Suchergebnisse

The scientific study of 'wellbeing' involves both objective and subjective variables. While objective wellbeing can be simply measured as tangible aspects of the living environment, measuring subjective wellbeing involves quantifying self-reported feelings. Although reliable and valid measures can be achieved, in a cross-cultural context differences in language and culture present formidable challenges to measurement comparability. This Element begins by describing the behaviour of subjective wellbeing in single cultures, using the theory of homeostasis. Robert A. Cummins then discusses cross-cultural differences in subjective wellbeing, with a focus on measurement invariance as a means of ensuring the validity of comparative results. Cummins proposes that the major barrier to creating such comparability of measurement is a pervasive response bias that differs between cultures. He concludes that current instruments are inadequate to provide valid cross-cultural measures of subjective wellbeing, and that suitable measures may be created as short forms of current scales

It is normal for people to feel positive about the quality of their lives, despite the presence of challenges. Of special interest here are the challenges of caring for a child or a disabled family member. How do the adults living within such families maintain a positive self-view? Answering this question requires an understanding of subjective well-being as it applies to each individual family member and of the management system that strives to keep each person feeling positive. This paper describes various psychological components of this homeostatic management system, together with a consideration of the most useful resources to support homeostasis. Key resources have been identified by using the Personal Wellbeing Index, a seven-item scale measuring subjective well-being (mood happiness). Over many studies, researchers have found considerable agreement that three kinds of resources — "the Golden Triangle" — are consistently more relevant to subjective well-being than the others. These are feelings of satisfaction with income, relationships, and life purpose. The implications for interventions that offer support to families in need are discussed.

Background  This paper proposes that the adequacy of service delivery and caregiving to people who are disabled should be assessed using two criteria. One is the objective circumstance of living, which should be at a standard acceptable to the community at large. The other is a level of subjective wellbeing (SWB) within the normal range.Method  This latter criterion is a novel conception based on an understanding that SWB is homeostatically managed to lie normally within a narrow range of values.Results  People who have a disability are more likely than usual to have a fragile homeostatic system because of the additional life challenges imposed by their disability.Conclusions  The role of a caregiver is to provide resources and protection against strong threats to homeostasis, thereby ensuring that the person in their care has a normal‐range level of SWB.

My reply to Hatton & Ager concentrates on two major themes. The first concerns the psychological reality and measurement of the quality of life (QOL) construct for people with an intellectual disability. I conclude that a substantial weight of evidence supports the psychological reality of the construct, and that reliable and valid measurement of subjective life quality can be achieved for the majority of people. The second theme concerns the usefulness of subjective life quality measurement for service delivery. Here, I argue that such measurement can have major benefits for both respondents and service providers provided that the psychometric character of the data is understood. To this end, I recommend that journal editors, academics dealing in applied research, and practitioners, have a duty of care concerning the dissemination, investigation, and application of contemporary understanding in this area.

AbstractAn earlier publication by the present author concerning quality of life (QoL) measurement has been critiqued by A. Ager and C. Hatton. The present paper addresses the issues raised. It commences with a reappraisal of the Life Experiences Checklist and confirms the present author's view that this instrument is not adequate to measure QoL in accordance with contemporary understanding of the construct. It is argued that QoL scales should include both objective and subjective measurements across a minimum set of domains adequate to embrace the whole life experience. Finally, the usefulness of QoL measurement for people with intellectual disability is debated.

The quality of life construct is briefly reviewed. This is followed by a description of 13 scales that purport to measure the construct. Each scale is analysed in terms of its scope and psychometric properties. Two major conclusions are drawn. The first is that the two scales which seem to have most promise at this stage are the Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale. The second conclusion is that both scales require further development, most particularly to maintain their relevance as our understanding of the underlying construct and measurement issues evolves.

This investigation examined the buffering model of social support with respect to the moderating effect of supervisory support on the relationship between job stress and job dissatisfaction for 96 employed graduate and undergraduate business students. Although a cross-sectional design was employed, results are consistent with the hypothesis that supervisory support acts as a stress buffer only for individuals who are relationship—oriented—as measured by Fiedler's (1967) esteem for least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale. Implications for organizational interventions and for linking of leadership theory with the stress-buffering model of supervisory support are discussed.

This book is concerned with the universality of wellbeing indicators. It provides contributions from international scholars in the field of quality of life and subjective well-being. The book provides substantial conceptual coverage on issues relating to the universality of subjective wellbeing including detailed discussion of central underlying mechanisms and processes involved in subjective wellbeing. The main topics covered include: the theoretical bases for the measurement of quality of life, the affective dimension in quality of life, the roles of homeostasis and personality in the processes of quality of life assessment and maintenance, the impact of factors including residential care, economic wealth, and work-related variables on subjective wellbeing. The book is of interest to all who want to develop their understanding of the universality, assessment, development and maintenance of subjective wellbeing