variable: gender

Model 1
L-PREF 0.09 0.22
Gender 0.18 0.03 0.051 0.043 3.255*
Model 2
L-PREF 9 gender 0.07 0.34 0.058 0.030 0.007 0.870
Moderating variable: age
Model 1
L-PREF 0.09 0.24
Age 0.46 0.07 0.055 0.039 3.520*
Model 2
L-PREF 9 age 0.04 0.16 0.057 0.034 0.002 0.294
Moderating variable: IQ level
Model 1
L-PREF 0.09 0.23
IQ level 0.38 0.06 0.058 0.041 3.445*
Model 2
L-PREF 9 IQ level 0.04 0.19 0.061 0.035 0.003 0.344
Moderating variable: residence location
Model 1
L-PREF 0.08 0.21
Residence location 0.40 0.06 0.046 0.030 2.875
Model 2
L-PREF 9 residence location 0.03 0.18 0.048 0.024 0.002 0.197
Moderating variable: residential placement
Model 1
L-PREF 0.09 0.23
Residential placement 1.17 0.17 0.083 0.067 5.17**
Model 2
L-PREF 9 residential placement 0.01 0.05 0.083 0.059 0.000 0.022

L-PREF, leisure activity preference.

**P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.

placement [b = 0.05, t = 0.14, P = 0.88; Fchange(1,
108) = 0.02, P = 0.88]. The results indicate that gender,
age, ID, residence location and residential placement do
not have a moderating effect on the relationship
between L-CON and emotional and physical well-being.
Discussion
The relationships between participation and quality of
life
The present study aimed to examine the relationship
between leisure participation (leisure activities,
preference, interest and constraints) and objective and
subjective quality of life of people with developmental
disabilities. The results of this study show that quality
of life is more related to the subjective indexes
(preference and constraints) of leisure participation than
to the objective index (leisure activities). Also, no
relations were found between participation in diverse
leisure activities and the dimensions of subjective
quality of life, which indicates that mere participation in
leisure activities – which is the most objective domain of
participation in recreational activities – does not
necessarily lead to a better perception of quality of life.
This is consistent with a previous study by Hammel
et al. (2008), which showed that leisure activities,
preferences and barriers are not related to the objective
dimensions of quality of life.
Our findings showed that preferences and constrains
were associated with specific dimensions of subjective
quality of life. The preference for diverse leisure activities

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

8 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites

Table 7 Moderator analysis for L-CON with material well-being

Predictor: L-CON B b R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change F change

Moderating variable: gender

Model 1
L-CON 0.31 0.29
Gender 0.22 0.03 0.085 0.069 5.316**
Model 2
L-CON 9 gender 0.24 0.41 0.098 0.074 0.012 1.556
Moderating variable: age
Model 1
L-CON 0.31 0.29
Age 0.43 0.06 0.088 0.072 5.513**
Model 2
L-CON 9 age 0.15 0.26 0.093 0.069 0.005 0.587
Moderating variable: IQ level
Model 1
L-CON 0.32 0.31
IQ level 0.75 0.11 0.106 0.089 6.230**
Model 2
L-CON 9 IQ level 0.25 0.41 0.120 0.095 0.014 1.679
Moderating variable: residence location
Model 1
L-CON 0.34 0.33
Residence location 0.03 0.00 0.107 0.091 6.670**
Model 2
L-CON 9 residence location 0.42 0.75 0.136 0.113 0.029 3.714
Moderating variable: residential placement
Model 1
L-CON 0.28 0.27
Residential placement 0.85 0.12 0.095 0.078 5.689**
Model 2
L-CON 9 residential placement 0.05 0.08 0.095 0.070 0.000 0.046

L-CON, leisure constraints.

**P < 0.01.

that participants actually engage in and the perceived
constraints to participation were more closely related to
the levels of quality of life. People with developmental
disabilities who were more satisfied with life, had a high
self-concept, showed low stress levels, enjoyed good
health and felt physically fit and had enough money
expressed the desire to participate more in the activities
they already performed. In this study, the relation
obtained between the preference to increase participation
in the leisure activities already being performed and
quality of life dimensions leads to interesting conclusions
for providers of leisure support services. The present
authors must provide environments that allow people
with developmental disabilities to express their
preferences for the types of recreational activities they
want perform. This would be associated with, or would
lead to their perception of, higher levels of emotional and
physical well-being (Lachapelle et al. 2005).
However, our hypothesis was partially confirmed
because no relations were found between the par
ticipation indexes analysed and the dimensions of self-
determination and social inclusion dimensions. Similar
findings were found by McGuire & McDonnell (2008),
who found no relation between self-determination and
recreation. On the one hand, a probable explanation of
our results is that most Spanish people with
developmental disabilities live in the community, either
with family, in foster homes or in a supported living
arrangement (Badia et al. 2013). And, on the other hand,
the organizations in favour of persons with

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites 9

Table 8 Moderator analysis for L-PREF with emotional and physical well-being

Predictor: L-PREF B b R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change F change

Moderating variable: gender

Model 1
L-PREF 0.09 0.22
Gender 0.48 0.07 0.055 0.039 3.506*
Model 2
L-PREF 9 gender 0.04 0.21 0.058 0.034 0.003 0.356
Moderating variable: age
Model 1
L-PREF 0.08 0.22
Age 0.21 0.03 0.051 0.035 3.218*
Model 2
L-PREF 9 age 0.09 0.39 0.064 0.040 0.013 1.711
Moderating variable: IQ level
Model 1
L-PREF 0.08 0.20
IQ level 0.39 0.06 0.045 0.028 2.629
Model 2
L-PREF 9 IQ level 0.112 0.525 0.066 0.041 0.021 2.541
Moderating variable: residence location
Model 1
L-PREF 0.08 0.20
Residence location 0.47 0.07 0.046 0.046 2.830
Model 2
L-PREF 9 residence location 0.03 0.15 0.047 0.022 0.001 0.130
Moderating variable: residential placement
Model 1
L-PREF 0.07 0.21
Residential placement 1.73 0.27 0.128 0.113 8.457***
Model 2
L-PREF 9 residential placement 0.02 0.071 0.129 0.106 0.000 0.054

L-PREF, leisure activity preference.

***P < 0.001; *P < 0.05.

developmental disabilities have adhered an ecological

approach that emphasizes quality of life principles,
ethics and quality of management (Schalock et al. 2008).
The community involvement of the people with
developmental disabilities of our study facilitates their
participation in leisure activities attended by people
without any disability, and it provides an environment
in which they have more opportunities to choose.
Lastly, participants who perceived constraints to
participation showed low levels of emotional and
physical satisfaction. According to the results of
constraints, as found in a prior study, the perception of
constraints seems to be a determinant of non-
participation in this type of activities, which would
explain its relation with quality of life (Badia et al.
2011a).
Predictors of quality of life dimensions
Preference to perform certain leisure activities they
already perform and constraints were the most
important predictors of material well-being. The
relations found between material well-being and the
two LAI indexes (preferences and constraints) support
the fact that adult with developmental disabilities who
perceive lower material well-being showed fewer
preferences to increase their participation in the
activities they already perform and perceived more
constraints. Their gender, age, level of ID, residence
location and residential placement did not effect on
their level of material well-being. These findings
support prior studies that have found week association
between sociodemographic characteristics and subjective

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

10 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites

Table 9 Moderator analysis for L-CON with emotional and physical well-being

Predictor: L-PREF B b R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change F change

Moderating variable: gender

Model 1
L-CON 0.28 0.27
Gender 0.31 0.05 0.076 0.059 4.668*
Model 2
L-CON 9 gender 0.18 0.32 0.083 0.059 0.008 0.941
Moderating variable: age
Model 1
L-CON 0.28 0.27
Age 0.35 0.05 0.076 0.060 4.706*
Model 2
L-CON 9 age 0.10 0.17 0.078 0.054 0.002 0.256
Moderating variable: IQ level
Model 1
L-CON 0.30 0.30
IQ level 0.61 0.09 0.092 0.075 5.339**
Model 2
L-CON 9 IQ level 0.14 0.23 0.097 0.071 0.004 0.511
Moderating variable: residence location
Model 1
L-CON 0.31 0.30
Residence location 0.11 0.02 0.092 0.076 5.649**
Model 2
L-CON 9 residence location 0.12 0.22 0.095 0.070 0.002 0.299
Moderating variable: residential placement
Model 1
L-CON 0.25 0.27
Residential placement 1.29 0.21 0.127 0.111 7.943***
Model 2
L-CON 9 residential placement 0.03 0.05 0.127 0.103 0.000 0.022

L-CON, leisure constraints.

***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.

quality of life (Duvdevany & Arar 2004; Maher et al.
2008; McManus et al. 2008).
With regard to emotional and physical well-being
domains, here also preferences and constraints were
predictors of the differences in participants’ quality of
life. As in this study, others have shown relations
between the presence of scarce opportunities to perform
the leisure activities they prefer and the perception of
barriers to perform such activities and low emotional
and physical quality of life (Messent et al. 1999; Temple
& Walkley 2007). The preference for some activities over
others is sensitive to the person’s involvement in leisure
activities (Hawkins et al. 2002). Previous findings
indicated that older adults with ID who regularly
engaged in intrinsically meaningful leisure activities
tended to perceive higher life satisfaction (Hawkins
1993; Rogers et al. 1998). The possibility of choosing,
planning and performing pleasant leisure activities
significantly helps people to experience positive
emotions and contributes positively to health (Dattilo &
Schleien 1994; Brodin 2000). The personal and
environmental variables analysed had no effect on
emotional and physical well-being.
Moderating effect of personal and environmental
variables on the relationship between LAI indexes and
subjective quality of life dimensions
The results obtained in this study indicate the moderating
effect of personal and environmental variables did not
influence relationship between leisure participation
(preferences and constraints) and specific quality of life

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


domains (material, emotional and physical well-being).
The incidence of preference and constraints on quality of
life domains is independent of these variables.
The personal (gender, age, level of ID) and
environmental (residence location and residential
placement) variables analysed do not contribute
significantly to explain material, emotional and physical
well-being, and they have no moderating effect. These
findings are in accordance with the study of Duvdevany
& Arar (2004), who showed that quality of life was
more fully explained by involvement in leisure activities
than age, gender or level of functioning.
Study limitations
This study has some limitations. First, the small sample
size is a weakness, and a larger study is needed
to confirm our findings. Further research is also
recommended to understand how the relations between
participation in leisure activities and quality of life to
differ as function of other personal and environmental
variables. Second, as demonstrated, most aspects of
quality of life and leisure participation are not
associated with impairments and are therefore likely to
be determined by barriers. Despite our knowledge of
other instruments that are being used to analyse
physical, social and attitudinal barriers, the present
authors used the Constraints Index of the LAI because
the present authors had already used it in a broader
study of participation in leisure activities of adults with
developmental disabilities. This may be a limitation of
the study, as the present authors did not appraise all
the dimensions of the construct environment.
Summary and conclusion
To conclude, the results of our study support the
existence of an association between the perception of
constraints and quality of life. Material, emotional and
physical well-being were the aspects most closely
related to leisure participation. Age, gender, level of ID,
residence location and residential placement did not
have an effect on participation and quality of life. These
findings are particularly important in view of
interventions that promote quality of life of people with
developmental disabilities through participation in
leisure activities. The results of diverse studies suggest
that the factors of the physical, social and attitudinal
environment have more influence on leisure par-
ticipation than disability-related factors. Therefore, all
the interventions aimed at eliminating constraints and
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites 11
facilitating participation in leisure activities are essential
to increase the levels of quality of life of people with
developmental disabilities. These findings indicate that
some aspects of leisure participation may significantly
contribute to enhancing the quality of life of young
people and adults with developmental disabilities living
in the community.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by aid (Order
EDU/894/2009; Official Gazette of Castile and Leon No.
77 of 27 of April) granted to the Research Group for
Excellence in Disability (GR197), Regional Government of
Castile and Leon, Spain.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors report no conflict of interests. The authors
alone are responsible for the content and writing of the
manuscript.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Marta Badia,
INICO, Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca,
Avda. de la Merced, 109-131, 37005 Salamanca, Spain
(e-mail: badia@usal.es).
References
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities (2010) Leisure. Available at: http://www.aaidd.
org/content_190.cfm (accessed on 12 July 2010)
Badia M., Orgaz M. B., Verdugo M. A., Ull
an A. M. & Mart
ınez
M. M. (2011a) Personal factors and perceived barriers to
participation in leisure activities for young and adults with
developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental
Disabilities 32, 2055–2063.
Badia M., Orgaz M. B., Verdugo M. A., Ull
an A. M., Mart
ınez
M. M. & Longo E. (2011b) El Inventario de Evaluaci
on del
Ocio en j
ovenes y adultos con discapaciad intelectual [The
Leisure Assessment Inventory in young people and adults
with intellectual disability]. Siglo Cero 42, 7–22.
Badia M., Orgaz M B., Verdugo M. A. & Ull
an A. M. (2013)
Patterns and determinants of leisure participation of youth
and adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research 57, 319–332.
Baron R. M. & Kenny D. A. (1986) The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.
12 Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites
Brodin J. (2000) Participation and equal opportunities for all.
Technology and Disability 13, 67–75.
Cohen J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Dattilo J. & Schleien S. (1994) Understanding leisure services
for individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation 32,
53–59.
Dattilo J., Kleiber D. & Williams R. (1998) Self-determination
and enjoyment enhancement: a psychologically-based service
delivery model for therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic
Recreation Journal 32, 258–271.
Duvdevany I. (2002) Self-concept and adaptive behaviour of
people with intellectual disability in integrated and
segregated recreation activities. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research 46, 419–429.
Duvdevany I. & Arar E. (2004) Leisure activities, friendships,
and quality of life of persons with intellectual disability:
foster homes vs community residential settings. International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research 27, 289–296.
Felce D. & Perry J. (1995) Quality of life: its definition and
measurement. Research in Developmental Disabilities 16, 51–74.
Fleiss J. L. (1981) Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.
Wiley, New York, NY.
Hammel J., Magasi S., Heinemann A., Whiteneck G., Bogner J.
& Rodriguez E. (2008) What does participation mean? An
insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disability &
Rehabilitation 30, 1445–1460.
Hawkins B. (1993) An exploratory analysis of leisure and life
satisfaction of aging adults with mental retardation.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal 27, 98–109.
Hawkins B. A., Ardovino P.., Rogers N. B., Foose A. & Olsen
N. (2002) Leisure Assessment Inventory. Idyll Arbor,
Ravensdale, WA.
Lachapelle Y., Wehmeyer M., Haelewyck M. C., Courbois Y.,
Keith K., Schalock R., Verdugo M. A. & Walsh P. (2005) The
relationship between quality of life and self-determination: an
international study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 49,
740–744.
Law M. (2002) Participation in the occupations of everyday life.
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 56, 640–649.
Maher C. A., Olds T., Williams M. T. & Lane A. E. (2008) Self-
reported quality of life in adolescents with cerebral palsy.
Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 28, 41–57.
McGuire J. & McDonnell J. (2008) Relationships between
recreation and levels of self-determination for adolescents
and young adults with disabilities. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals 31, 154–163.
McManus V., Corcoran P. & Perry I. J. (2008) Participation in
everyday activities and quality of life in pre-teenage children
living with cerebral palsy in South West Ireland. BMC
Pediatrics 8, 50.
Messent P., Cooke C. & Long J. (1999) Primary and secondary
barriers to physically active healthy lifestyles for adults
with learning disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation 21,
409–419.
Orsmond G., Krauss M. & Seltzer M. (2004) Peer relationships
and social and recreational activities among adolescents and
adults with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 34, 245–256.
Poulsen A. A., Ziviani J. M. & Cuskelly M. (2007) Perceived
freedom in leisure and physical co-ordination ability: impact
on out-of-school activity participation and life satisfaction.
Child: Care, Health and Development 33, 432–440.
Rogers N. B., Hawkins B. & Eklund S. (1998) The nature of
leisure in the lives of older adults with intellectual disability.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 42, 122–130.
Schalock R. L. (2004) The concept of quality of life: what we
know and do not know. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research 48, 203–216.
Schalock R. L. & Felce D. (2004) Quality of life and subjective
well-being: conceptual and measurement issues. In:
International Handbook of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities (eds E. Emerson, C. Hatton, T. Thompson & T. R.
Parmenter), pp. 261–279. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester,
UK.
Schalock R. L. & Verdugo M. A. (2002) Handbook on Quality of
Life for Human Service Practitioners. American Association on
Mental Retardation, Washington, DC.
Schalock R. L., Verdugo M. A., Jenaro C., Wang M., Wehmeyer
M., Jiancheng X., Lachapelle Y. & Felce D. (2005) Cross-
cultural study of quality of life indicators. American Journal on
Mental Retardation 110, 298–311.
Schalock R. L., Verdugo M. A., Bonham G. S., Fantova F. &
Van Loon J. (2008) Enhancing personal outcomes:
organizational strategies, guidelines, and examples. Journal of
Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 5, 276–285.
Schalock R. L., Borthwick-Duffy S. A., Bradley V. J., Buntinx W.
H. E., Coulter D. L., Craig E. M., G
omez S. C., Lachapelle Y.,
Luckasson R., Reeve A., Shogren K. A., Snell M. E., Spreat S.,
Tasse M. J., Thompson J. R., Verdugo-Alonso M. A.,
Wehmeyer M. L. & Yeager M. H. (2010) Intellectual Disability:
Diagnosis, Classification and Systems of Support, 11th edn.
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, Washington, DC.
Temple V. A. & Walkley J. W. (2007) Perspectives of
constraining and enabling factors for health-promoting
physical activity by adults with intellectual disability. Journal
of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 32, 28–38.
Van Naarden Braun K., Yeargin-Allsopp M. & Lollar D. (2006)
Factors associated with leisure activity among young adults
with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental
Disabilities 27, 567–583.
Verdugo M. A., Arias B., G
omez L. E. & Schalock R. L. (2010)
Development of an objective instrument to assess quality of
life in social services: reliability and validity in Spain.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 10,
105–123.
Verdugo M. A., G
omez L. E., Arias B. & Schalock R. L. (2011)
The Integral Quality of Life Scale: development, validation,
and use. In: Enhancing the Quality of Life of People with
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Intellectual Disabilities: From Theory to Practice (ed. R. Kober),
pp. 47–60. Springer, Dordrecht.
Wade D. T. & Halligan P. (2003) New wine in old bottles: the
WHO ICF as an explanatory model of human behaviour.
Clinical Rehabilitation 17, 349–354.
Wehmeyer M. & Schwartz M. (1998) The relationship between
self-determination and quality of life for adults with mental
retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities 33, 3–12.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Applied Research in Intellutual Disabilites 13
Whiteneck G. & Dijkers M. P. (2009) Difficult to measure
constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning
participation and environmental factors. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 90, 22–35.
World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of
Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organization,
Geneva.