Psychometric Properties of the Italian Adaptation of a Quality of Life Instrument as Applied to Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the field of intellectual disability (ID) generic quality of life (G‐QoL) has been reported to be much more useful than health‐related QoL. Despite this, Italian‐language tools with validated assessment of G‐QoL in people with ID are lacking. The authors undertook a study to test the psychometric properties of the BASIQ, an Italian adaptation of the Quality of Life Instrument Package developed at the Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto, Canada, in the early 1990s. This instrument package integrates qualitative and quantitative measures and subjective and objective approaches in assessing nine domains of QoL using a direct interview (DI), a proxy questionnaire (PQ), and an external assessor questionnaire (EAQ). Using BASIQ, the study assessed the QoL of a sample of 281 adults with ID (47 DI by 11 raters, 260 PQ by 23 proxies, and 69 EAQ by 5 physicians) drawn randomly from a three services populations in central Italy. The adults, 69% men and 31% women, ranged in age from 16 to 86 ( X = 41.57); most (67.6%) functioned in the mild and moderate ranges of ID. QoL assessments were carried out in Italian, and were completed by specially trained disability professionals. The instrument had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.990) and satisfactory inter‐rater reliability (Cohen's K > 0.7). For each of the DI and the PQ, all nine domains correlated positively ( p < .05), and this was also the case for most domains of the EAQ. Post hoc analyses found no differences in QoL on any of the three scales for gender or co‐occurrence of mental or physical problems, but revealed some differences for level of disability. Overall, the authors present evidence for considering the BASIQ to be a valid instrument to assess QoL and put it forward as a useful tool to use in practice and policy development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.424 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".