AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD

2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12 DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1

Moving Us Toward a Theory of Individual Quality of Life

Robert L. Schalock, Miguel A. Verdugo, Laura E. Gomez, and Hans S. Reinders

Abstract
This article discusses three steps involved in moving us toward a theory of individual quality
of life: developing a conceptual model, integrating theory components, and applying and
evaluating the theory. Each of the proposed steps is guided by established standards
regarding theory development and use. The article concludes with a discussion of criteria
that can be used to evaluate the theory and the contribution that a theory of individual
quality of life would make to the field of disability.
Key Words: individual quality of life; quality of life conceptual mode; quality of life theory; theory
construction; theory standards

The concept of quality of life (QOL) is signifi-
cantly impacting research and service delivery in
the field of intellectual and closely related
developmental disabilities (IDD). Currently, the
concept provides a framework for person-centered
planning, a basic principle to guide service
delivery policies and practices, and a model for
exploring the impact of various individual and
environmental factors on quality of life-related
personal outcomes (Bigby, Knox, Beadle-Brown,
& Bould, 2014; Brown, Hatton, & Emerson, 2013;
Gomez, Arias, Verdugo, & Navas, 2012; Mansell
& Beadle-Brown, 2012; Reinders & Schalock,
2014; Schalock, Gardner, & Bradley, 2007; Scha-
lock & Verdugo, 2012; Verdugo, Navas, Gomez, &
Schalock, 2012).
As widely understood and applied, the QOL
concept includes values related to equity, empow-
erment, self-determination, and inclusion (Scha-
lock & Verdugo, 2012). The concept also focuses
on the individualized nature of one’s quality of life,
what the person contributes to bringing about
change, and what person-centered supports and
opportunities facilitate a life of quality (Brown et
al., 2013; Claes, van Hove, Vandevelde, van Loon,
& Schalock, 2012). From this perspective: (a)
quality of life needs to be discussed in constant
dialog with the person (Reinders & Schalock,
2014); (b) personal development does not only
pertain to realized outcomes but also to the
processes involved (Sen, 1999); and (c) no one is
excluded from the quality of life enhancement
process on the basis of cognitive impairments
(Brown et al., 2013; Mansell & Beadle-Brown,
2012; Nussbaum, 2006, 2009).
Because of its significant influence, the
concept of quality of life and its application needs
to have a more theoretical basis that incorporates
the knowledge and methodologies that have
emerged in the field over the past few decades,
and that can help inform us on how to set out the
theory clearly and accurately so that it is
comprehensible to both academics and practition-
ers (Brown et al., 2013; Chiu et al., 2013;
Cummins, 2005; Reinders & Schalock, 2014;
Schalock, Keith, Verdugo, & Gomez, 2010; Zuna,
Summers, Turnbull, Hu, & Xu, 2010). This effort
requires a clear understanding of what a theory is,
and how a proposed theory of individual quality
of life needs to meet established standards
regarding theory development and use.
Thus, we begin the article with a discussion
of the standards that should guide theory
development and use. We then integrate these
standards into the three proposed steps involved
in moving us toward a theory of individual
quality of life: (a) developing a conceptual
model, (b) integrating theory components, and
(c) applying and evaluating the theory. In
discussing these steps, we use supportive and

R. L. Schalock et al. 1
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
exemplary material from QOL research over
the last two decades that serves as a basis for
developing a conceptual model of individual
quality of life and proposing the components of a
theory of individual quality of life.
Theory Definition and Standards
Definition
We define a theory as an integrative construct
based on facts and experiences that generate
hypotheses that can be tested and used as a basis
for explanation. Furthermore, we suggest that a
theory (a) is developed using inductive reasoning
in which investigators arrive at the level of
explanation and prediction based on their specific
observations and/or systematic inquiries (Borto-
lotti, 2008; Newton-Smith, 2001); and (b) starts
with a conceptual model that can be used to
explain a particular phenomenon, explore the
impacts of various factors influencing the phe-
nomenon, and provide the basis for its application
(Chiu et al., 2013; Schalock et al., 2010; Zuna et
al., 2010).
Theory Standards
Because of the importance and potential multiple
uses of a theory of individual quality of life, its
development needs to meet established standards
regarding theory development and use. To that
end, the authors have incorporated the following
nine standards proposed and discussed by Borto-
lotti (2008), Kuhn (1970), and Newton-Smith
(2001): (a) based on a clearly defined and
described concept, (b) compatible with other
accepted theories, (c) integrated into current
trends, (d) explain how components of a concep-
tual model work, (e) make accurate predictions
about complex relations, (f) allow for theoretical
and practical developments, (g) feasible, (h) allow
for problem solving, and (i) generalizable across
disciplines and research areas. In introducing each
subsequent section of the article, we refer to those
standards that provide the framework for the
respective step. As an overview, standards a to c
pertain to developing a conceptual model, d to f
to integrating theory components, and g to i to
applying and evaluating the theory. In the final
section of the article, we discuss how the proposed
theory meets these nine development and use
standards.
2 Theory of Individual Quality of Life
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
Develop a Conceptual Model
A theory of quality of life starts with a conceptual
model that is used to explain the QOL concept,
integrate current work in the field, and provide the
basis for application. In addition, a conceptual
model of QOL organizes knowledge, allows for a
common language, and specifies components of
the QOL concept without specifying how the
components work (Anguera, 1997; Llewellyn &
Hogan, 2000). The standards guiding this first step
are that the proposed theory is based on a clearly
defined and described concept, compatible with
other accepted theories, and integrated into
current trends.
As depicted in Figure 1, our conceptual model
of individual quality of life has three components:
QOL domains, moderator and mediator variables,
and enhancement strategies. Cogs are used in the
figure to denote and depict the connectivity and
interactional nature of these three components.
Quality of Life Domains
Quality of life is a multidimensional phenomenon
composed of core domains that constitute per-
sonal well-being. In our QOL-related research and
application work, we conceptualize quality of life
as being composed of eight core domains that
were initially synthesized and validated through an
extensive review of the international quality of life
literature across the areas of IDD, special educa-
tion, behavior and mental health, and aging
(Schalock & Verdugo, 2002). As depicted by the
eight cogs in the center of Figure 1, these domains
are personal development, self-determination,
interpersonal relations, social inclusion, rights,
emotional well-being, physical well-being, and
material well-being. Subsequent cross-cultural
validation of the etic (i.e., universal) properties
of these eight domains has been reported by
Jenaro, Verdugo, Caballo, Balboni, Lachapelle,
and Otrebski (2005); Schalock et al. (2005); and
Wang, Schalock, Verdugo, and Jenaro (2010).
In addition to confirming the factor structure
of the eight, first-order domains listed previously
and depicted in Figure 1, recent work has also
evaluated the hierarchical nature of the quality of
life concept. Based on both cross-cultural data
(Wang et al., 2010) and data obtained from Spain
(Gomez, Verdugo, Arias, & Arias, 2011) three
higher order factors have been identified. These
are independence (composed of personal develop-
ment and self-determination), social participation
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
Figure 1. A conceptual model of individual quality of life.
(composed of interpersonal relations, social inclu-
sion, and rights), and well-being (composed of
emotional, physical, and material well-being). As
discussed more fully in Gomez et al. (2011) and
Wang et al. (2010), a number of goodness of fit
indices have been employed in this work,
including those statistics (such as Satorra-Bentler
scaled chi-square (Satorra & Bentler, 1994) that
adjusts model chi-squares for non-normality. The
interested reader is referred to these two summary
articles for a detailed discussion of the multiple fit
indices employed and their respective results.
Other conceptual models of individual qual-
ity of life can be found in the work of Brown et al.
(2013); Cummins (2005); Felce and Perry (1995);
Gardner and Carran (2005); Petry, Maes, and
Vlaskamp (2005, 2009); and Renwick, Brown, and
Raphael (2000). Analogous models of family
quality of life can be found in the work of Chiu
et al. (2013) and Zuna et al. (2010). Common to
R. L. Schalock et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
these models is the inclusion of quality of life
domains that are the factors composing personal or
family well-being, and quality indicators that are
QOL-related perceptions, behaviors, and condi-
tions that give an indication of a person’s or
family’s well-being. The measurement of quality
of life is based on assessing the perceived status
(based on self-report or report of others) of the
quality indicators.
Moderator and Mediator Variables
The conceptual model that is at the heart of a
QOL theory presupposes a contextual understand-
ing of disability as a condition that results from
interacting individual and environmental factors.
This ecological model of disability focuses on
person-environmental interaction and the congru-
ence between personal competence and environ-
mental demands and opportunities resulting from
these interacting factors. In our approach, these
3
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12 DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1

factors are of two kinds: moderating and mediat-
ing factors. A moderating factor alters the relation
between two variables and thus modifies the form
or strength of the relation. A mediating factor
influences the relation between the independent
variable and outcome and exhibits indirect
causation, connection, or relation (Farmer, 2012;
Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). An overview of these
moderator and mediator factors is presented in
Table 1, including the specific variables studied to
date. Published references regarding the specific
variables studied to date are presented in the
following section on integrating theory compo-
nents (see Explanatory Component).
Enhancement Strategies
The third component of our conceptual model
involves enhancement strategies that encompass
developing personal talents, maximizing personal
involvement, providing individualized supports,
and facilitating personal growth opportunities. As
summarized in Table 2, these enhancement
strategies involve a number of quality of life-
related principles that can be applied at the micro,
meso, or macrosystem level. Material presented in
Table 2 is based on the published work of
Bonham, Davis, and Volkman (2011); Claes et
al. (2012); Emerson (2013); Gardner and Carran
(2005); Hart and Sasso (2011); Morin, Crocker,
Beaulieu-Bergeron, and Caron (2013); Reinders
and Schalock (2014); Schalock and Verdugo
(2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014); Schalock et al.
(2007), Schalock, Verdugo, and Gomez et al.
(2011); and Thompson, Schalock, Agosta, Te-
ninty, and Fortune (2014).
Integrate Theory Components
The three standards guiding this second step are
that the proposed theory explains how compo-
nents of a conceptual model work, make accurate
predictions about complex relations, and allow for
theoretical and practical developments. As an
integrative construct, a theory of individual
QOL has various components at the heart of
which is the conceptual model presented in Figure
1. The definitional component involves cogs repre-
senting the eight core QOL domains; the
explanatory component involves moderator and
mediator variable cogs representing personal
characteristics and environmental factors that
influence QOL-related personal outcomes; and
the predictive component, which is used as a basis for
generating hypotheses, involves enhancement
strategy cogs representing policies and practices
that can positively affect domain-referenced mod-
erator and mediator variables. As described earlier,
the term cogs is used to denote and depict the
connectivity and interactional nature of each of
these components.
Definitional Component
We define individual quality of life as a multidi-
mensional phenomenon composed of core do-
mains that constitute personal well-being. These
domains are influenced by personal characteristics

Table 1
Quality of Life Moderator and Mediator Variable Classes and Associated Variables
QOL moderator/mediator class Specific variables studied to date

QOL Moderators
Personal Demographic
Organization Culture
Family-Unit Factors
QOL Mediators
Personal Status
Provider System
Community Factors
Gender, race, intellectual functioning, adaptive behavior, social economic
status
Level of personal involvement of the client, level of personal growth
opportunities
Family income, size of family, family geographical location, religious
preference, family structure
Residential platform, employment status, health status, and level of self-
determination and subjective well-being
Services, individualized supports
Normative expectations, attitudes, media impact

4 Theory of Individual Quality of Life

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12 DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1

Table 2
Quality Enhancement Strategies
Systems level QOL-related principles Exemplary QOL enhancement strategies
Individual Empowerment Decision making, choice making, risk taking, goal setting,
(Microsystem) self-advocacy, self-management
Skill development Functional training and use of technology to enhance
cognitive, social, and practical skills
Involvement Participation, inclusion, knowledge sharing, ability sharing
Organization Opportunity development Integrated employment, inclusive education, community-
(Mesosystem) based, less restrictive living options, community
integration activities, transportation, social networks
Safe and secure environments Environments characterized by safety, security,
predictability, and personal control
Supports alignment Aligning individualized supports to personal goals and
assessed support needs
Society Accessibility Ensuring human rights (e.g. empowerment and inclusion)
(Macrosystem) and legal rights (e.g. citizenship, due process)
Attitudes Knowledge and positive interactions
Environmental enrichment Nutrition, cleaner environments, reduced abuse and
neglect, safer environments, adequate housing and
income

and environmental factors. One’s quality of life is
the product of these factors and can be impacted
positively through quality enhancement strategies
that encompass developing personal talents, max-
imizing personal involvement, providing individ-
ualized supports, and facilitating personal growth
opportunities (Reinders & Schalock, 2014; Scha-
lock & Verdugo, 2012).
We use a quantitative approach to the
operational definition and measurement of the
eight quality of life domains (see Figure 1) via the
assessment of domain-referenced indicators. These
indicators are behaviors and conditions that give
an indication of the person’s well-being, are
culture-based (i.e., have emic properties), and
provide the basis for the measurement of personal
quality of life-related outcomes. The interested
reader can find specific details about these core
domains and their measurement in Claes, van
Hove, van Loon, Vandevelde, and Schalock
(2010); Schalock and Verdugo (2013a), Verdugo,
Arias, Gomez, and Schalock (2010), and Verdugo,
Schalock, Keith, and Stancliffe (2005).
Explanatory Component
The explanatory component involves moderator
and mediator variables that presuppose a contex-
tual understanding that disability is the result of
the interaction of individual and environmental
factors. As summarized in Table 1, these factors
are of two kinds: moderating and mediating
factors. A moderator factor alters the relation
between two variables and thus modifies the form
or strength of the relation. A moderator effect is an
interaction in which the effect of one variable is
dependent on the level of the other. A moderator
variable can be continuous or categorical (Baron &
Kenny 1986; Farmer, 2012; Frazier et al., 2004;
Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tathan, 2006).
There has been initial work in the field of IDD to
identify those variables that potentially act as
quality of life moderators. Based on the research
summarized in Gomez, Arias, Verdugo, and
Schalock (2015) and Schalock et al. (2007, 2010)
three classes of moderator variables have been
identified and studied (see Table 1, top section).
Those family unit factors listed are based on the
work of Chiu et al. (2013) and Zuna et al. (2010).
A mediating factor influences the relation
between the independent variable and outcome
and exhibits indirect causation, connection, or
relation. A mediating effect is created when a third
factor intervenes between the independent and
outcome variable. A mediating variable is gener-

R. L. Schalock et al. 5
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
ally continuous (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Farmer,
2012; MacKinnon, 2008). As with moderator
variables, there has been initial work in the field
of IDD to identify those variables that potentially
act as quality of life mediators. Based on the research
summarized in Cummins (2005), Gomez et al.
(2015), Reinders and Schalock (2014), and Scha-
lock et al. (2007, 2010) three classes of mediator
variables have been identified and studied (see
Table 1, bottom section).
Prediction Component
Predictively, one’s quality of life can be enhanced
through quality enhancement strategies that en-
compass developing personal talents, maximizing
personal involvement, providing individualized
supports, and facilitating personal growth oppor-
tunities. Based on the work referenced in the
following sections, we currently understand the
significant predictive potential of three strategies:
personal involvement, individualized supports,
and personal growth opportunities.
Personal involvement. As discussed in detail
by Schalock (2004), Reinders and Schalock (2014),
and Shogren (2013), personal involvement en-
hances one’s level of motivation through increased
self-regulation and autonomy/self-determination.
From a predictive/hypothesis generating perspec-
tive, personal involvement is enhanced through
self-regulation and autonomy (e.g., personal goal
setting, self-management, self-evaluation, self-rein-
forcement, and self-instruction), and self-determi-
nation (e.g., choice making, decision making, and
self-advocacy).
Individualized supports. There is consider-
able empirical evidence that individualized sup-
ports enhance quality of life-related personal
outcomes (Claes et al., 2012; Claes, van Loon,
Vandevelde, & Schalock, 2015; Shogren, Luck-
asson, & Schalock, 2014; Thompson et al., 2014).
Supports are resources and strategies that aim to
promote the development, education, interests,
and personal well-being of an individual and
enhance personal functioning. Since the introduc-
tion of the supports paradigm into the field of
IDD in the mid-1980s, the general concept of
supports has been operationalized and expanded
to encompass a system of supports whose major
components include natural supports, technology,
prosthetics, education (new skills), environmental
accommodation, incentives, personal strengths/
assets, and professional services (Schalock &
Luckasson, 2014).
6 Theory of Individual Quality of Life
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
Personal growth opportunities. This predic-
tive component of the theory is based on three
testable hypotheses. First, personal growth oppor-
tunities relate to employing quality enhancement
strategies that facilitate the actualization of
individual possibilities (Reinders & Schalock,
2014). Second, one’s quality of life results from
personal growth opportunities that reflect the
interplay among individual potential (i.e., micro-
system), family and organization policies and
practices (mesosystem), and macrosystem-level
societal circumstances (Chiu et al., 2013; Schalock
et al., 2007; Verdugo & Schalock, 2009). Third,
personal growth opportunities should reflect a
capacities approach to people with disabilities. As
discussed more fully by Nussbaum (2006, 2009,
2011) and Brown et al. (2013), because capability
approaches focus on what people are able to do
and be, no minimum threshold of basic capabil-
ities is required to participate in life activities, and
no one is excluded on the basis of cognitive
impairment. Analogously, if one ignores the fact
that development relates to both processes and
outcomes, then the motivation and strategies that
people develop themselves in order to realize their
capabilities disappear (Sen, 1999).
Apply and Evaluate the Theory
A theory must be applied and evaluated to
determine its relevance and utility regarding
scientific revolutions (Kuhn, 1970) and paradigm
shifts (Bortolottio, 2008; Newton-Smith, 2001).
Three theory development and use standards
guide this step: the theory is feasible, allows for
problem solving, and is generalizable across
disciplines and research areas. Although this third
step in moving us toward a theory of individual
quality of life is still evolving, three application-
related factors have emerged: (a) the importance of
application fidelity, (b) the need to test theory-
based hypotheses, and (c) the use of specific
criteria to evaluate the relevance and utility of the
proposed theory.
The Importance of Application Fidelity
When research focuses on evaluating hypotheses
or predictions based on the three proposed theory
components (i.e., definition, explanation, and
prediction) the research needs to be sensitive to
application fidelity (Bigby et al., 2014). Fidelity
consists of three related factors: adherence,
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
competence, and differentiation (Hogue & Daub-
er, 2013). Adherence refers to the quantity or
extent to which the QOL enhancement strategy is
delivered within an organization’s policies and
practices. Competence, which refers to the quality
or skill of delivery, relates directly to developing
the skills across organization staff necessary to
operationalize QOL-related enhancement strate-
gies. Differentiation refers to the degree to which
the QOL enhancement strategy focuses on quality
of life and not quality of care (De Waele, van
Loon, van Hove, & Schalock, 2005).
Theory-Based Hypotheses
Hypotheses can be generated (and subsequently
tested) based on (a) the prediction component of
the theory (i.e., personal involvement, individual-
ized supports, and personal growth opportunities;
see earlier discussion); (b) the potential impact of
moderator and mediator variables (see Table 1);
and/or (c) quality enhancement strategies (see
Table 2). Hypothesis testing requires clear opera-
tional definitions of both the independent vari-
able (e.g., personal growth opportunities, playing
an active role in ISP development etc.) and the
dependent variable (e.g., assessed QOL domains).
The reader is referred to Claes et al. (2012);
Gomez, Peña, Arias, and Verdugo (2014); and
Reinders and Schalock (2014) for examples of
theory-based hypotheses in addition to those in
the following list.
 Personal growth opportunities provided by
family members increase assessed motivation
and the QOL domain scores of personal
development, social inclusion, rights, and
emotional well-being.
 Individuals who play an active role in their ISP
development and implementation will have
enhanced QOL outcome domain scores in
personal development, self-determination, so-
cial inclusion, rights, and emotional well-
being.
 Individualized support strategies related to
choices and decision making will increase the
QOL domain scores of personal development
and self-determination.
 An organization that aligns resources with
individualized support strategies focusing on
the eight QOL domains will achieve enhanced
personal outcomes for their service recipients.
 Individuals who use assistive technology
devices will exhibit higher QOL domain scores
R. L. Schalock et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
related to development, interpersonal rela-
tions, social inclusion, and self-determination.
 Improving levels of adaptive behavior will
result in higher scores in the QOL domains of
personal development, physical well-being,
and material well-being.
 Significant differences in QOL domain scores
are related to types of services provided.
Evaluation Criteria
The application of the proposed theory of
individual quality of life to the field of IDD,
including policy makers, practitioners, consum-
ers, families, and researchers, requires not just
acceptance of the theory, with its conceptual
model and theory components, but also criteria
by which its utility and effectiveness can be
evaluated. A number of relevant evaluation
criteria have emerged based on recent quality of
life-related applications described in Brown and
Brown (2005), Claes et al. (2015), Reinders and
Schalock (2014), Schalock et al. (2007), Schalock
and Verdugo (2008, 2014), and Schurack and
Roling (2014). Five such criteria are summarized
in Table 3.
Summary and Conclusion
Successfully meeting those evaluation criteria
listed in Table 3 requires that a theory of
individual quality of life demonstrably meets
established theory development and use standards.
In preceding pages, we described the three
development and use standards associated with
each of the three components of the proposed
theory. In subsequent paragraphs, we summarize
how the proposed theory meets these standards.
In reference to the first component (develop a
conceptual model), the theory is based on a clearly
defined multidimensional quality of life model
whose core domains are consistent with interna-
tional quality of life conceptual and measurement
principles (Brown, Keith, & Schalock, 2004;
Schalock et al., 2002), and whose etic properties
have been validated cross-culturally (Jenaro et al.,
2005; Schalock et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2010).
Additionally, the theory is comparable to other
multidimensional quality of life theories that
include core domains that operationally define
the QOL concept and specify culturally sensitive
domain-referenced indicators that are used as the
basis for measurement (Brown et al., 2013; Zuna et
7
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12 DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1

Table 3
Evaluation Criteria Related to a Theory of Individual Quality of Life
 Explains the complexities of quality of life and the complex relations among its properties.
 Generates hypotheses regarding the influence on one’s quality of life of specific moderator and mediator
variables.
 Generates hypotheses that can be tested regarding quality enhancement strategies.
 Contributes to the growth of information by integrating considerable information regarding personal and
environmental factors impacting one’s quality of life.
 Serves as a basis for organization change and quality improvement that lead to the improvement of service
recipients’ quality of life.

al., 2010). The proposed theory and its application
integrate the four significant trends currently
influencing the field of ID: the social-ecological
model of disability, the supports paradigm,
positive psychology, and the human and civil
rights of persons with a disability (Schalock &
Keith, in press).
In reference to the second component
(integrates theory components), the relations among
the components of the conceptual model (i.e., the
eight QOL domains) have been confirmed
through confirmatory factor analysis (Gomez et
al., 2011; Wang et al, 2010). Moderator and
mediator variables are used to explain the relation
of variables not in the conceptual model and thus
provide the basis for accurate predictions about
contextual factors related to the individual,
organization, and larger community (Farmer,
2012; Gomez et al., 2014; Schalock et al.,
2010). The proposed theory allows for theoretical
developments in regard to testing the theory, and
provides a heuristic framework for application
and evaluation.
In reference to the third component (apply
and evaluate the theory), the theory is feasible as
reflected in its (a) operationalization through the
measurement of culturally-sensitive subjective and
objective indicators representing QOL-related
perceptions, behaviors, and conditions; (b) com-
patibility with the 34 action articles of the UN
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Navas, Gomez, Verdugo, & Schalock, 2012;
Verdugo et al., 2012); and (c) wide application
across social and human services (Gomez et al.,
2014; van Loon et al., 2013). For individuals and
organizations, the theory can be used for problem
solving in that since it focuses on personal
outcomes and outcome predictors, the theory
can be used to help explain why some interven-
tions are more effective than others and with
some service recipients and not others. In terms of
its generalizability, components of the proposed
theory are currently being used in research and
service delivery in the fields of intellectual and
closely related developmental disabilities, mental
health, chemical dependency, physical and sen-
sory disabilities, and the elderly (Gomez et al.,
2014). This use across diagnostic groups and
research areas provides information about both
the impact of individual and environmental
factors on QOL-related personal outcomes and
evidence-based information for continuous qual-
ity improvement (Schalock & Verdugo, 2012,
2013b; van Loon, 2013).
In conclusion, four factors have significantly
influenced the field of IDD over the last three
decades. The first is the ecological model of
disability that focuses on person-environmental
interaction and the congruence between personal
competence and environmental demands (Scha-
lock & Luckasson, 2014; Shogren et al., 2014). The
second is the supports paradigm that is based on
the assessment of support needs across major life
activity areas and the provision of individualized
supports that reduce the discrepancy between
personal competence and environmental demands
(Brown et al., 2013; Nussbaum, 2009, 2011;
Thompson et al., 2014). The third is the infusion
into the field of IDD of the principles of positive
psychology that include valued subjective experi-
ence, positive individual traits, and civic values
(Hart & Sasso, 2011; Wehmeyer, 2013). The
fourth is the international recognition of the
rights of persons with disabilities and the potential
of a conceptual model of individual quality of life
to operationalize the major articles contained in
the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (Navas et al., 2012; United Nations,
2006; Verdugo et al., 2012). The importance of
the quality of life concept is that it integrates these

8 Theory of Individual Quality of Life

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
four factors into a values-based, person-centered,
and systematic approach to services, supports, and
outcomes evaluation.
Given these influences, a theory of individual
quality of life makes at least four major contribu-
tions to the field of disability. Specifically, the
theory provides (a) policy and practice guidelines
and standards regarding the application of quality
of life principles such as inclusion, equity,
empowerment, and self-determination; (b) a
research framework to evaluate the role that
moderator and mediator variables play in quality
of life-related personal outcomes; (c) an empiri-
cally based approach to policy development,
professional training, and organization-based qual-
ity enhancement strategies; and (d) a framework
for solving problems. In that regard, theorists,
such as Kuhn (1970), talk about anomalies and the
role they play in paradigmatic shifts and theory
construction. The IDD field has historically
experienced anomalies related to approaches taken
with people with disabilities. Examples include
control, segregation, and interiorized pathology
(Buntinx, 2013; Thompson et al., 2014; Weh-
meyer, 2013).
Because of the testability of the conceptual
model presented in Figure 1, and the suggested
components of the proposed theory of individual
quality of life, researchers, practitioners, and
policy makers are in a position to test the theory.
Such empirical testing will determine if applica-
tion of the theory reduces the anomalies associ-
ated with earlier approaches to persons with ID
and enhances their subjective and objective
quality of life.
References
Anguera, T. (1997). Model building in psycholo-
gy. Annual Review of Psychology, 16, 35–60.
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.
Bigby, C., Knox, M., Beadle-Brown, J., & Bould,
E. (2014). Identifying good group homes:
Qualitative indicators using a quality of life
framework. Intellectual and Developmental Dis-
abilities, 52(5), 348–366. doi: 10.1352/1934-
9556-52.5.348
R. L. Schalock et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
Bonham G. S., Davis, B, & Volkman, J. (2011).
Ask me! FY 2011: The quality of life of
Marylanders with developmental disabilities re-
ceiving DDA funded supports. Annapolis, MD:
The Arc of Maryland.
Bortolotti, L. (2008). An introduction to the
philosophy of science. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Brown, I., Hatton, C., & Emerson, E. (2013).
Quality of life indicators for individuals with
intellectual disabilities: Extending current
practice. Intellectual and Developmental Disabil-
ities, 51, 316–332. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.
5.316
Brown, I., Keith, K. D., & Schalock, R. L. (2004).
Quality of life conceptualization, measure-
ment, and application: Validation of the
SIRG-QOL consensus principles. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 48(4-5), 451–
455.
Brown, R. I., & Brown, I. (2005). The application
of quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 49, 718–727. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2788.2005. 00740.x
Buntinx, W. H. E. (2013). Disability: A strength-
based approach. In M. L. Wehmeyer (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and
disability (pp. 7–18). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Chiu, C., Kyzar, K., Zuna, N., Turnbull, A.,
Summers, J. A., & Gomez, V. A. (2013).
Family quality of life. In M. Wehmeyer (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and
disability (pp. 365–392). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Claes, C., van Hove, G., van Loon, J., Vandevelde,
S., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Quality of life
measurement in the field of intellectual
disability: Eight principles for assessing qual-
ity of life-related outcomes. Social Indicators
Research, 98, 61–75. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-
9517-7
Claes, C., van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van
Loon, J., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). The
influence of support strategies, environmental
factors, and client characteristics on quality of
life-related outcomes. Research in Developmen-
tal Disabilities, 33, 96–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.
2011.08.024
Claes, C., van Loon, J., Vandevelde, S., &
Schalock, R. L. (2015). An integrative ap-
proach to evidence-based practices. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 48, 132–136. doi: 10.
1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.08.002
9
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
Cummins, R. A. (2005). Moving from the quality
of life concept to a theory. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 49(10), 699–706. doi: 10.
1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00738.x
De Waele, I., van Loon, J., van Hove, G., &
Schalock, R. L. (2005). Quality of life vs.
quality of care: Implications for people and
programs. Journal of Policy and Practice in
Intellectual Disabilities, 2, 229–239. doi: 10.
1111/j.1741-1130.2005.00035.x
Emerson, E. (2013). Commentary: Childhood
exposure to environmental adversity and the
well-being of people with intellectual disabil-
ities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
57, 589–600. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.
01577.x
Farmer, C. (2012). Demystifying moderators and
mediators in intellectual and developmental
disabilities research: A primer and review of
the literature. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 56, 1148–1160. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2788.2011.01508.x
Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its
definition and measurement. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 16, 51–74.
Frazier, P., Tix, A., & Barron, K. (2004). Testing
moderator and mediator effects in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0167.51.1.115
Gardner, J. F., & Carran, D. (2005). Attainment of
personal outcomes by people with develop-
mental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 43,
157–174. doi: 10.1352/0047-6765(2005)
43[157:AOPOBP]2.0.CO;2
Gomez, L. E., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., & Navas,
P. (2012). An outcomes-based assessment of
quality of life in social services. Social
Indicators Research, 106, 81–93. doi: 10.1007/
x 11205-011-9794-9.
Gomez, L. E., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., &
Schalock, R. L. (2015). The role of moderator
and mediator variables in an evaluation-
focused program logic models. Manuscript
in preparation.
Gomez, L. E., Peña, B., Arias, B., & Verdugo,
M.A. (2014). Impact of individual and
organization variables on quality of life. Social
Indicators Research. Advance online publica-
tion. doi: 10.1007/s11205-014-0857-6
Gomez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., Arias, B., & Arias,
V. (2011). A comparison of alternative models
of individual quality of life for social service
10
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
recipients. Social Indicators Research, 101. 109-
126. doi: 10.1007/s/11205-010-9635-y
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E.,
& Tathan, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Ed. Inc.
Hart, K. E., & Sasso, T. (2011). Mapping the
contours of contemporary positive psycholo-
gy. Canadian Psychology, 52, 82–92.
Hogue, A., & Dauber, S. (2013). Assessing
fidelity to evidence-based practices in usual
care: The example of family therapy for
adolescent behavior problems. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 37, 21–30. doi: 10.
1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.12.001
Jenaro, C., Verdugo, M. A., Caballo, C., Balboni,
G., Lachapelle, Y., & Otrebski, W. (2005).
Cross-cultural study of person-centered qual-
ity of life domains and indicators. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 734–739.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00742.x
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Llewellyn, A., & Hogan, K. (2000). The use
and abuse of models of disability. Disability
and Society, 15(1), 157–165. doi: 10.1080/
09687590025829
Mansell, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2012). Active
support: Enabling and empowering people with
intellectual disabilities. London, UK: Jessica
Kingsley.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical
mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Morin, D., Crocker, A. G., Beaulieu-Bergeron, R.,
& Caron, J. (2013). Validation of the attitudes
toward intellectual disability–ATTID Ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Intellectual Disability Re-
search, 57, 268–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.
2012.01559.x
Navas, P., Gomez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., &
Schalock, R. L. (2012). Derechos de las
personas con discapacidad intelectual: Impli-
caciones de la Convencion de Nationes
Unidas. [Rights of People with Intellectual
Disabilities: Implications of the United Na-
tions Convention.]. Siglo Cero, 43(3), 7–28.
Newton-Smith, W. H. (Ed.). (2001). A companion
to the philosophy of science. London, England:
Blackwell.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice:
Disability, nationality, and species membership.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Theory of Individual Quality of Life
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
Nussbaum, M. C. (2009). The capabilities of
people with cognitive disabilities. Metaphilo-
sophy, 40(3-4), 331–351. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9973.2009.01606.x
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The
human development approach. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Petry, K., Maes, B., & Vlaskamp, C. (2005).
Domains of quality of life of people with
profound multiple disabilities: The perspective
of parents and direct support staff. Journal of
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 18,
35–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00209.x
Petry, K., Maes, B., & Vlaskamp, C. (2009).
Psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire
to measure the quality of life of people with
profound multiple disabilities (QOL-PMD).
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1326–
1336. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.05.009
Reinders, H., & Schalock, R. L. (2014). How
organizations can enhance the quality of life
of their clients and assess their results: The
concept of quality of life enhancement.
Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabil-
ities, 119, 291–302. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-
119.4.291
Renwick, R., Brown, I., & Raphael, D. (2000).
Person-centered quality of life: contributions
from Canada to an international understand-
ing. In K. D. Keith & R. L. Schalock (Eds.).
Cross-cultural perspectives on quality of life (pp. 5–
21). Washington, DC: American Association
on Mental Retardation.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections
to test statistics and standard errors in
covariance structure analysis. In A. Von Eye
& C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analyses:
Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–
419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schalock, R. L. (2004). Quality of life from a
motivational perspective. International Review
of Research in Mental Retardation, 28, 303–319.
doi: 10.1016/S0074-7750(04)28009-0
Schalock, R. L., Brown, I., Brown, R., Cummins,
R. A., Felce, D., Matikka, L., . . . Parmenter, T.
(2002). Conceptualization, measurement, and
application of quality of life for persons with
intellectual disabilities: Results of an interna-
tional panel of experts. Mental Retardation,
40(6), 457–470.
Schalock, R. L., Gardner, J. F., & Bradley, V. J.
(2007). Quality of life for person with intellectual
and other developmental disabilities: Applications
R. L. Schalock et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
across individuals, organizations, communities,
and systems. Washington, DC: American
Association on Intellectual and Developmen-
tal Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., & Keith, K. D. (in press). Cross-
cultural quality of life: Enhancing the lives of
persons with intellectual disability (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., Keith, K. D., Verdugo, M. A., &
Gomez, L. E. (2010). Quality of life model
development and use in the field of intellec-
tual disability. In R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the
quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities
(pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Springer Science
and Business Media.
Schalock, R. L., & Luckasson, R. (2014). Clinical
judgment (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Association on Intellectual and Develop-
mental Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002).
Handbook on quality of life for human service
practitioners. Washington, DC: American As-
sociation on Mental Retardation.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012). A
leadership guide for today’s disabilities organiza-
tions: Overcoming challenges and making change
happen. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013a). The
impact of the quality of life concept on the
field of intellectual disability. In M. L.
Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
positive psychology and disability (pp. 37–47).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013b). The
transformation of disabilities organizations.
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51,
273–286. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.4.273
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2014). Quality
of life as a change agent. In R. I. Brown & R.
Faragher (Eds.), Challenges for quality of life:
Application in education and other social contexts
(pp. 60–72). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo M. A., & Gomez, L. E.
(2011). Evidence-based practices in the field of
intellectual and developmental disabilities:
An international consensus approach. Evalu-
ation and Program Planning, 34, 273–282.
doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.10.004
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Jenaro, C.,
Wang, M., Wehmeyer, M., Xu, J., & Lacha-
pelle, Y. (2005). Cross-cultural study of
quality of life indicators. American Journal on
11
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2016, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1–12
Mental Retardation, 110, 298–311. doi: 10.
1352/0895-8017(2005)110[298:CSOQOL]2.
0.CO;2
Schurack, N. Y., & Roling, C. (2014). Incorporat-
ing the concept of quality of life into support
plans. In R. I. Brown & R. Faragher (Eds.),
Challenges for quality of life: Application in
education and other social contexts (pp. 100–
119). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom: New York,
NY: Anchor Books.
Shogren, K. A. (2013). A social-ecological analysis
of the self-determination literature. Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 496–511.
doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.6.496
Shogren, K. A., Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L.
(2014). The definition of ‘‘context’’ and its
application in the field of intellectual disabil-
ity. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual
Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1111/jppi.12077
Thompson, J. R., Schalock, R. L., Agosta, J.,
Teninty, L., & Fortune, J. (2014). How the
supports paradigm is transforming service
systems for persons with intellectual disability
and related developmental disabilities. Inclusion,
2(2), 86–99. doi: 10.1352/2326-6988-2.2.86
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of
persons with disabilities. Retrieved from: www.
un.org/disabilities/convention
van Loon, J. H. M., Bonham, G. S., Peterson, D.
D., Schalock, R. L. C., Claes, & Decramer, A.
E. M. (2013). The use of evidence-based
outcomes in systems and organizations pro-
viding services and supports to persons with
intellectual disability. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 36, 80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.
evalprogplan.2012.08.002
Verdugo, M. A., Arias, B., Gomez, L. E., &
Schalock, R. L., (2010). Development of an
objective instrument to assess quality of life in
social services reliably and validly in Spain.
International Journal of Clinical and Health
Psychology, 10(1), 105–123.
Verdugo, M. A., Navas, P. A., Gomez, L. E., &
Schalock, R. L. (2012). The concept of quality
of life and its role in enhancing human rights
in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of
12
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.1.1
Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1036–1045.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01585.x
Verdugo, M. A., & Schalock, R. L. (2009). Quality
of life: from concept to future applications in
the field of intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6,
62–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2008.00201.x
Verdugo, M. A., Schalock, R. L., Keith, K. D., &
Stancliffe, R. J. (2005). Quality of life and its
measurement: Important principles and guide-
lines. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
49, 707–717. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.
00739.x
Wang, M., Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., &
Jenaro, C. (2010). Examining the factor
structure and hierarchical nature of the quality
of life construct. American Journal on Intellec-
tual and Developmental Disabilities, 115, 218–
233. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-115.3.218
Wehmeyer, M. L. (Ed.) (2013). The Oxford
handbook of positive psychology and disability.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zuna, N., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, A. P., Hu, X.,
& Xu, S. (2010). Theorizing about family
quality of life. In R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the
quality of life of people with intellectual disability:
From theory to practice (pp. 241–278). Dor-
drecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Received 10/31/2014, accepted 4/9/2015.
Authors:
Robert L. Schalock, Professor Emeritus, Hastings
College; Miguel A. Verdugo, Professor of
Psychology and Director of the Institute on
Community Inclusion (INICO), University of
Salamanca, Spain; Laura E. Gomez, Department
of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Spain; and
Hans S. Reinders, Faculty of Theology,
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Robert L. Schalock, Ph.D., P.O. Box
285, Chewelah, WA 99109 USA (e-mail:
rschalock@ultraplix.com).
Theory of Individual Quality of Life