Primary Image

RehabMeasures Instrument

Quality of Life Profile for Adults with Physical Disabilities

Last Updated


A 102-item subjective measure designed to assess the quality of life for individuals aged 16-64 years of age living with chronic acquired or lifelong physical disabilities.

Link to Instrument

Instrument details

Acronym QOLP-PD

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Life Participation
Quality of Life
Social Relationships
Social Support

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes


Not Free

Actual Cost


Cost Description

$45.00 - copy of the instrument.
$115.00 - copy of the instrument and permission to make copies for use in research.


  • Arthritis + Joint Conditions
  • Spinal Cord Injury

Key Descriptions

  • 102 items with 3 domains and 9 sub-domains.
  • Domain 1 - Being (32 questions):
    1) Physical Being: 12 questions
    2) Psychological Being: 11 questions
    3) Spiritual Being: 9 questions
  • Domain 2 - Belonging (37 questions):
    1) Physical Belonging: 11 questions
    2) Social Belonging: 13 questions
    3) Community Belonging: 13 questions
  • Domain 3 - Becoming (33 questions):
    1) Practical Becoming: 10 questions
    2) Leisure Becoming: 12 questions
    3) Growth Becoming: 11 questions
  • Items are rated on a five-point scale for Satisfaction and Importance. A score of 1 indicates "Not at all satisfied/Not at all important," and a score of 5 indicates "Extremely satisfied/Extremely important" (Moriello et al., 2014).
  • Basic Quality of Life Score determined by Satisfaction scores (S) weighted by Importance scores (I) for each item with 3 subtracted from the S score. Minimum score is - 10 (not at all satisfied with extremely important issues) through 0 to +10 (Extremely satisfied with very important issue) (Renwick et al., 2003).
  • Contact the author for a copy - Rebecca Renwick:

Number of Items


Time to Administer

60 minutes

60 minutes or more

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges


18 - 64


Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Timothy P. Janikowski, PhD and his University at Buffalo Rehabilitation Counseling Master’s students, Sabrina Cary, Jennifer Fortune, Samantha Gray in 10/2014; Dalmina Arias, BS, Briana Bonner, BS, and Jocelyn Knight, BS, OT students at the University of Illinois at Chicago

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
General Health


  • Designate a good amount of time to be able to take the instrument. The tool is a lengthy instrument that likely takes considerable time to administer. 
  • There are only a few studies on this instrument and future research should include a focus on the psychometric properties of more specific disability groups. 
  • The assessment is in English and was developed in a Western society so there might be a language and cultural competency barrier. 
  • There might be a potential bias since the assessment was developed for disabled and SCI populations.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Spinal Injuries

back to Populations

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

SCI: (Moriello, et al., 2014; n=1 male who sustained an incomplete C3-C6 SCI; age= 59; case-study of a 12-week yoga program intervention; 60 minutes, two times a week; data from baseline and discharge, SCI)

  • Overall QOLP-PD score= 5.04 at baseline, 5.00 at discharge.
  • “Being” category decreased from 5.89 to 4.39 
  • “Belonging” category decreased from 5.17 to 3.94 
  • “Becoming” category increased from 4.05 to 6.67

Normative Data

Spinal Cord Injury: (Renwick et al, 2003; = 40: mean age = 35.85 (9.29) years. 30 males 10 females; age range 16-61 years; living with complete paraplegia or complete quadriplegia)

  • Duration of injury ranging from 2-30 years

(Rigby et al., 2011; = 36: mean age = 42.1 years; 26 males 10 females; age range 17 to 79 years)

  • SCI of a tetraplegia with a C5/6 or above injury

  • 15 participants utilized EADL’s (Electronic Aids to Daily Living)

  • 21 users were non-EADL users 


Spinal Cord Injury: (Manns, et al, 1999; n= 38 adults with SCI--quadriplegia and paraplegia; mean age=35.9 years; cross-sectional exploratory study; examin the relationship between fitness, physical activity and subjective quality of life among adults with physical disabilities, SCI)

  • Subjective quality of life score: quadriplegia (22.5), paraplegia (24.8); higher numbers indicate better subjective quality of life

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Objectively scored. Not relevant.

Internal Consistency

Spinal Cord Injury:(Renwick et al. 2003)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s a=0.98). For the QOLP-PD domains: Being (Cronbach’s a=0.95), Belonging (Cronbach’s a=0.95) and Becoming (Cronbach’s a=0.97) 

(Rigby et al., 2011)

  • Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s 0.67 to 0.93) for the QOLP-PD


Spinal Cord Injury: (Manns, et al, 1999, SCI)

  • Excellent internal consistency of the overall QoL (a=.97)
  • Excellent importance and satisfaction (a= .96 and .98)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Spinal Cord Injury:

(Rigby et al., 2011)

  • Adequate concurrent validity

Construct Validity

Spinal Cord Injury:

(Renwick et al, 2003) 

  • Excellent Correlations for subscales Physical Being (r = 0.63); Psychological Being (r = 0.75); Spiritual Being ( r = 0.78); Physical Belonging (r = 0.77); Social Belonging (r = 0.76); Community Belonging (r = 0.72); Practical Becoming (r = 0.78); Leisure Becoming (r = 0.87); Growth Becoming (r =.088)

(Rigby et al., 2011)

  • Excellent construct validity. Cronbach's ranging 0.67 to 0.93

Face Validity


(Rigby et al., 2011) 

  • Considered high for this instrument, given that the content for the tool is based on in-depth interviews with adults with physical disabilities, however, no true values were given

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Normative Data

Cross disability: (Renwick et al, 2003; = 27; mean age =36.78 (10.41) years, range = 19-56 years; 17 males 10 females)

  • Duration of disabilities ranged from 3-35 years

  • Cognitive ability to participate in English language interview)

Internal Consistency

Cross Disability: (Renwick et al. 2003)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s a=0.97). For the QOLP-PD domains: Being (Cronbach’s a=0.94), Belonging (Cronbach’s a=.90), and Becoming (Cronbach’s a=0.93).

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity: 

Cross Disability: (Renwick et al., 2003)

  • Poor concurrent validity with Deiner’s SWLS scale (r=0.29). 
  • Adequate concurrent validity with the MUNSH scale (r=.45). 

Pearson correlations of sub-scales of the QOLP-PD with the Deiner scale and the MUNSH





Physical Being



Psychological Being



Spiritual Being



Physical Belonging



Social Belonging



Community Belonging



Practical Becoming



Leisure Becoming



Growth Becoming



QOL-PD as a whole



All coefficients  reported are signigican at p < 0.01



Construct Validity

Cross disability

(Hill et al., 2009)

  • Excellent construct validity (r=0.63-0.88) 

(Renwick et al, 2003)

  • Excellent correlations for subscales Physical Being (r = 0.67); Physical Belonging (r= 0.67); Psychological Being (r = 0.73); Spiritual Being (r = 0.82); Social Belonging (r = 0.79); Practical Becoming (r = 0.81); Leisure Becoming (r = 0.71); Growth Becoming (r = 0.75). 
  • Adequate correlation for subscale Community Belonging (r = 0.58)

Pearson correlations between adjusted total scores and sub-scale scores of the QOLP-PD


Study 1 (n = 27)

Study 2 (n = 40)

Physical Being



Psychological Being



Spiritual Being



Physical Belonging



Social Belonging



Community Belonging



Practical Becoming



Leisure Becoming



Growth Becoming



All correlation coefficients are signigican at p </= 0.01



Content Validity

  • Preliminary items selected based on review of the literature, existing instruments grounded in the CHP model, and data from interviews with adults with physical disabilities. 
  • Item pool was reviewed by 10 adults living with a physical disability, 10 rehabilitation service providers, and five researchers specializing in quality of life and disability. 
  • Item pool was subjected to item analysis. (Renwick et al, 2003). 
  • Not specifically addressed but the authors  mention that specific question were compiled by adults with physical disabilities, rehabilitation service providers, and researchers whose major focus of study is in quality of life and  rehabilitation .(Rigby, et al, 2011).

Face Validity

Cross Disability

(Hill et al., 2009)

  • QOLP-PD has very positive supportive evidence and face validity, appropriate for continued use


Hill, M. R., Noonan, V. K., Sakakibara, B. M., Miller, W. C., & Team, Scire Research. (2010). Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord, 48(6), 438-450.

Manns, P. and Chad, K. (1999) “Determining the Relation between Quality of Life, Handicap, Fitness, and Physical Activity for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury.” American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999(80): 1566-1571. Find on PubMed

Moriello, Gabriele, Proper, Dacia, Cool, Sandtana, Fink, Sarah, Schock, Samantha, & Mayack, Jennifer. (2014). Yoga therapy in an individual with spinal cord injury: A case report. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 

Renwick, R., Nourhaghighi, N., Manns, P. J., & Rudman, D. L. (2003). Quality of life for people with physical disabilities: a new instrument. Int J Rehabil Res, 26(4), 279-287. 

Rigby, P., Ryan, S. E., & Campbell, K. A. (2011). Electronic aids to daily living and quality of life for persons with tetraplegia. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 6(3), 260-267.