Despite recent developments in measurement tools to assess the quality of life of individuals with intellectual disability, little is known about the cultural aspects that affect their quality of life. This study examined the universal and cultural characteristics of the quality of life of individuals with intellectual disability in Denmark and Japan through a factor analysis of the Personal Outcomes Scale and analysing qualitative comments in both self-report and report-of-others components of the scale. Factor analysis and qualitative comments in self-report showed that personal development and self-determination, as well as well-being and social participation, were experienced as important components of quality of life in Denmark. Conversely, personal development and self-determination were less frequently mentioned in Japan. The findings reflect the general characteristics of quality of life in each culture and the current conditions of independence and available support for individuals with intellectual disability in Denmark and Japan.
BengtssonS (2009) Report on the Employment of Disabled People in European Countries–Denmark. Academic Network of European Disability Experts(ANED)–VT/2007/005 Available at:www.disability-europe.net/country/denmark(accessed 10 July 2018).
2.
BertelliMFrancescuttiCBrownI (2020). Reframing QOL assessment in persons with neurodevelopmental disorders. Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita, 56(2), 180–192. doi: 10.4415/ANN_20_02_08
3.
BraunVClarkeV (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4.
BrownIBrownRI (2003). Quality of Life and Disability: An Approach for Community Practitioners. London: Jessica Kingsley.
5.
Cabinet office (2019) ‘Chapter 2 Building the Foundations for Autonomy in Social Participation’ in Annual Report on Government Measures for Persons with Disabilities 2019. (in Japanese). Available at: https://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/whitepaper/r01hakusho/zenbun/h1_02_02_01.html (accessed 10 December 2021).
6.
Carbó-CarretéMGuàrdia-OlmosJGinéC (2015). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the personal outcomes scale. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(3), 236–252. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.04.002
7.
EngenMRømerMJørgensenA (2019). Public care for people with intellectual disability in Denmark – ideals, policy and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 21(1), 228–237. DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.582
8.
European Commission (2014) National Social Report, Denmark 2014. Available at: ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?advSearchKey=nsr2014&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en&policyArea=&type=0&country=11&year=2014 (accessed 10 July 2018).
9.
GómezLEVerdugoMAAriasB, et al. (2011). A comparison of alternative models of individual quality of life for social service recipients. Social Indicators Research, 101(1), 109–126. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9639-y
10.
HelliwellJLayardRSachsJ (2017). World Happiness Report 2017. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
11.
HorieN (2017) The labor force decreases by 40% due to a declining birth rate and an aging population: changes in work style as a key to raise the labor participation ratio. (in Japanese). Available at:www.mizuho-ri.co.jp/publication/research/pdf/insight/pl170531.pdf(accessed13 July 2018).
12.
HornJL (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Pyschometrika, 30(2), 179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447
13.
Institut for Menneske rettigheder (2021) Boligvalg og retten til et selvstændigt liv for mennesker med handicap. (in Danish). Available at: www/menneskeret.dk/udgivelser/boligvalg-mennesker-handicap (accessed 10 December 2021).
14.
JenaroCVerdugoMACaballoC, et al. (2005). Cross-cultural study of person-centred quality of life domains and indicators: a replication. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 734–739. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00742.x
15.
KudoT (2008) The current state and problems regarding the employment of people with disabilities. The Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 578, 4–16. (in Japanese).
16.
LiCH (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
17.
MarshHWHauK-TWenZ (2004). In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
18.
Ministry of Children, Gender Equality, Integration and Social Affairs (2013) Disability policy action plan 2013: one society for all. Available at:www.sm.dk (accessed 13 July 2018).
Ministry of HealthLabour and Welfare (2014) Annual Report on Health, Labor and Welfare2012. (in Japanese). Available at:www.mhlw.go.jp/wp/hakusyo/kousei/12/(accessed13 July 2018).
21.
MorisseFVandemaeleEClaesC, et al. (2013). Quality of life in persons with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems: an explorative study. The Scientific World Journal, 1–8. doi: 10.1155/2013/491918
22.
MyersNDAhnSJinY (2011). Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport: a Monte Carlo approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 412–423. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2011.10599773
23.
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (2017) Population Projections for Japan: 2016–2065. (in Japanese). Available at:www.ipss.go.jp/pp-zenkoku/j/zenkoku2017/pp29_gaiyou.pdf(accessed 14 July 2018).
24.
OECD (2008). Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers (Vol. 3) Denmark, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264049826-en
OECD (2019). Enhancing the prospects of disadvantaged workers in the labour market. In: Good Jobs for All in a Changing World of Work: The OECD Jobs Strategy. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264308817-12-en
27.
PluckerJA (2003). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in gifted education: examples with self-concept data. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(1), 20–35. DOI: 10.1177/016235320302700103
28.
R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at:www.R-project.org/(accessed 7 March 2017).
SchalockRLBrownIBrownR, et al. (2002). Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: report of an international panel of experts. Mental Retardation, 40(6), 457–470. doi: 10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0457:CMAAOQ>2.0.CO;2
31.
SchalockRLKeithKDVerdugoMA, et al. (2010). Quality of life model development and use in the field of intellectual disability. In KoberR (Ed), Quality of Life: Theory and Implementation (pp. 17–32). New York: Sage.
32.
SchalockRLVerdugoMA (2002). Handbook on Quality of Life for Human Service Practitioners. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
SchalockRLVerdugoMAJenaroC, et al. (2005). Cross-cultural study of quality of life indicators. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110(4), 298–311. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110[298:CSOQOL]2.0.CO;2
35.
Schermelleh-EngelKMoosbruggerHMüllerH (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
36.
SimõesCSantosS (2016). The quality of life perceptions of people with intellectual disability and their proxies. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 41(4), 311–323. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2016.1197385
37.
SimõesCSantosSBiscaiaR (2016). Validation of the Portuguese version of the personal outcomes scale. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 186–200. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.11.002
38.
SimõesCSantosSClaesC (2015). The Portuguese version of personal outcomes scale: a psychometric validity and reliability study. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53(2), 129–142. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-53.2.129
StancliffeRJ (2001). Living with support in the community: predictors of choice and self-determination. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 7(2), 91–98. DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.1013
41.
TanakaT (2010) Poverty of families including persons with disability: problems in daily life. Japanese Journal of Studies on Disability and Difficulty, 37(4): 261–272. (in Japanese).
42.
TatsutaMKawaiNUshiyamaMet al.(unpublished)Japanese version of the personal outcomes scale for persons with intellectual disability: validity and reliability.
43.
TatsutaMKawaiNUshiyamaM, et al.(unpublished). Psychometric Properties of the Personal Outcomes Scale for Persons with Intellectual Disability in Denmark: Implications for Supporting Quality of Life.
44.
ToyodaH (2014) Covariance Structure Analysis: For Users of R Program. Tokyo: TokyoBooks. (in Japanese).
45.
TøssebroJBonfilsISTeittinenA, et al. (2012). Normalization fifty years beyond—current trends in the Nordic countries. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disability, 9(2), 134–146. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00340.x
46.
Umb-CarlssonÕLindstedtH (2011). The prerequisites for QOL of people with intellectual disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 13(4), 241–253. DOI: 10.1080/15017419.2010.490729
Van AsseltDBuchananAPetersonS (2015). Enablers and barriers of social inclusion for young adults with intellectual disability: a multidimensional view. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 40, 37–48. DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2014.994170
49.
Van LoonJVan HoveGSchalockRL, et al. (2008). Personal Outcomes Scale. Belgium: University of Ghent.
50.
Van LoonJVan HoveGSchalockRL, et al. (2009). Personal Outcomes Scale: Administration and Standardization Manual. Netherlands, Belgium: Stichting Arduin, University of Ghent.
51.
Ventegodt LiisbergM (2011). Disability and Employment: A Contemporary Disability Human Rights Approach Applied to Danish, Swedish and EU Law and Policy. Cambridge: Intersentia.
52.
VerdugoMANavasPGómezLE, et al. (2012). The concept of quality of life and its role in enhancing human rights in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(11), 1036–1045.
53.
WehmeyerML (2020). The importance of self-determination to the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: a perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7121. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197121
54.
WilsonNJJaquesHJohnsonA, et al. (2017). From social exclusion to supported inclusion: adults with intellectual disability discuss their lived experiences of a structured social group. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(5), 847–858. doi: 10.1111/jar.12275
XuJWangMXiangY, et al. (2005). Quality of life for people with intellectual disability in China: a cross-culture perspectives study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 745–749. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00744.x
