Sains Malaysiana 53(2)(2024): 433-446

http://doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2024-5302-16

QOL-DIS: A New Assessment in Analysing the Quality of Life of Persons with Disabilities

(QOL-DIS: Suatu Penilaian Baharu dalam Menganalisis Kualiti Hidup Orang Kurang Upaya)

ABD AZIZ ALIAS¹, NURUL HANIS AMINUDDIN JAFRY^2,*, ROHANA JANI³ & MIKKAY WONG EI LEEN⁴

¹Department of Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

²School of Liberal Studies (CITRA), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

 ³Faculty of Business and Economics, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

⁴Department of Business Analytics, Sunway Business School, Sunway University, Bandar Sunway, 47500 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

Diserahkan: 3 Julai 2023/Diterima: 15 Januari 2024

Abstract

Accessing and monitoring the quality of life (QoL) of persons with disabilities (PWDs) is crucial in improving their QoL. Therefore, a reliable instrument is needed for that purpose. PWDs globally demand to get involved with anything related to their affairs, as stated in the movement slogan, “Nothing about us, without us”. The WHOQOL-DIS is the instrument developed by WHO and is used widely to assess the QoL of PWDs. However, the computation method is based on the unweighted score. Hence, this study proposes an approach to assess QoL using an index based on a weighted score, which allows the PWDs to rate each item according to their expectation or level of importance. An index approach is based on the total of the cognitive and emotional reactions or experiences compared with the expectations. Robust tests, namely correlation analysis, and uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, were conducted to check the robustness of the index approach. The findings showed that an index approach is reliable in the WHOQOL-DIS instrument to assess the QoL of PWDs. Nevertheless, the QoL score between the index approach and the initial method only shows significant differences in the environment and discrimination domain. Besides, this study also suggests having a ten-point Likert scale instead of a five-point Likert scale when assessing the QoL of PWDs using an index approach.

Keywords: Disabilities; index; Malaysia; quality of life; WHOQOL-DIS

Abstrak

Akses dan pemantauan kualiti hidup (QoL) orang kurang upaya (OKU) adalah sangat penting dalam meningkatkan kualiti hidup mereka. Justeru, instrumen yang boleh dipercayai diperlukan untuk memenuhi tujuan tersebut. OKU di seluruh dunia menuntut untuk terlibat dengan apa sahaja perkara yang berkaitan dengan hal ehwal mereka, seperti yang dinyatakan dalam slogan pergerakan, "Tiada apa-apa tentang kita, tanpa kita". WHOQOL-DIS merupakan instrumen yang dibangunkan oleh WHO dan digunakan secara meluas untuk menilai kualiti hidup OKU. Walau bagaimanapun, kaedah pengiraan yang digunakan dalam instrumen ini adalah berdasarkan skor tidak berwajaran. Justeru, kajian ini mencadangkan pendekatan untuk menilai QoL menggunakan indeks berdasarkan skor wajaran yang membolehkan OKU menilai setiap item mengikut jangkaan atau tahap kepentingan mereka. Pendekatan indeks adalah berdasarkan jumlah kognitif dan reaksi emosi atau pengalaman berbanding dengan jangkaan. Ujian keteguhan iaitu analisis korelasi dan analisis ketidakpastian serta analisis sensitiviti telah dijalankan untuk menyemak keteguhan bagi pendekatan indeks. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa pendekatan indeks dalam instrumen WHOQOL-DIS boleh dipercayai untuk menilai QoL OKU. Namun begitu, skor QoL bagi pendekatan indeks dan kaedah awal hanya menunjukkan perbezaan yang signifikan bagi domain persekitaran dan diskriminasi. Selain itu, kajian ini turut mencadangkan penggunaan skala Likert sepuluh mata dan bukannya skala Likert lima mata untuk menilai QoL OKU menggunakan pendekatan indeks.

Kata kunci: Indeks; kualiti hidup; kurang upaya; Malaysia; WHOQOL-DIS

RUJUKAN

Abdul Rahim, A., Samad, A., Amirah, N., Said, I., Seman, W. & Amin, W. 2017. Malaysian plan of action for people with disabilities 2016-2022: Way forward. UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress. Seoul, South Korea. 3rd-10th September 2017.

Ahmad, N.A., Kasim, N.M., Mahmud, N.A., Yusof, Y.M., Othman, S., Chan, Y.Y. & Aziz, F.A.A. 2017. Prevalence and determinants of disability among adults in Malaysia: Results from the National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS) 2015. BMC Public Health 17(1): 756-766.

Albrecht, G.L. & Devlieger, P.J. 1999. The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science & Medicine 48(8): 977-988.

Ang, M.C. 2014. Do Persons with Disabilities Act (2008) and organizational culture influence managerial intention to hire persons with disabilities?: The Malaysian perspective. Jurnal Pengurusan 41: 81-90.

Bredemeier, J., Wagner, G.P., Agranonik, M., Perez, T.S. & Fleck, M.P. 2014. The World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument for people with intellectual and physical disabilities (WHOQOL-Dis): Evidence of validity of the Brazilian version. BMC Public Health 14(1): 1-12.

Derby, J. 2013. Nothing about us without us: Art education’s disservice to disabled people. Studies in Art Education 54(4): 376-380.

Diamond, R. & Becker, R. 1999. Wisconsin Quality of Life Index (W-QLI): A multidimensional model for measuring quality of life. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 60(3): 29-31.

Dijkers, M.P. 2003. Individualization in quality of life measurement: Instruments and approaches. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 84(Supplement 2): S3-S14.

Ferrans, C.E. & Powers, M.J. 1992. Psychometric assessment of the Quality of Life Index. Research in Nursing & Health 15(1): 29-38.

Foa, R. & Tanner, J.C. 2012. Methodology of the Indices of Social Development. ISD Working Paper Series 2012-04, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.

Franits, L.E. 2005. Nothing about us without us: Searching for the narrative of disability. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 59(5): 577-579.

Friedman, C. & VanPuymbrouck, L. 2019. The impact of people with disabilities choosing their services on quality of life outcomes. Disability and Health Journal 12(2): 187-194.

Grabowska, I., Antczak, R., Zwierzchowski, J. & Panek, T. 2021. Individual quality of life and the environment - towards a concept of liveable areas for persons with disabilities in Poland. BMC Public Health 21: 740.

Greyling, T. & Tregenna, F. 2017. Construction and analysis of a composite quality of life index for a region of South Africa. Social Indicators Research 131(3): 887-930.

Groh, A.P. & Wich, M. 2009. A composite measure to determine a host country's attractiveness for foreign direct investment. IESE Business School Working Paper No. 833. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1550717

Hsieh, C.M. 2004. To weight or not to weight: The role of domain importance in quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research 68(2): 163-174.

Islam, M.R. 2015. Rights of the people with disabilities and social exclusion in Malaysia. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 5(2): 171-177.

Kietzman, K.G. & Benjamin, A. 2016. Who’s in charge? A review of participant direction in long-term care. Public Policy & Aging Report 26(4): 118-122.

Kimura, M. & da Silva, J.V. 2009. Ferrans and powers Quality of Life index. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 43(SPE): 1098-1104.

Lazim, M.A. & Osman, M.T.A. 2009. A new Malaysian Quality of Life index based on fuzzy sets and hierarchical needs. Social Indicators Research 94(3): 499-508.

Ledman, R. & Brown, D. 1993. The Americans with disabilities act: The cutting edge of managing diversity. SAM Advanced Management Journal 58(2): 17-20.

Lee, K.J., Jang, H.I. & Choi, H. 2017. Korean translation and validation of the WHOQOL-DIS for people with spinal cord injury and stroke. Disability and Health Journal 10(4): 627-631.

Leonardi, M., Raggi, A., Pagani, M., Carella, F., Soliveri, P., Albanese, A. & Romito, L. 2012. Relationships between disability, quality of life, and prevalence of nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders 18(1): 35-39.

Louvet, E.J.R.P. 2007. Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: Perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psyhology 52(3): 297-303.

Lucas-Carrasco, R., Pascual-Sedano, B., Galán, I., Kulisevsky, J., Sastre-Garriga, J. & Gomez-Benito, J. 2010. Using the WHOQOL-DIS to measure quality of life in persons with physical disabilities caused by neurodegenerative disorders. Neurodegenerative Diseases 8(4): 178-186.

McGrath, C. & Bedi, R. 2004. Why are we ‘weighting’? An assessment of a self‐weighting approach to measuring oral health‐related quality of life. Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol. 32(1): 19-24.

Memisevic, H., Hadzic, S., Ibralic Biscevic, I. & Mujkanovic, E. 2017. Quality of life of people with disabilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina - is there a moderating effect of the health status? Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19(4): 375-382.

OECD/European Union/EC-JRC. 2008. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en

Park, J.H., Faulkner, J. & Schaller, M. 2003. Evolved disease avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27(2): 65-87.

Poppitz, P. 2017. Can subjective data improve inequality measurement? A multidimensional index of economic inequality. ECINEQ Working Paper 2017-446. http://www.ecineq.org/2017/09/01/can-subjective-data-improve-inequality-measurement-a-multidimensional-index-of-economic-inequality/

Power, M.J. & Green, A.M. 2010. Development of the WHOQOL disabilities module. Quality of Life Research 19(4): 571-584.

Schalock, R.L. 2004. The emerging disability paradigm and its implications for policy and practice. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 14(4): 204-215.

Scotch, R.K. 2009. Nothing about us without us: Disability rights in America. OAH Magazine of History 23(3): 17-22.

Shakespeare, T. 2006. The social model of disability. The Disability Studies Reader 2: 197-204.

Tah, I.H.M. 2014. Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU) dan hak untuk hidup: Satu analisis perundangan di Malaysia. International Conference on Law, Policy and Social Justice (ICLAPS 2014). Penang, Malaysia. 10-11 September.

Tah, I.H.M. & Mokhtar, K.A. 2016. Malaysia’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). International Journal of Business, Economics and Law 11(4): 83-87.

Talukder, B., Hipel, K.W. & vanLoon, G.W. 2017. Developing composite indicators for agricultural sustainability assessment: Effect of normalization and aggregation techniques. Resources 6(4): 66.

Tiun, L., Lee, L. & Khoo, S. 2011. Employability of people with disabilities in the northern state of Peninsular Malaysia: Employers’ perspective. Disability, CBR and Inclusive Development Journal 22(1): 79-94.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2015. WHO Global Disability Action Plan 2014-2021: Better Health for All People with Disability. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Wiebe, S., Guyatt, G., Weaver, B., Matijevic, S. & Sidwell, C. 2003. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 56(1): 52-60.

Wu, C-H. & Yao, G. 2006. Do we need to weight satisfaction scores with importance ratings in measuring quality of life? Social Indicators Research 78(2): 305-326.

*Pengarang untuk surat-menyurat; email: hanisaj@ukm.edu.my