Validity and reliability of the INICO-FEAPS Scale: An assessment of quality of life for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Section snippets
Participants
The 1624 participants in this study were chosen by accidental sampling among those receiving support in 66 social organizations throughout Spain. Most of the Spanish counties included participants, with the exception of Asturias, Aragon, and Islas Baleares (even though it is true that the data was missing for 450 cases whose origins might be in these areas). Most of the participants were from Madrid (13.5%), Castilla La Mancha (12.2%), Extremadura (11.1%), and Castilla y Leon (10.4%), while the
Reliability: internal consistence
An analysis of internal consistency through Cronbach's alpha together with the calculation of the discrimination parameters for the items through the Graded Response Model (Samejima, 1969) were carried out for the items. As aforementioned, those 16 items that in any of the two subscales showed Cronbach's alpha coefficients lower than .200 in discrimination parameters below .400 were eliminated (Verdugo et al., 2013a, Verdugo et al., 2013b) and the final scale was reduced to 72 items (i.e., 9
Discussion
This study pursued a double aim. On the one hand, it aimed to test the psychometric properties of the INICO-FEAPS Scale through the provision of adequate evidence about its reliability and validity in its administration to people with an intellectual disability. In this regard, both the internal consistency indexes obtained for the total scale and each quality-of-life domain are adequate. As has been found in other similar instruments, self-determination appeared as the most reliable domain and
Conflicts of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest and are solely responsible for the content and writing of this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported in part with funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (R&D Projects, 2012) (PSI2012-33139 and PSI2012-36278) and Grupo AMAS. The project received approval from the University of Salamanca IRB. The authors would like to thank the organizations, people with intellectual disability, professionals, and families for completing the questionnaires and FEAPS for its support on this project.
References (26)
Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit
Personality and Individual Differences
(2007)Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics
Journal of Consumer Psychology
(2010)The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling
Structural Equation Modeling
(2002)- et al.
Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling
Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests
Psychometrika
(1951)- et al.
An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data
Psychological Methods
(2004) - et al.
Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation
(2012) - et al.
A comparison of alternative models of individual quality of life for social service recipients
Social Indicators Research
(2011) - et al.
PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
(2011) Item parceling in structural equation models for optimum solutions
(2004)
Principles and practices of structural equation modeling
To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits
Structural Equation Modeling
Test theory: A unified treatment
Cited by (32)
A quality of life supports model: Six research-focused steps to evaluate the model and enhance research practices in the field of IDD
2021, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesQuality of life in adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder: Results from a nationwide Danish survey using self-reports and parental proxy-reports
2018, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesCitation Excerpt :Accordingly, the parents were instructed to rate their child’s QoL as they thought their child would do themselves (Hong et al., 2016; Sheldrick, Neger, Shipman, & Perrin, 2012). Gomez et al. (2015) constructed the items in the INICO-FEAPS scale on the basis of an exhaustive review of the scientific literature and existing QoL instrument as well as through a Delphi study with 12 experts on QoL, who listed the best items according to suitability, importance, sensitivity, and observability. Furthermore, Gomez et al. (2015) validated the INICO-FEAPS scale in a Spanish population of adolescents and adults with ID or developmental disabilities using confirmatory factor analysis for exploration of several predefined models with the eight first-order factor model showing the best fit to the data.
Psychometric properties of the INICO-FEAPS scale in a Danish sample with autism spectrum disorders
2018, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesCitation Excerpt :This might make proxy-reporting even more challenging although parents of adult children with ASD usually are very involved in the lives of their children (Howlin, Moss, Savage, & Rutter, 2013). Second, it may be due to the difference in the samples used for evaluating the INICO-FEAPS scale in our study compared with the study by Gomez et al. (2015). In our sample, the majority did not have ID, which might in general result in a more consistent rating of QoL in each domain.
A new scale for the measurement of quality of life in children with intellectual disability
2016, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesAdaptation and Incremental Validity of the Pemberton Happiness Index: A New Measure of Integrative well-being for People with Intellectual Disabilities
2023, Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities