Quality of Life from a Motivational Perspective

Quality of Life from a Motivational Perspective

Quality of Life from a Motivational Perspective ROBERT L. SCHALOCK bob schalock & associates hastings college This chapter proposes that the core dom...

219KB Sizes 7 Downloads 42 Views

Quality of Life from a Motivational Perspective ROBERT L. SCHALOCK bob schalock & associates hastings college

This chapter proposes that the core domains of a quality life can be viewed as motivational states that initiate and direct behavior. To that end, this chapter is based on three assumptions: . The end-states represented by each of the eight identified core qualityof-life domains represent desired human conditions associated with personal well-being and, therefore, result in incentives that underlie the motivational process. . The person-centered nature of the concept of quality of life and its application results in an increase in one’s internal locus of control, self-regulation, autonomy, self-determination, personal control, and expectancy of success. . The ecological nature of quality-of-life enhancement techniques based on motivational strategies augment the positive eVects of mediated learning experiences, thereby increasing one’s intrinsic motivation. This chapter is divided into five sections: (1) our current understanding of the concept of quality of life; (2) the current focus in personality and motivation research on eVectance and intrinsic motivation; (3) the motivational aspects of the core quality-of-life domains; (4) quality-of-life and motivational strategies; and (5) implications of viewing quality of life from a motivational perspective.

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION, Vol. 28 0074-7750/04 $35.00

303

Copyright 2004, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

304

Robert L. Schalock I.

OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY OF LIFE

Over the last 15 years, there has been considerable work on the conceptualization, measurement, and application of the quality-of-life construct. Throughout this work, a consensus is emerging regarding its meaning and core domains. A.

Meaning Throughout the world, the concept of quality of life is being used as a: . Sensitizing notion that gives one a sense of reference and guidance from the individual’s perspective, focusing on the person and the individual’s environment. As a sensitizing notion, ‘‘quality’’ makes us think of the excellence or ‘‘exquisite standard’’ associated with human characteristics and positive values, such as happiness, success, wealth, health, and satisfaction; whereas ‘‘of life’’ indicates that the concept concerns the very essence or essential aspects of human existence (Lindstrom, 1992; Schalock, 2000; Schalock et al., 2002). . Social construct that is being used as an overriding principle to evaluate person-referenced outcomes and to improve and enhance a person’s perceived quality of life. In that regard, the concept is impacting program development, service delivery, management strategies, and evaluation activities in the areas of education, disabilities, mental health, and aging (Schalock, 2001; Schalock & Verdugo, 2002). . Unifying theme that is providing a systematic framework for understanding and applying the quality-of-life concept in education, health, and rehabilitation programs. This systematic framework includes conceptualizing, measuring, and applying the concept from a systems perspective: microsystem—the immediate social setting, including the person, family, and/or advocates; mesosystem—the neighborhood, community, or organization providing education and habilitation services and supports; and macrosystem—the overarching patterns of culture, society, larger populations, and country or sociopolitical influences (Keith & Schalock, 2000; Schalock & Verdugo, 2002).

B.

Core Domains

Rather than attempting a simple definition of quality-of-life, the current emphasis in quality-of-life research, application, and evaluation is to realize that quality of life is a multidimensional construct, with both subjective and objective components. The acceptance of the multidimensionality of a

quality of life from a motivational perspective

305

TABLE I Core Quality of Life Domains and Their Definitions Emotional Well-Being: the condition of being content (satisfied, happy), having a positive self-concept, and/or being relatively free of stress. Interpersonal Relations: the experiencing of social interactions and relationships (with family, friends, peers) and/or receiving supports (emotional, physical, financial, feedback) from family, friends, peers, or agencies. Material Well-Being: the presence of adequate financial status, employment, and adequate housing. Personal Development: the level of education received, personal competence expressed, and/or performance exhibited (includes creativity and personal expression). Physical Well-Being: the level of health experienced (physical functioning, disease symptoms, pain, fitness, energy, nutrition); the performance of activities of daily living (walking, dressing, self-feeding) and leisure activities; and/or receipt of health care. Self-Determination: the expression of autonomy and personal control, the pursuit of personal goals and values, and the opportunity to make choices. Social Inclusion: the integration into and participation in one’s community, the expression of valued social roles, and the receipt of social supports from the community. Rights: the expression of human rights (respect, dignity, equality) and the guarantee of legal rights (citizenship, access, due process).

quality life has led to considerable work in identifying and validating eight individual-level core quality-of-life domains: (1) emotional well-being, (2) interpersonal relation, (3) material well-being, (4) personal development, (5) physical well-being, (6) self-determination, (7) social inclusion, and (8) rights (Schalock & Verdugo, 2002; Schalock et al., 2002). Each of these domains is defined in Table I. II.

THE FOCUS ON EFFECTANCE AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

This chapter is written within the context of the emerging work in the area of personality and motivation processes in persons with mental retardation. Although this work suggests a complex interplay among personality, motivation, and cognitive processes, two critical motivational concepts have emerged: eVectance (or mastery) motivation, in which it is assumed that everyone has an intrinsic need to feel competent (White, 1959); and self eYcacy beliefs, where one is capable of organizing and implementing actions necessary to attain designated levels of performance (Bandura, 1997). Our appreciation of these two concepts has resulted in a better understanding of the concepts of self-regulation, autonomy and self-determination, mediational learning experiences, and personality traits in persons with mental retardation.

306

Robert L. Schalock

In this volume and elsewhere, the reader will find excellent summaries in the area of personality and motivational processes in persons with mental retardation (for example, Lecavalier & Tasse, 2002; Reiss & Havercamp, 1998; Switzky, 1997, 1999; Zigler & Bennett-Gates, 1999; Zigler et al., 2002). Of direct relevance to this chapter is the concept of eVectance (or mastery) motivation, which suggests that everyone has an intrinsic need to feel competent, which is associated with internal reinforcement, exploration, play, curiosity, and mastery of the environment (White, 1959). Over the years, research in this area has helped us to better understand the following four concepts that are integral to the next section on ‘‘the motivational aspects of the core quality-of-life domains.’’ 1. Self-regulation, with the associated principles of: (a) self-eYcacy (or beliefs concerning one’s capabilities to organize and implement actions necessary to attain designated levels of performance; Bandura, 1997); and (b) goal-setting and goal values as reasons for task engagement (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). 2. Autonomy and self-determination, which leads to an internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966), increased intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), a sense of competence (Deci & Ryan, 1991), and enhanced decision-making (Mithaug, 1996). 3. Knowledge acquisition strategies that involve mediational learning experiences (Feuerstein et al., 1991; Tzuriel, 1991) and active problem-solving processes (Sternberg & Berg, 1992; Switzsky, 1997). 4. Personality traits in persons with mental retardation suggesting that these individuals have: (a) lower levels of expectancy of success and eVectance motivation than those of normal intellect; (b) higher levels of dependency on a supportive adult, with initial wariness when interacting with strange adults; (c) higher levels of outer directedness and looking to others for solutions of diYcult or ambiguous problems; and (d) higher levels of extrinsic motivation orientation and learned helplessness (Hodapp & Fidler, 1999; Switzky, 1997, 1999; Zigler et al., 1999).

III.

THE MOTIVATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CORE QUALITY-OF-LIFE DOMAINS

Thus far, this chapter has reviewed our current understanding of the concept of quality of life, focusing on its meaning and core domains, and summarized key personality and motivational concepts (such as self regulation, autonomy and self determination, knowledge acquisition strategies, and

quality of life from a motivational perspective

307

personality traits) from the current work on personality and motivational processes in persons with mental retardation. The purpose of this section is to relate each of the eight person-centered core quality-of-life domains to potential motivational states. The relationships between each of the eight person-centered core qualityof-life domains and potential motivational states are summarized in Table II. The left column lists the eight core person-referenced quality-of-life domains; the right column lists potential literature-based motivation states that can be associated with the respective domain. As discussed later, each of these

TABLE II Core Quality of Life Domains and Potential Motivation States Quality of Life Domain

Potential Motivation State/Reference

Emotional Well-Being

Esteem (M) Honor (R) Tranquility (R) Order (R) Relatedness (R & D) Social contact (R) Family (R) Romance (R) Status (R) Savings (R) Achievement (Mc) Competence (R & D) Goal setting and values (D & L) Self-actualization (M) Curiosity (R) Physiological (M) Exercise (R) Autonomy (R & D) Self-actualization (M) Intrinsic motivation (D & R) Self-eYcacy (B) Independence (R) Power (R) Love and belonging (M) Idealism (R) Acceptance (R) Safety (M)

Interpersonal Relations

Material Well-Being

Personal Development

Physical Well-Being Self-Determination

Social Inclusion

Rights

Key to initials in parentheses: B (Bandura, 1997); D & L (Dweck & Leggett, 1988); D & R (Deci & Ryan, 1991); Mc (McClelland, 1955); M (Maslow, 1954); R (Reiss, 2000); R & D (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

308

Robert L. Schalock

motivational states can lead to domain enhancement and resultant satisfaction. As also shown in Table II, each potential motivational state is followed in parenthesis by an author’s initials, with the specific author(s) referenced in the table footnote. The clear relationship between core quality-of-life domains and potential motivational states allows one to view quality of life as a motivational construct. The implications of this fourth perspective are discussed in the following two sections.

IV.

QUALITY OF LIFE AND MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIES

Three premises were stated in the introduction of this chapter: (1) the endstates represented by each of the eight core quality-of-life domains represent desired human conditions associated with personal well-being and, therefore, result in incentives that underlie the motivation process; (2) the personcentered nature of the concept of quality of life and its application results in an increase in one’s internal locus of control, self-regulation, autonomy, selfdetermination, personal control, and expectancy of success; and (3) the ecological nature of quality-of-life enhancement techniques based on motivational strategies augments the positive eVects of mediated learning experiences, thereby increasing one’s intrinsic motivation. If these premises are correct, which appears to be the case, what strategies might be used to develop skills associated with increased individual motivation? Below are eight motivation-enhancing skills that presumably increase both eVectance and instrinsic motivation and can be developed through instruction to promote capacity (skills and knowledge), opportunities to experience control and choice, and the design of supports and accommodations. . Choice-making skills. Examples include choosing between two or more activities or options, deciding when to do an activity, and selecting the person with whom to associate. . Problem-solving skills. Examples include listing relevant action alternatives, identifying consequences of those actions, assessing the probability of each consequence, establishing the relative importance or value of each consequence, and integrating these values and probabilities to identify the most attractive course of action. . Decision-making skills. Most models of decision making incorporate the following steps: listing relevant action alternatives, identifying possible consequences of those actions, assessing the probability of each consequence occurring (if the action were undertaken), establishing the relative importance (value or utility) of each consequence, and integrating

quality of life from a motivational perspective

.

. .

. .

309

these values and probabilities to identify the most attractive course of action. Goal-setting and attainment skills. Examples include identification and enunciation of specific goals, the development of objectives and tasks to achieve these goals, and the actions necessary to achieve a desired outcome. Self-management skills. Examples include self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement. Self-advocacy and leadership skills. Examples include being assertive, communicating eVectively, negotiating, compromising, using persuasion, being an eVective listener, and navigating through systems and bureaucracies. Perceptions of control and eYciency. These result from choice-making, problem-solving, decision-making, and goal-setting and attainment. Self-awareness and self-knowledge. These result from one’s interpretation of events and experiences such as meaningful activities and meaningful lives (for example, work and home).

V.

IMPLICATIONS OF VIEWING QUALITY OF LIFE FROM A MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Increasingly, the quality-of-life literature is approaching the conceptualization, measurement, and application of the concept from a systems perspective that focuses on either the individual (micro), the larger community (meso), or the larger society (macro). Consistent with this approach, this final section suggests three implications of viewing quality of life from a motivational perspective: implications from an individual, program, and policy perspective. A.

Individual Implications

The reader is familiar with the use of a hierarchy to denote the relative value or position of diVerent motivational states. The most familiar example is probably that of Maslow (1954). In addition, reinforcement hierarchies have been used to describe the position of value of a reinforcer for a given person, which is determined by a complex interaction of developmental level, past social learning experience, availability of the reinforcer, and whether or not it has acquired the properties of a higher-order reinforcer (Zigler, 1971, 1999). The use of a hierarchy to describe relative value or position is extended here to include the eight core person-centered quality-of-life

310

Robert L. Schalock

domains. Two examples are presented that reflect both the potentially generic nature (the ‘‘generalized’’ quality-of-life hierarchy), and the individualized valence (the ‘‘personalized’’ hierarchy) of these eight domains. The first example is based on work done in Spain (Elorriaga et al., 2000) and a participatory action research project in the state of Maryland (Schalock, Bonham, & Marchand, 2000); the second is based on a case involving a serious burn to a person diagnosed as an individual with ‘‘severe/profound mental retardation.’’ 1. THE ‘‘GENERALIZED’’ QUALITY-OF-LIFE HIERARCHY

The core domains of a quality life have been modeled as a triangle (Elorriaga et al., 2000), with a hierarchy built upon the foundation of physical well-being, material well-being, and rights. As shown in Fig. 1, the next level of the hierarchy is personal development and self-determination, followed higher by social inclusion and interpersonal relations. At the top of the hierarchy is emotional well-being. In my work with self-advocates in the U. S. and elsewhere, the motivational aspects of this hierarchy are seen clearly when each of the levels is used to describe what people want:

FIG. 1. The quality of life hierarchy.

quality of life from a motivational perspective

311

. To stay healthy and safe (physical well-being, material well-being, and rights); . To have what and who is important to us in everyday life, and to have people to be with us, things to do, and places to be (personal development and self-determination); . To have opportunities to meet new people, and to change with whom and where we live (social inclusion and interpersonal relations); . To have our own dreams and our own journeys (emotional well-being). The triangle shown in Fig. 1, turned on its side, forms the basis for a path analysis of participatory action research data currently being collected on a group of persons with mental retardation/developmental disabilities receiving services in the state of Maryland (Schalock et al., 2000; Schalock & Bonham, 2003). The project involves self-advocates administering to other self-advocates a 50-item quality-of-life questionnaire based on the eight personcentered core quality-of-life domains listed in Table I. As shown in Fig. 2, physical well-being, material well-being, and rights are shown on the left. They are related, as indicated by the curved arrows among them, but without assuming causality. Physical and material well-being are highly related, as indicated by the path coeYcient of 0.69. Rights are significantly related to physical and material well-being, but not as strongly as physical and material well-being are related to each other.

FIG. 2. Path model of quality of life hierarchy.

312

Robert L. Schalock

The foundational life domain of rights aVects both domains on the next level of the hierarchy, but rights aVect self-determination more than it aVects personal development. Physical well-being has a strong impact on personal development, but has no significant impact on self-determination (hence, no arrow is shown between physical well-being and self-determination). Material well-being aVects self-determination, but does not aVect personal development. Physical and material well-being also have a direct impact on emotional well-being, rather than having all of their impact indirectly through intermediate levels of the hierarchy. The domain of rights also has a direct eVect on the domain of social inclusion. 2. A ‘‘PERSONALIZED’’ HIERARCHY

I have recently been involved in a personal injury case that demonstrates that the motivational aspects of the ‘‘generalized’’ hierarchy shown in Fig. 1 can diVer depending upon the individual (which is quite consistent with the notion of the subjective nature to both quality-of-life and motivational states). The case involved a 26-year-old male who is diagnosed as an individual with ‘‘severe/profound mental retardation.’’ After attending public school until he was 21, John (a fictitious name) was admitted to a community-based, community living facility. Although scoring low on standardized intelligence tests, John demonstrates good sensory-motor skills, minimal receptive language, and some self-help skills (such as self-feeding and partial dressing). Soon after his enrollment in the community living facility, John received serious burns to his lower legs and feet when he sat down in an unattended bathtub. Subsequently, he was admitted to an emergency room and a burn unit. Two days after the burn incident, a naso-gastric tube was inserted since he had refused to eat and drink. The issue that was presented to me was: ‘‘What is the impact on John’s quality of life, given his earlier history compared to that which has followed the accident (including being placed in a skilled nursing facility due to the need for flushing of the naso-gastric tube twice daily)?’’ In observing John for an extended period of time, it was apparent that the ‘‘generalized’’ hierarchy shown in Fig. 1 needed to be revised based on his current needs and potential motivational states. This new configuration of the hierarchy is shown in Fig. 3 and indicates that the foundation levels for John include: rights, personal development, emotional well-being, physical well-being, and social inclusion. Once these levels are addressed, then the quality-of-life domains of material well-being, interpersonal relations, and self-determination will be more involved. From a motivational perspective, there are at least three major implications from the individual’s perspective. First, the relative incentive value of each quality-of-life domain can vary between people and across the

quality of life from a motivational perspective

313

FIG. 3. A personalized quality of life hierarchy.

lifespan. For example, for youth the domains of interpersonal relations, selfdetermination, and social inclusion may be most important; whereas for people of age, emotional, material, and physical well-being may be relatively more important than the other five domains. Second, the end-states represented by each quality-of-life domain represent desired conditions and thereby result in incentives that underlie the motivational process. The reader may wonder at this point: ‘‘What are those end-states?’’ Increasingly, they appear to be personal well-being as reflected in the concepts of happiness and satisfaction (Crocker, 2000; Cummins, 1996; Diener, 2000; Meyers, 2000; Schalock & Felce, 2004). And third, quality-of-life domains, just as motivational states, are unique to the individual and need to be approached from the perspective of self-determination and personal control. This implication directly aVects education and rehabilitation programs. B.

Program Implications

Research guided by a self-determination theory has focused primarily on the social-cultural conditions that facilitate the natural processes of self-motivation and enhanced intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and

314

Robert L. Schalock

well-being. This research has produced two significant results: first, the successful satisfaction of an individual’s competence, autonomy, and relatedness motives yield enhanced self-motivation, constructive social development, and personal well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000); and second, assessed levels of self-determination and quality of life are significantly positively correlated (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1998). Given these findings, the logical question to ask is: ‘‘What education and rehabilitation programmatic practices might enhance the desired outcomes of enhanced intrinsic motivation, self regulation, and well-being?’’ Two factors are highlighted in the literature: self-determination and personal control.

1. SELF-DETERMINATION

Self-determined behavior refers to actions that are identified by four essential characteristics (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001): (1) the person acts autonomously (according to their own preferences, interests, and/or abilities, and independently which is to be free from undue external influences or interference); (2) the action(s) was self-regulated and includes self-management strategies (for example, self-monitoring, self-instruction, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement), goal-setting and attainment behaviors, problem-solving behaviors, and observational learning strategies; (3) the person initiated and responded to the event(s) in a psychologically empowered manner reflective of personal eYcacy and internal locus of control; and (4) the person acted in a self-realizing and understanding manner that forms through experience with an interpretation of one’s environment, and is influenced by evaluations of significant others, reinforcement, and attributions of one’s own behavior.

2. PERSONAL CONTROL

According to StancliVe et al. (2000a), personal control is not the same as self-determination. Specifically, self-determination involves a person controlling those areas of their life that they desire to exercise control; whereas, personal control refers to what happens to them in their lives, when and where it occurs, and with whom it takes place (p. 431). Through a series of studies (StancliVe et al., 2000a,b) the authors have found that increased personal control is related to: . Measured self-determination skills (such as choice-making, goal-setting, problem-solving, self-regulation, personal advocacy skills, social and communication skills, and community-living skills).

quality of life from a motivational perspective

315

. Measured self-determination knowledge (such as resources and the system, laws, rights, responsibilities, perceived options, and self awareness). . Measured self-determination attitudes and beliefs (such as locus of control, self-esteem, self-acceptance, self-confidence/self-eYcacy, and value by others). From a motivational perspective, the components to self-determination and personal control are important for at least two reasons. First, they underscore the critical role that self-determination and personal control should play in the provision of education, habilitation, and social services. In this regard, there is an emerging set of best practices in self-determination that reflect many of these components including (Ficker-Terrill, 2002; Moseley & Nerney, 2000): independent service provision, which minimizes a conflict of interest; flexible individual budgeting; personally directed and controlled planning process; independent support brokerage; autonomous fiscal intermediary services; meaningful activities and lives (work and home); and the provision of a wide array of service and support options. Second, the components imply a direct relationship between quality of life and self-determination as reflected in the following three findings: 1. One factor contributing to the positive outcomes in the lives of persons with mental retardation and a higher level of assessed quality of life is enhanced self-determination (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1998). 2. People who are self-determined make or cause things to happen in their lives; they are causal agents in their lives. However, causal agency implies more than simply making something happen; it implies that the individual who makes or causes things to happen does so to accomplish a specific end. Intuitively, and by definition, these ends or changes are designed to improve or enhance the person’s quality of life (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001). 3. The degree to which a person is self-determined either influences or is influenced by other core domains of quality of life, and, in combination with these other core domains, influences or impacts global or overall quality-of-life status (Schalock et al., 2000). 4. The person-centered nature of the concept of quality of life and its application results in an increase in one’s internal locus of control, enhanced self-regulation, autonomy, self-direction, personal control, and expectancy of success (Schalock & Verdugo, 2002).

316 C.

Robert L. Schalock Policy Implications

A final implication of viewing quality of life from a motivational perspective relates to the increasing emphasis on consumer direction in human services. As discussed by Ficker-Terrill (2002), Kosciulek (2000), and Schalock (2004), if people with disabilities are to experience personal satisfaction, increased motivation, and an enhanced quality of life, they need to play a central role in directing the disability policy development and rehabilitation services delivery that are central to their empowerment. To empower a person is to provide them with the opportunity to make choices and decisions regarding their life. Choice and control are highly valued prerogatives that reflect the autonomy, identity, and independence of an individual, and result in increased motivation and perceived quality of life (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001). Given this relationship and the above discussion of the relationship between self-determination and motivation, three principles are emerging in the rehabilitation literature (Kosciulek, 2000): 1. Consumer-directed disability policy and rehabilitation programming should be based on the presumption that consumers with disabilities generally and clearly understand their service needs. 2. Choice and control can be introduced into all service delivery environments. 3. Consumer direction in the provision of services should be available to all. At least two implications follow from the emergence of consumer empowerment and consumer direction. First, both conditions are logical extensions of the previous discussion of self-determination and personal control, including their impact on service and support provision, quality of life, internal locus of control, and self-eYcacy. Second, the consumer movement reflects the ecological nature of quality-of-life enhancement techniques that augment the positive eVects of mediated learning experiences and hence increases one’s intrinsic motivation.

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, writing this chapter has allowed for the appreciated opportunity to extend the concept of quality of life to another dimension—that of a motivational construct. In addition to its use as a sensitizing notion, social construct, and unifying theme, it is quite apparent that the person-centered

quality of life from a motivational perspective

317

nature of the quality-of-life concept is consistent with the notion that motivation concerns all aspects of activation and intention: energy, direction, persistence, and equifinality (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As discussed throughout the chapter, the end-states represented by each of the eight core quality-oflife domains represent the perceived personal well-being that serves as an incentive underlying the motivational process. Furthermore, the personcentered nature of the quality-of-life concept and its application result in an increase in one’s internal locus of control, self-direction, personal control, autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and expectancy of success. If the above statements are true, then the current popularity of the concept of quality of life and its application to persons with mental retardation potentially has more impact than once thought. For now, we need to focus not just on the person’s perceptions of a quality life and what education and rehabilitation programs can do to enhance that perception, but to realize that from the individual’s perspective, the desire for a quality life has motivating and sustaining components as well. Thus, our future research and evaluation challenge is to identify the individual and social-cultural factors that enhance those components and their outcomes. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eYcacy. New York: W. H. Freeman. Crocker, A. C. (2000). Introduction: The happiness in all our lives. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105(5), 319–325. Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivated approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, Vol. 38: Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Elorriaga, J., Garcia, L., Martinez, J., & Unamunzaga, E. (2000). Quality of life of people with mental retardation in Spain: One organization’s experience. In K. D. Keith & R. L. Schalock (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on quality of life (pp. 113–124). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (Eds.) (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. London: Freund Publishing House Ltd. Ficker-Terrill, K. (2002). The future. In R. L. Schalock, P. C. Baker, & M. D. Croser (Eds.), Embarking on a new century: Mental retardation at the end of the 20th century (pp. 237–245). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Hodapp, R. M., & Fidler, D. J. (1999). Parenting, etiology, and personality-motivational functioning in children with mental retardation. In E. Zigler & D. Bennett-Gates (Eds.),

318

Robert L. Schalock

Personality development in individuals with mental retardation (pp. 226–248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Keith, K. D., & Schalock, R. L. (2000). Cross-cultural perspectives on quality of life. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Kosciulek, J. F. (2000). Implications of consumer direction for disability policy development and rehabilitation service delivery. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 11(2), 82–89. Lecavalier, L., & Tasse, M. (2002). Sensitivity theory of motivation and psychopathology: An exploratory study. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107(2), 105–115. Lindstrom, B. (1992). Quality of life: A model for evaluating health for all. Soz Praventivimed, 37, 301–306. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McClelland, D. C. (1955). Some social consequences of achievement motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 50–102). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Meyers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67. Mithaug, D. E. (1996). The optimal prospects principle: A theoretical basis for rethinking instructional practices for self-determination. In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination across the life span: Independence and choice for people with disabilities (pp. 147–165). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Moseley, C., & Nerney, T. (2000, December/November). Emerging best practices in selfdetermination. AAMR News and Notes. 1–5. Reiss, S. (2000). A mindful approach to mental retardation. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 65–80. Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. H. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation: Factor structure of the Reiss profiles. Psychological Assessment, 10, 97–106. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Schalock, R. L. (2000). Three decades of quality of life. In M. L. Wehmeyer & J. R. Patton (Eds.), Mental retardation in the 21st century (pp. 335–358). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Schalock, R. L. (2001). Outcome-based evaluation: Second edition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Schalock, R. L. (2004). The emerging disability paradigm and its implications for policy and practice. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(4), 204–215. Schalock, R. L., & Bonham, G. S. (2003). Measuring outcomes and managing for results. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(3), 229–235. Schalock, R. L., Bonham, G. S., & Marchand, C. B. (2000). Consumer-based quality of life assessment: A path model of perceived satisfaction. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(1), 77–88. Schalock, R. L., Brown, I., Brown, R., Cummins, R. A., Felce, D., Matikka, L., Keith, K. D., & Parmenter, T. (2002). Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: Results of an international panel of experts. Mental Retardation, 40(6), 457–470. Schalock, R. L., & Felce, D. (2004). Quality of life and subjective well-being. In E. Emerson, T. Thompson, T. Parmenter, & C. Hatton (Eds.), International handbook of methods for research and evaluation in intellectual disabilities (pp. 261–279). West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons. Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002). Handbook on quality of life for human service practitioners. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

quality of life from a motivational perspective

319

StancliVe, R. J., Abery, B. H., & Smith, J. (2000a). Personal control and the ecology of community living settings: Beyond living-unit size and type. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105(6), 431–454. StancliVe, R. J., Abery, B. H., Springborg, H., & Elkin, S. (2000b). Substitute decision-making and personal control: Implications for self-determination. Mental Retardation, 38(5), 407–421. Sternberg, R. J., & Berg, C. A. (Eds.) (1992). Intellectual development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Switzky, H. N. (1997). Individual diVerences in personality and motivational systems in persons with mental retardation. In W. E. MacLean, Jr. (Ed.), Ellis’ handbook of mental eficiency, psychological theory and research, (3rd ed., pp. 343–377). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Switzky, H. N. (1999). Intrinsic motivation and motivational system process in persons with mental retardation: A theory of motivational orientation. In E. Zigler & D. Bennett-Gates (Eds.), Personality development in individuals with mental retardation (pp. 70–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tzuriel, D. (1991). Cognitive modifiability, mediated learning experience and aVective motivational processes: A transactional approach. In R. Feuerstein, P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications (pp. 95–120). London: Freund Publishing House Ltd. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: Implications for special education services and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33, 1–16. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The relationship between self-determination, quality of life, and life satisfaction for adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 3–12. White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 88, 297–333. Zigler, E. (1971). The retarded child as a whole person. In H. E. Adams & W. K. Boardman (Eds.), Advances in experimental clinical psychology (pp. 34–60). New York: Pergamon Press. Zigler, E. (1999). The individual with mental retardation as a whole person. In E. Zigler & D. Bennett-Gates (Eds.), Personality development in individuals with mental retardation (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zigler, E., & Bennett-Gates, D. (1999). Personality development in individuals with mental retardation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zigler, E., Bennett-Gates, D., & Hodapp, R. (2000). Assessing personality traits of individuals with mental retardation. In E. Zigler & D. Bennett-Gates (Eds.), Personality development in individuals with mental retardation (pp. 206–225). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zigler, E., Bennett-Gates, D., Hodapp, R., & Henrich, C. C. (2002). Assessing personality traits of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107(3), 181–193.