Psychometric evaluation of the Disability Wellbeing Index (DWI) against the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) among people with disability.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gozde Aydin, Samia Badji, Dennis Petrie, Anthony Harris, Gang Chen
{"title":"Psychometric evaluation of the Disability Wellbeing Index (DWI) against the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) among people with disability.","authors":"Gozde Aydin, Samia Badji, Dennis Petrie, Anthony Harris, Gang Chen","doi":"10.1007/s11136-026-04406-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Disability Wellbeing Index (DWI) is a preference-based wellbeing measure developed among people with disabilities. This study examined the psychometric properties of the DWI in both its Standard and Easy English versions and compared them with two Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) instruments, the ASCOT-SCT4 and ASCOT-ER.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an online survey among National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants aged ≥ 15 years in 2024. DWI was scored using an Australian preference-based algorithm, and ASCOT was scored using UK preference weights. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's correlations between total utility scores and corresponding domain items. We examined underlying constructs between DWI and ASCOT using exploratory factor analyses (EFAs), and known-groups validity using regression analyses comparing scores across groups based on self-rated health, self-advocacy, participation in meaningful leisure activities, and autonomy in decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1871 participants were studied; among them, 39% completed the Easy English/Read version, and 30% were aged 15-24 years. Correlations between DWI and ASCOT were moderate for young people (ρ = 0.62, Easy English/Read; ρ = 0.66, Standard) and strong for adults (ρ = 0.74, Easy English/Read; ρ = 0.75, Standard). Convergence was strongest for safety items, whereas convergence was weaker for dignity items. EFA indicated partial overlap in underlying constructs. Known-groups validity was supported for both measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings support the construct validity of DWI. DWI and ASCOT focus on different but overlapping aspects. The DWI places a stronger emphasis on general wellbeing, while the ASCOT focuses on social care related quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":"35 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13616849/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-026-04406-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The Disability Wellbeing Index (DWI) is a preference-based wellbeing measure developed among people with disabilities. This study examined the psychometric properties of the DWI in both its Standard and Easy English versions and compared them with two Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) instruments, the ASCOT-SCT4 and ASCOT-ER.

Methods: We conducted an online survey among National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants aged ≥ 15 years in 2024. DWI was scored using an Australian preference-based algorithm, and ASCOT was scored using UK preference weights. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's correlations between total utility scores and corresponding domain items. We examined underlying constructs between DWI and ASCOT using exploratory factor analyses (EFAs), and known-groups validity using regression analyses comparing scores across groups based on self-rated health, self-advocacy, participation in meaningful leisure activities, and autonomy in decision-making.

Results: A total of 1871 participants were studied; among them, 39% completed the Easy English/Read version, and 30% were aged 15-24 years. Correlations between DWI and ASCOT were moderate for young people (ρ = 0.62, Easy English/Read; ρ = 0.66, Standard) and strong for adults (ρ = 0.74, Easy English/Read; ρ = 0.75, Standard). Convergence was strongest for safety items, whereas convergence was weaker for dignity items. EFA indicated partial overlap in underlying constructs. Known-groups validity was supported for both measures.

Conclusions: The findings support the construct validity of DWI. DWI and ASCOT focus on different but overlapping aspects. The DWI places a stronger emphasis on general wellbeing, while the ASCOT focuses on social care related quality of life.

残疾人的残疾福利指数(DWI)与成人社会护理结果工具包(ASCOT)的心理测量评估。
目的:残疾福利指数(DWI)是一种基于偏好的福利措施,在残疾人中发展。本研究考察了标准和简易英语版本的DWI的心理测量特性,并将其与两种成人社会护理结果工具包(ASCOT)工具ASCOT- sct4和ASCOT- er进行了比较。方法:我们于2024年对年龄≥15岁的国家伤残保险计划(NDIS)参保人进行在线调查。DWI评分采用基于澳大利亚偏好的算法,ASCOT评分采用英国偏好权重。收敛效度评估使用Spearman的总效用得分和相应的领域项目之间的相关性。我们使用探索性因素分析(EFAs)检验了DWI和ASCOT之间的潜在结构,并使用回归分析比较了基于自评健康、自我倡导、参与有意义的休闲活动和自主决策的组间得分的已知组效度。结果:共研究了1871名参与者;其中39%完成了Easy English/Read版本,30%年龄在15-24岁之间。年轻人的DWI和ASCOT之间的相关性为中等(ρ = 0.62, Easy English/Read; ρ = 0.66,标准),成年人的相关性为强(ρ = 0.74, Easy English/Read; ρ = 0.75,标准)。安全项目的收敛性最强,而尊严项目的收敛性较弱。EFA显示基础构念部分重叠。两项测量均支持已知组效度。结论:本研究结果支持DWI的建构效度。DWI和ASCOT关注不同但重叠的方面。DWI更强调总体福祉,而ASCOT则侧重于与生活质量相关的社会关怀。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书