Measurable Indicators of CRPD for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities within the Quality of Life Framework
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What is discussed in the publications about the CRPD and people with IDD?
- In the literature, what theoretical frameworks and assessment instruments are proposed to monitor the implementation of the CRPD for people with IDD?
- What indicators or personal outcomes are mentioned in the scientific literature discussing the CRPD Articles that protect specific rights for people with IDD?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.2. Search Procedures
2.3. Article Selection
2.4. Article Coding and Data Extraction
3. Results
3.1. What is Discussed in the Publications about the CRPD and People with IDD?
3.2. In the Literature, What Theoretical Frameworks and Assessment Instruments are Proposed to Monitor the Implementation of the CRPD for People with IDD?
3.3. What Indicators or Personal Outcomes Are Mentioned in the Scientific Literature Discussing the CRPD Articles that Protect Specific Rights for People with IDD?
3.3.1. Personal Development
- Article 24 (education): Nine articles included in this review refer to specific indicators and personal outcomes related to inclusive education [8,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49] in ordinary settings at all levels of education (preschool, primary, secondary, high school, vocational training, university). The specific indicators mentioned were the right to attend educational establishments near their community; individualized supports within the general education system; assessment of individual support needs in environments that maximize academic and social development; completion of stages and appropriate transitions between them; coordination among the different professionals involved; training about rights; training about sexuality, reproduction and family planning (understanding what sexual relationships are, risks, benefits and alternatives; questions about sexuality can be freely raised and resolved); training and preparation for independent living (in real-life contexts, from compulsory education); vocational guidance; adequate training and qualifications to get a job; individualized educational aids (e.g., teacher’s aide, tutors, extended test time, modified course curriculum); appropriate materials; reasonable accommodations; quick access to necessary educational support products (e.g., specialized software, recording or note taking devices, audio/e-book devices); information, care, and guidance services for families (e.g., legislative measures and supports related to the education of their children); participation of the family in the education process; information, care, and guidance services for teachers about disability, supports and special educational needs; attitudes toward the inclusion of family members and teachers; meaningful learning experiences; participation in the activities of the school; the school and its staff enhance the person’s self-esteem, satisfaction, autonomy, and self-confidence; friends at school (not only among staff or carers); educational institutions in a holistic perspective of health and care.
3.3.2. Self-Determination
- Article 14 (liberty and security of person): 10 papers [8,38,40,45,48,49,50,51,52,53] address this Article, specifically freedom of choice (e.g., to choose where and with whom they live, the type of housing, moving house, what to cook, how to spend their free time and with whom); making their own decisions (including decisions about health); personal autonomy (e.g., control of their finances, handling their own money independently, not being overprotected by their family, not being underestimated by their parents or still being perceived as a child); control over life and life events (e.g., social outings, simple events in their daily lives); upbringing experiences focused on developing skills for independence and self-determined behaviors; coping strategies (e.g., impact of health problems on daily life); person-centered approach.
- Article 21 (freedom of expression and opinion, access to information): Seven studies focus on access to—and understanding of—information, as well as opportunities to use information and express their opinion [8,40,48,51,54,55,56]. From these, the following personal outcomes were extracted: information in accessible formats (e.g., easy-read format); assistive products for communication and cognition (knowledge and awareness; customization); access to the internet, its content and digital services (e.g., adapted applications, internet sites and web browsers; modifying the mouse settings or enlarging the font); technological devices adapted to the person’s specific needs (e.g., alternative mice, enlarged keyboards, touch screens, voice synthesis and recognition systems); technical support (e.g., configuring device security, securing the wireless network, installing an antivirus program, setting up the firewall, updating the operating system and software); participation in digital society (educational programs, individualized supports to understand new social interaction rules and conventions); self-advocacy (to have their voice heard, confidence to speak up, defend their health, sexual and emotional options).
3.3.3. Interpersonal Relationships
- Article 23 (respect for home and the family): 10 articles included in the review [8,39,40,49,57,58,59,60,61,62] refer to the right to have opportunities to meet people, establishing relationships, having friends, meeting the right person, and having a partner relationship (taking risks to be with the person they want, opposing control of the family and restrictive service regulations, receiving support without being treated as children or considered asexual or unable to raise children, choosing their sexual orientation, being listened to about their needs); to marry and found a family (retain their fertility on an equal basis with others, avoiding forced sterilization and covert contraception, making their own reproductive and sexual choices, deciding on the number of children to have); to keep their own children with them (i.e., receiving specific supports for the wellbeing of both children and parents with disabilities, obtaining legal custody of the children in case of divorce, avoiding the separation of children from their parents against their will on the basis of a disability, or denial of their rights as fathers/mothers); to receive sexual information, guidance, and support in caring for their children (e.g., basic care, nutrition, health, education; home-based learning and flexible support services over the long-term that are evidence-based, tailored to individual needs, and built on the strengths of each parent and family; monitoring of new needs); to be able to adopt and foster, and to access assisted reproduction; guidance and training for families and professionals who provide evidence-based methods and non-discriminatory support in sexuality (preventing negative attitudes of professionals and families toward sexuality, such as discouraging marriage and parenting, restricting sexual expression; disapproving relationships, allowing platonic but not intimate relationships); organization policy facilitating sexual experiences and comprehensive sex education programs (not only addressing biological facts but also allowing them to discuss the social and emotional aspects of relationships and sexuality, to learn about abuse and exploitation, to recognize the importance of desire and pleasure).
3.3.4. Social Inclusion
- Article 8 (awareness-raising): Seven articles [8,48,59,63,64,65,66] provide indicators and personal outcomes related to advertising campaigns. The specific personal outcomes include giving them visibility; promoting normalization and generating awareness about disabilities; treating their image with respect; sensitizing and ensuring the realization of their rights; promoting equality; improving participation and inclusion; breaking stereotypes. In addition, there was an emphasis on the need for specific awareness campaigns focusing on the reality of women with ID and their capability of parenting (associated with Articles 6 and 23, respectively).
- Article 9 (accessibility): Four studies [46,48,53,67] mention specific elements that could be operationalized with respect to the accessibility of the environment. In particular, they refer to accessibility in health facilities, community centers, educational establishments, and workplaces; accessibility in public infrastructure; accessibility of leisure environments.
- Article 18 (liberty of movement and nationality): Only one article [40] discusses the freedom to use public transport; freedom to move around and have control over their movements; being within walking distance of amenities and shops.
- Article 19 (living independently and being included in the community): 14 papers [8,38,39,40,42,45,47,49,50,53,63,66,68,69] mention personal outcomes or indicators associated with the right to live independently and be included in the community (i.e., not to be institutionalized in segregated environments, not to be restricted in options for in-home residential and other community support services). To achieve this, the papers highlighted the right to receive the necessary individualized supports (person-centered planning, individualized support to live more independently) for everyday activities to do with autonomy in the home (e.g., getting to appointments, running errands, housework, personal finances, heavy household chores, preparing meals, personal care and medical care); support from professionals (sufficient personal resources) and service providers (to organize preferred housing, help find housemates, forge social connections); in housing, to facilitate flexibility in terms of rules and staff control, freedom to move around and to arrange daily home life, enjoy own space, individualized care, small groups, living with their partner; trust and support from family (role of the family as a source of support and as facilitators of autonomy, opportunities to practice skills, avoiding overprotection); special attention to access supports during and after moving (to organize move, types of support, relationships with supporters, quality of supporters); being within walking distance of amenities and shops; support for older people with disability; control over support arrangements (choose support workers and the kind of support they receive); housing affordability; access to information on independent living experiences.
- Article 20 (personal mobility): Two articles [54,63] include specific aspects related to this right. The indicators and personal outcomes mentioned are a way to be personally mobile (availability of assistive products for mobility; knowledge and awareness about them; customization); and a way to transport across environments (i.e., adapted transport; human support and vehicle available).
- Article 29 (participation in political and public life): Seven studies [8,49,53,66,70,71,72] consider aspects related to the right of people with ID to vote (e.g., information about the meaning and content of elections and democratic participation; understanding the information from the parties, the electoral procedures, and the voting paper; easy postal votes; accessible local polling stations; using pictures, symbols and logos on the voting paper; courses about voting and elections; easier-to-read election materials; support at polling stations and during the process of voting; treated respectfully by election officials; web accessible guides to voting); to be elected political members; priority on supportive legislation on disability issues in the government and CRPD focus.
- Article 30 (participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport): Measurable indicators and outcomes are found in eight articles [40,47,48,49,50,53,66,69]. They refer to being part of society, taking part in all aspects of their community life; having sufficient income to participate in the community; adequate information about community activities for families (e.g., organized social leisure activities); participating in activities with people without ID (e.g., inclusive sports); promotion of active participation and play in their communities; enjoying leisure time (doing a variety of things alone or with others; relaxing and having fun; doing things they enjoy; going to pubs and night life; not being ignored at social events); awareness, positive attitudes and actions of other members of the community.
3.3.5. Rights
- Article 5 (equality and non-discrimination): Five papers [49,50,54,69,73] identify the indicators and personal outcomes of not suffering stigma; not suffering discrimination (e.g., in insurance matters, in access to health care); not experiencing rejection and denial of their individuality, adulthood and capacity.
- Article 6 (women with disabilities): Eight papers refer to the rights of women [8,49,52,58,59,60,65,74]. Most indicators and personal outcomes were already reflected in other CRPD rights, but there was particular emphasis on the application of these rights—and respect for—women. The most frequently cited aspects in relation to women include prevention and intervention in gender-based violence (knowing their rights, knowing how to deal with acts of aggression perpetrated by men, easy-read guides on gender-based violence, providing information and raising awareness of ID for people working with women who have been victims of gender-based violence, information services and specialist guidance on existing resources and intermediation in the public system, emotional support, legal advice); employment; avoiding overprotection (parents are usually more protective with daughters); taking into account the demands of women with ID; right to participate in decisions about their lives.
- Article 7 (children with disabilities): Six papers focus on the right of children with disabilities to express their views freely on all matters affecting them and to be provided with disability- and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right [8,46,48,67,74,75]. While most of the indicators and personal outcomes matched those already proposed and reflected in other CRPD rights, it was stressed that these must also be fulfilled during childhood and adolescence. Among these are the importance of children participating in civil life and decision-making (including health); the will and preferences of children with disabilities are respected on an equal basis with other children (e.g., children should be asked to express their views and preferences during legal procedures, using all possible ways of communication such as drawing and painting, body language, facial expressions; providing children with accessible information that allows them to express their opinion); promoting inclusion and preventing family vulnerability (e.g., avoiding separation from parents against their will on the basis of a disability and, where this is necessary, providing alternatives within the extended family or in the community in a family environment, child protection services); appropriate transition from child-specific to adult-specific services; the development of adaptive behavior skills; involving children in advocacy, decision-making or even human rights monitoring.
- Article 10 (right to life): Only two papers give measurable aspects on the right to life [76,77]. Both specifically mention providing supports to make choices about end-of-life: to express their will and preference (using a range of intentional/unintentional and formal/informal behaviors); supporters to listen to the person’s expression of preference by acknowledging, interpreting and acting on that preference); intimate or very close relationships between people with ID and their supporters (knowledge of the person’s life story; documentation of a person’s history and life story through sharing of historical stories, images and video about the person being supported, by those who had known them for a long time, across multiple areas of their life; enjoyment of their company; willingness and ability to see the person “beyond their disability”); person-centered approach (encouraging the use of supports for end-of-life care in home settings, and recognizing variations in what “home” may be like with respect to end-of-life care).
- Article 11 (situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies): States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters. None of the papers included in this review refer to specific indicators or personal outcomes associated with this Article.
- Article 12 (equal recognition before the law): A dozen articles [8,49,71,74,75,76,78,79,80,81] focus on the promotion of supported decision-making strategies. They specifically report on the need to replace guardianship (disapproving of legal incapacity and substituted decision-making) with the supported decision-making model: empower them to exercise their own will and preferences (training about decision-making; providing information about supported decision-making to people with disabilities, their families, and professionals; taking into consideration individual concerns, experiences with legal systems and levels of literacy; identifying communication barriers; implementing measures to enable their voice to be heard); appropriate and ongoing support to exercise decision-making capacity in all areas of their lives (person-centered planning: all forms of support in the exercise of legal capacity must be based on their specific needs, will and preferences, not on what is perceived as being in their objective best interests; support is available at nominal or no cost and lack of financial resources is not a barrier to accessing support in the exercise of legal capacity; safeguards must be established for all processes relating to legal capacity and support in exercising legal capacity); dyad of decision-maker with ID and a decision supporter (legal recognition of the support person(s) formally chosen by the person must be available and accessible, including mechanisms for third parties to verify the identity of a support person and challenge their actions if they believe that the support person is not acting in accordance with the will and preferences of the person concerned; the person has the right to refuse support and terminate or change the support relationship at any time; supporters’ respect for rights, values, goals, experiences of individual; having good interpersonal skills and the ability to recognize conflicting interest; responding to the expression of will and preference by acknowledging, interpreting and responding to it; having a close and trusting relationship with the decision-maker or the capacity to build one; using formal decision-making agreements, committing time and providing support for as long as is needed for a decision to be reached; supporting decision makers to take risks, change their minds, make decisions others may not like, and extend their experiences; helping them to access information, discussing available information in understandable ways, and advocating for decisions made to be acted on; showing commitment, familiarity with disability, good communication and advocacy skills, common sense and ethical behavior); the person is encouraged to make their own decision by providing them with a range of options but not imposing choices; the person expresses will and preference, intentionally and unintentionally, using a range of modalities (e.g., behavior, vocalization, vocal pitch, muscle tone, facial expression, eye movement, self-harm, breath, unintentional physiological functions); the meetings are set up in a comfortable environment with the consent of the person.
- Article 13 (access to justice): Only one paper specifically refers to access to justice (for women with ID who have been victims of gender-based violence) [74]. It points to the need for ways to enable them to successfully engage with the legal system; support from workers and agencies in their interactions with the justice system; supports from police and judicial officers (e.g., adjusting their language, regarding complaints and statements as serious and with the same weight as they would for persons without disabilities, taking time to explain the law and its application, recognizing them as full persons before the law); training police and judicial officers about IDD.
- Article 15 (freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment): Only four papers [50,63,73,82] specify indicators or personal outcomes associated with this Article: use of seclusion or solitary confinement (i.e., restrictive interventions, exclusionary practices); restraints (physical, mechanical, chemical); harmful treatments (e.g., inappropriate sedation, forced medication, failure to meet dietary requirements).
- Article 22 (respect for privacy): The four papers [40,49,50,69] that allude to this right identify the following indicators and personal outcomes: respect for privacy by flatmates, parents and caregivers (having their own room and space: private, peace and quiet; privacy of personal and intimate information; privacy related to sexuality).
3.3.6. Emotional Wellbeing
- Article 16 (freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse): 12 articles specify indicators or personal outcomes on this aspect [8,38,40,42,49,57,59,63,65,66,74,82]. Those frequently cited include freedom from concealment, abandonment, abuse or neglect; segregation or exclusion (social and physical isolation); bullying (name calling; cyberbullying) in educational and social settings; experiencing vulnerability and not feeling safe (in relationships, in immediate environment); gender-based violence; sexual abuse (being able to detect abuse), physical violence (violent relationships); economic abuse.
- Article 17 (protecting the integrity of the person): Six papers mention personal outcomes related to indicators of being treated with respect, dignity, and equity [40,47,49,51,52,63]. For professionals, these include providing unconditional support, emotional support, a listening ear, empathy, patience, and trust; and that they know the people with IDD well, understand their perspective, and value and respect them and their family. For the persons with disabilities, these include self-acceptance and self-awareness of disability, not showing low expectations of themselves because of disability; not experiencing exclusionary reactions, such as not being addressed in conversations or being ignored by professionals in different sectors; use of positive behavioral support.
3.3.7. Physical Wellbeing
- Article 25 (health): 10 articles [48,50,51,56,66,67,73,83,84,85] discuss the right to health, highlighting indicators and personal outcomes associated with good physical health (e.g., healthy weight, absence of weight-related physical problems such as diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, hypertension); prevention; access to appropriate information on health-related issues; promotion of healthy behaviors in accessible formats; good psychological health (absence of behavioral problems or psychiatric disorders); to have family and disability support worker advocacy (without conflicts of interests between their own needs/vision and those of their son or daughter); early screening and diagnosis (including comorbidities); community programs favoring cognitive, physical, and social development; shared decision-making among health care providers, children and families; supervised, justified and adjusted medication (especially, antipsychotic); rigorous data collection system and epidemiological data on prevalence of IDD and mental illness; existence of IDD mental health policy; tested for sexually transmitted diseases; no substance abuse or dependence (e.g., methamphetamine, alcohol, and marijuana).
- Article 26 (habilitation and rehabilitation): 12 papers [40,48,49,50,51,54,66,67,73,83,84,85] focus on specific elements related to habilitation and rehabilitation, such as accessing quality efficient and specialized physical and mental health care and social care (speech therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, dentists, X-ray facilities, primary and tertiary health services); appropriate and affordable early and timely health services, interventions and care; coordination and communication between health, education and social services; health services close to home; appropriate transitions between health services (e.g., from pediatric to adult services); availability, knowledge and use of assistive devices and technologies related to habilitation and rehabilitation; health staff feeling competent to care for patients with IDD (educational curricula for health professionals about disability; availability of specialized training; avoiding misperceptions; well-trained mental health professionals in dual diagnoses); health staff’s positive attitudes (looking and directly talking to person with IDD, willing to provide them with care; showing respect); individualized and capability-based services.
3.3.8. Material Wellbeing
- Article 27 (work and employment): Eight papers contain employment-related aspects [39,40,42,46,47,49,59,66]: access to the labor market; having a (local) paid job (not being refused a job, promotion or interview because of disability); safe and suitable employment; satisfaction with the employment and salary (paid on an equal basis to others); adequate provision of accommodation and employment services (e.g., hours, duty, human support); employer and employee attitudes (e.g., aware of work strengths and limitations, not considering the person disadvantaged because of disability; negative attitudes when looking for employment; ongoing disability information and awareness activities for all employees; satisfactory treatment for employees); adequate job information, training and experience (advice on alternative employment; individualized training based on needs, studies, professional experience, interests and availability; skills training to find and keep a job; individual guidance to map out potential professional pathways; assessment and guidance on job options tailored to needs profile; presence of support persons to mediate with the company; tracking recruitment to make adjustments); employment as a way to meet people and friends; work-life balance measures (i.e., childcare while they work).
- Article 28 (adequate standard of living and social protection): 10 studies [8,40,43,47,53,54,59,66,67,69] specify personal outcomes or indicators associated with this Article: financial independence (adequate subsistence base); sufficient financial income to access housing (housing affordability); safe, accessible and suitable housing; aid to cover the additional expenses of supports and specialist care (economic support); having the necessary assistive products for environment and self-care (knowledge and awareness about them; customized); personal assistant when needed; leisure activities in people’s home (e.g., listening to the radio, playing instruments, being at home with friends); saving and budgeting (including for holidays); satisfaction with income; assistance with managing money and budgeting; receiving disability benefits (not losing benefits for being employed); easing bureaucracy involved in getting personal assistance and personal budgets; flexibility of support funded; provision of social assistance when needed; existence of personal budgets/personal assistance schemes and awareness of these by people with disability; stability of funding over time; strong supportive legislation.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Verdugo, M.A.; Navas, P.; Gómez, L.E.; Schalock, R.L. The concept of quality of Life and its role in enhancing human rights in the field of intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56, 1036–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lombardi, M.; Vandenbussche, H.; Claes, C.; Schalock, R.L.; De Maeyer, J.; Vandevelde, S. The concept of quality of life as framework for implementing the UNCRPD. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2019, 16, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houseworth, J.; Stancliffe, R.J.; Tichá, R. Examining the National Core Indicators’ Potential to monitor rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities according to the CRPD. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2019, 16, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html (accessed on 31 October 2019).
- Winzer, M.; Mazurek, K. The convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Notes on genealogy and prospects. J. Int. Spec. Needs Ed. 2014, 17, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlin, M. There must be some way out of here: Why the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is potentially the best weapon in the fight against sanism. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 2013, 20, 462–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Maeyer, J.; Vandenbussche, H.; Claes, C.; Reynaert, D. Human rights, the capability approach and Quality of Life: An integrated paradigm of support in the quest for social justice. Int. J. Ther. Communities 2017, 38, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navas, P.; Gómez, L.E.; Verdugo, M.A.; Schalock, R.L. Derechos de las personas con discapacidad intelectual: Implicaciones de la Convención de Naciones Unidas [Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities: Implications of the United Nations Convention]. Siglo. Cero. 2012, 43, 7–28. [Google Scholar]
- Mittler, P. The UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Implementing a paradigm shift. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2015, 12, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shogren, K.A.; Turnbull, H.R. Core concepts of disability policy, the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, and public policy research with respect to developmental disabilities. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2014, 11, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karr, V. A life of quality: Informing the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. J. Disabil. Policy Stud. 2011, 22, 66–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez, L.E.; Verdugo, M.A. Outcomes evaluation. In Cross-cultural Quality of Life: Enhancing the Lives of Persons with Intellectual Disability, 2nd ed.; Schalock, R.L., Keith, K.D., Eds.; American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 71–80. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez, L.E.; Verdugo, M.A.; Arias, B.; Irurtia, M.J. Evaluación de los derechos de las personas con discapacidad intelectual: Estudio preliminar [Assessment of the rights of people with intellectual disabilities: A preliminary study]. Behav. Psychol. 2011, 19, 207–222. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, R.I. Quality of life—Challenges to research, practice and policy. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2017, 14, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schalock, R.L.; Gómez, L.E.; Verdugo, M.A.; Claes, C. Evidence and evidence-based practices: Are we there yet? Intellect. Dev. Disab. 2017, 55, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schalock, R.L.; Verdugo, M.A.; Gómez, L.E. Evidence-based practices in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: An international consensus approach. Eval. Program Plann. 2011, 34, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schalock, R.L.; Verdugo, M.A.; Gómez, L.E. Translating the quality of life concept into practice. In Handbook of Positive Psychology in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Translating Research into Practice; Singh, N., Wehmeyer, M.L., Shogren, K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 115–126. [Google Scholar]
- Cummins, R.A. Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2005, 49, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felce, D.; Perry, J. Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Res. Dev. Disabil. 1995, 16, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schalock, R.L.; Verdugo, M.A. Quality of Life for Human Service Practitioners; American Association on Mental Retardation: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Arias, V.B.; Gómez, L.E.; Morán, L.; Alcedo, M.A.; Monsalve, A.; Fontanil, Y. Does quality of life differ for children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability compared to children without autism? J. Autism. Dev. Disord. 2018, 48, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández, M.; Gómez, L.E.; Arias, V.B.; Aguayo, V.; Amor, A.M.; Andelic, N.; Verdugo, M.A. A new scale for measuring quality of life in acquired brain injury. Qual. Life Res. 2019, 28, 801–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez, L.E.; Alcedo, M.A.; Arias, B.; Fontanil, Y.; Arias, V.B.; Monsalve, M.A.; Verdugo, M.A. A new scale for the measurement of quality of life in children with intellectual disability. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2016, 53–54, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez, L.E.; Morán, L.; Alcedo, M.A.; Arias, V.B.; Verdugo, M.A. Addressing quality of life of children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Intellect. Dev. Disab. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez, L.E.; Verdugo, M.A.; Rodríguez, M.A.; Morán, L.; Arias, V.B.; Monsalve, A. Adapting a measure of quality of life to children with down syndrome for the development of evidence-based interventions. Psychosoc. Interv. 2020, 29, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenaro, C.; Verdugo, M.A.; Caballo, C.; Balboni, G.; Lachapelle, Y.; Otrebski, W.; Schalock, R.L. Cross-cultural study of person-centered quality of life domains and indicators. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2005, 49, 734–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, M.; Schalock, R.L.; Verdugo, M.A.; Jenaro, C. Examining the factor structure and hierarchical nature of the quality of life construct. AJIDD-AM J. Intellect. 2010, 115, 218–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fisher, K.R.; Lutz, D.; Gadow, F.; Robinson, S.; Gendera, S. A Transformative framework for deinstitutionalisation. Res. Pract. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2015, 2, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faragher, R.; Van Ommen, M. Conceptualising educational quality of life to understand the school experiences of students with intellectual disability. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2017, 14, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheridan, C.; Omalley-Keighran, M.P.; Carroll, C. What are the perspectives of adolescents with Down syndrome about their quality of life? A scoping review. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2019, 48, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aznar, A.; González, D.; Olate, G. The ITINERIS scale on the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities: Development, pilot studies and application at a country level in South America. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56, 1046–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ticha, R.; Qian, X.; Stancliffe, R.J.; Larson, S.A.; Bonardi, A. Alignment between the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the national core indicators adult consumer survey. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2018, 15, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colver, A.F.; Dickinson, H.O.; Parkinson, K.; Arnaud, C.; Beckung, E.; Fauconnier, J.; Marcelli, M.; McManus, V.; Michelsen, S.I.; Parkes, J.; et al. Access of children with cerebral palsy to the physical, social and attitudinal environment they need: A cross-sectional European study. Disabil. Rehabil. 2011, 33, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, M. Flexible and responsive research: Developing rights-based emancipatory disability research methodology in collaboration with young adults with Down syndrome. Aust. Soc. Work 2010, 63, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fullana, J.; Pallisera, M.; Vilà, M.; Puyalto, C. Discussions, challenges and possibilities of inclusive research. Empiria 2016, 33, 111–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, N.; Barry, A.; Hutchins, E. Inclusive research: An Irish perspective. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2018, 46, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, E.; O’Brien, P.; Chadwick, D. Involving people with intellectual disabilities within research teams: Lessons learned from an Irish experience. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2014, 11, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, N.; Garcia, E.; Donohoe, B.; Murray, L.; Singleton, G.; Barrett, M.; Dillon, M. Our Homes: An inclusive study about what moving house is like for people with intellectual disabilities in Ireland. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2019, 47, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Puyalto, C.; Pallisera, M.; Fullana, J.; Diaz, G. Challenges of having a loving partner: The views of adults with intellectual disabilities. Int. J. Dev. Disabil. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García, E.; O’Brien, P.; McConkey, R.; Wolfe, M.; O’Doherty, S. Identifying the key concerns of Irish persons with intellectual disability. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. 2014, 27, 564–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salmon, N.; Garcia, E.; Burns, E.Q. Research Active Programme: A pilot inclusive research curriculum in higher education. Int. J. Res. Method Edu. 2017, 40, 181–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwicker, J.; Zaresani, A.; Emery, J.C.H. Describing heterogeneity of unmet needs among adults with a developmental disability: An examination of the 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2017, 65, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Echeita, G.; Simon, C.; Verdugo, M.A.; Sandoval, M.; Lopez, M.; Calvo, I.; González-Gil, F. Paradoxes and dilemmas in the inclusive education process in Spain. Rev. Educ. 2009, 349, 153–178. [Google Scholar]
- Judge, S.; Izuzquiza, D. Inclusion in the workforce for students with intellectual disabilities: A case study of a spanish postsecondary education program. J. Postsecond. Ed. Disabil. 2015, 28, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
- Symeonidou, S. Rights of people with intellectual disability in cyprus: Policies and practices related to greater social and educational inclusion. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2015, 12, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueroa, M.; Vázquez, G.; Castro, G.J. Theoretical and practical contributions, aimed at the social and labor insertion of children, adolescents and young people with disabilities from Milagro State University (UNEMI). Dilem. Contemp. Ed. Polít. Valor 2018. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/openview/80b299a4f3ca522bd4aaa2c2784b6c02/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=4400984 (accessed on 15 July 2020).
- Pallisera, M.; Fullana, J.; Puyalto, C.; Vila, M.; Valls, M.J.; Diaz, G.; Castro, M. Retos para la vida independiente de las personas con discapacidad intelectual. Un estudio basado en sus opiniones, las de sus familias y las de los profesionales [Challenges for independent living of people with intellectual disabilities. A study based on their opinions, opinions of their families and professionals]. Rev. Esp. Discap. 2018, 6, 7–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shikako-Thomas, K.; Shevell, M. Promoting the human rights of children with neurologic conditions. Semin. Pediatr. Neurol. 2018, 27, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinert, C.; Steinert, T.; Flammer, E.; Jaeger, S. Impact of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (UN-CRPD) on mental health care research-a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 2016, 16, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Donovan, M.A.; Mannan, H.; McVeigh, J.; Mc Carron, M.; McCallion, P.; Byrne, E. Core human rights concepts in Irish health and housing policy documents: In search of equity for people with ID. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2018, 15, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brolan, C.E.; Boyle, F.M.; Dean, J.H.; Taylor, M.; Ware, R.S.; Lennox, N.G. Health advocacy: A vital step in attaining human rights for adults with intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56, 1087–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strnadova, I.; Evans, D. Older women with intellectual disabilities: Overcoming barriers to autonomy. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2015, 12, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siska, J.; Beadle-Brown, J.; Kanova, S.; Sumnikova, P. Social inclusion through community living: Current situation, advances and gaps in policy, practice and research. Soc. Incl. 2018, 6, 94–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boot, F.H.; MacLachlan, M.; Dinsmore, J. Are there differences in factors influencing access and continues use of assistive products for people with intellectual disabilities living in group homes? Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2019, 15, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lussier-Desrochers, D.; Normand, C.L.; Romero, A.; Lachapelle, Y.; Godin-Tremblay, V.; Dupont, M.E.; Roux, J.; Pepin-Beauchesne, L.; Bilodeau, P. Bridging the digital divide for people with intellectual disability. Cyberpsychol: J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 2017, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feldman, M.A.; Owen, F.; Andrews, A.; Hamelin, J.; Barber, R.; Griffiths, D. Health self-advocacy training for persons with intellectual disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56, 1110–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Polanco, M.; Martín, J.L. Conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas de familias de adolescentes con discapacidad cognitiva en sexualidad y afectividad [Knowledge, attitudes and practices of families of teenagers with cognitive disabilities in sexuality and affectivity]. Diversitas 2017, 13, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, C. Constructing female sexual and reproductive agency in mental capacity law. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2019, 66, 101488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Villaró, G.; Galindo, L. Intellectual disability and gender violence: Comprehensive intervention program. Acción Psicol. 2012, 9, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
- Azzopardi-Lane, C. Intimate relationships and persons with learning disability. Tizard Learn. Disabil. Rev. 2017, 22, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McConnell, D. Parents labelled with intellectual disability: Position of the IASSID SIRG on parents and parenting with intellectual disabilities. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. 2008, 21, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, G.; Crowley, H.; Hamilton, C. Rights, sexuality and relationships in Ireland: ‘It’d be nice to be kind of trusted’. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2009, 37, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, J. Challenges to realizing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Australia for people with intellectual disability and behaviours of concern. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 2016, 23, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Castillo, S.; Martín, R. Comunicación inclusiva: Una experiencia en creación de campañas sobre discapacidad intelectual [Inclusive Communication: An Experience in Creation of Campaigns on Intellectual Disability]. Area. Abierta. 2012, 31, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Fraser, V.; Llewellyn, G. Good, Bad or absent: Discourses of parents with disabilities in Australian news media. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. 2015, 28, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenzie, J.; McConkey, R.; Adnams, C. Residential facilities for adults with intellectual disability in a developing country: A case study from South Africa. J. Intellect. Dev. Dis. 2014, 39, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conceição, D.B.; Vázquez, V.; Costa da Cunha, C.; López, O. Accesibilidad en salud: Revisión sobre niños y niñas con discapacidad en Brasil-Perú-Colombia. Rev. Lat. Cienc. Soc. Niñez 2019, 17, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fullana, J.; Pallisera, M.; Vila, M.; Valls, M.J.; Diaz-Garolera, G. Intellectual disability and independent living: Professionals’ views via a Delphi study. J. Intellect. Disabil. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fisher, K.R.; Purcal, C.; Jones, A.; Lutz, D.; Robinson, S.; Kayess, R. What place is there for shared housing with individualized disability support? Disabil. Rehabil. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, E.; Harvey, M.; Hatton, C. Participation of adults with learning disabilities in the 2015 UK General Election. Tizard Learn. Disabil. Rev. 2018, 23, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redley, M.; Maina, E.; Keeling, A.; Pattni, P. The voting rights of adults with intellectual disabilities: Reflections on the arguments, and situation in Kenya and England and Wales. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56, 1026–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hees, S.G.M.; Boeije, H.R.; de Putter, I. Voting barriers and solutions: The experiences of people with disabilities during the Dutch national election in 2017. Disabil. Soc. 2019, 34, 819–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brehmer-Rinderer, B.; Zigrovic, L.; Naue, U.; Weber, G. Promoting health of persons with intellectual disabilities using the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Early implementation assessment in Spain and Hungary. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2013, 10, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, H.; Harpur, P. Intellectual disabilities, domestic violence and legal engagement. Disabil. Soc. 2016, 31, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabor, P. Children with learning disabilities and their participation in judicial procedures-what can disability advocacy offer? Tizard Learn. Disabil. Rev. 2017, 22, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, J.; Wilson, E.; Hagiliassis, N. Supporting end of life decision making: Case studies of relational closeness in supported decision making for people with severe or profound intellectual disability. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. 2017, 30, 1022–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watchman, K.; Janicki, M.P.; Asante, C.; Berankova, A.; Bishop, K.; Cadovius, N.; Cooper, S.A.; Coppus, T.; Crowe, J.; Dodd, K.; et al. The intersection of intellectual disability and dementia: Report of The International Summit on Intellectual Disability and Dementia. Gerontol. 2019, 53, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bigby, C.; Douglas, J.; Carney, T.; Then, S.N.; Wiesel, I.; Smith, E. Delivering decision making support to people with cognitive disability-What has been learned from pilot programs in Australia from 2010 to 2015. Aus. J. Soc. Issues 2017, 52, 222–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, S.; Chabany, R. Guardianship law versus supported decision-making policies: Perceptions of persons with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities and parents. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 2016, 86, 486–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Devi, N.; Prodinger, B.; Pennycott, A.; Sooben, R.; Bickenbach, J. Investigating supported decision-making for persons with mild to moderate intellectual disability using institutional ethnography. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2019, 17, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, G.; Kelly, B.; Macdonald, G.; Rizzo, M.; Lombard, L.; Abogunrin, O.; Clift-Matthews, V.; Martin, A. Supported decision making: A review of the international literature. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2015, 38, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McSherry, B. Regulating seclusion and restraint in health care settings: The promise of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2017, 53, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramsay, H.; Mulryan, N.; McCallion, P.; McCarron, M. Geographical Barriers to Mental Health Service Care Among Individuals with an Intellectual Disability in the Republic of Ireland. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2016, 13, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, S.; Levav, I.; Stawski, M.; Polakiewicz, Y. Israeli Psychiatrists Report on Their Ability to Care for Individuals with Intellectual Disability and Psychiatric Disorders. Isr. J. Psychiatry Relat. Sci. 2013, 50, 202–209. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, E.; Howlett, S.; Kremser, T.; Simpson, J.; Kayess, R.; Trollor, J. Service development for intellectual disability mental health: A human rights approach. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56, 1098–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schalock, R.L.; Luckasson, R.; Tassé, M.J. The contemporary view of intellectual and developmental disabilities: Implications for psychologists. Psicothema 2019, 31, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Domain. | CRPD Articles Based on Verdugo et al. [1] | QOL Indicators Based on Lombardi et al. [2] |
---|---|---|
Personal development | 24 (education) |
|
Self-determination | 14 (liberty and security of person) |
|
21 (freedom of expression and opinion, access to information) |
| |
Interpersonal relationships | 23 (respect for home and the family) |
|
Social inclusion | 8 (awareness-raising) |
|
9 (accessibility) |
| |
18 (liberty of movement and nationality) |
| |
19 (living independently and being included in the community) |
| |
20 (personal mobility) |
| |
29 (participation in political and public life) |
| |
30 (participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport) |
| |
Rights | 5 (equality and non-discrimination) |
|
6 (women with disabilities) |
| |
7 (children with disabilities) |
| |
10 (right to life) |
| |
11 (situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies) |
| |
12 (equal recognition before the law) |
| |
13 (access to justice) |
| |
15 (freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) |
| |
22 (respect for privacy) |
| |
Emotional wellbeing | 16 (freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse) |
|
17 (protecting the integrity of the person) |
| |
Physical wellbeing | 25 (health) |
|
26 (habilitation and rehabilitation) |
| |
Material wellbeing | 27 (work and employment) |
|
28 (adequate standard of living and social protection) |
|
Platform | Set | Results | Search | Language |
---|---|---|---|---|
WOS | #1 | 39,949 | TOPIC: (Convention) OR TOPIC: (CRPD) OR TOPIC: (UNCRPD) Timespan = 2008–2020 Search language = English | English |
#2 | 56,988 | TOPIC: (“intellectual disability *”) OR TOPIC: (“learning disability *”) OR TOPIC: (“Intellectual developmental disorder*”) OR TOPIC: (“developmental disability *”) Timespan = 2008–2020 Search language = English | ||
#3 | 200 | #1 AND #2 Timespan = 2008–2020 Search language = English | ||
ProQuest | #1 | 3787 | (Convención OR CDPCD OR CDPD) AND la.Exact(“Spanish”) Limit to: Peer reviewed, Date: After December 31, 2007 | Spanish |
#2 | 404 | (“discapacidad intelectual” OR “trastorno* del desarrollo” OR “discapacidad* del desarrollo”) AND la.Exact(“Spanish”) Limit to: Peer reviewed, Date: After December 31, 2007 | ||
#3 | 52 | 1AND2 Limit to: Peer reviewed, Date: After December 31, 2007 | ||
Scopus | #1 | 64 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (convención) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (cdpd) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (cdpcd)) AND PUBYEAR > 2007 AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “Spanish”)) | Spanish |
#2 | 216 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“discapacidad intelectual”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“discapacidad* del desarrollo”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Trastorno* del desarrollo”)) AND PUBYEAR > 2007 AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “Spanish”)) | ||
#3 | 1 | 1AND2 | ||
N total | 253 |
Ref | Framework | Proposed/Applied Instruments | Main CRPD Article(s) * | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|
[11] | Quality of life and self-determination | Quality of Life Questionnaire (QOL-Q) AIR Self-Determination Scale Rights of Persons with Disabilities | 35 | Nepal, Zambia, United States |
[28] | Quality of life (satisfaction) | Personal Wellbeing Index - intellectual disability | 19, 35 | Australia |
[29] | Quality of life (educational) | --- | 7, 24, 35 | Australia |
[8] | Quality of life | Integral Scale Gencat Scale | 6, 12, 19, 23, 24, 29, 35 | Spain |
[1] | Quality of life | Integral Scale Gencat Scale Personal Outcomes Scale | 35 | United States, Spain |
[2] | Quality of life | --- | 35 | Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Israel, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan, United States |
[9] | Quality of life | --- | 31, 32 | United Kingdom |
[30] | Quality of life | Focus groups and interviews | 7, 21, 35 | Australia |
Ref | Instrument(s) | Target Population | Respondents | Construct(s) Assessed | N Items | Related CRPD Article(s) | Region |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[33] | European Child Environment Questionnaire (ECEQ) | Children (8–12 years old) with cerebral palsy | Report of others: relatives | Physical environment, Social support, Attitudes | 51 | 9, 18, 21 | Europe |
[31] | ITINERIS Scale | Adults with ID | Self-report | Rights | 30 | Preamble 1–30 | South America |
[32] | National Core Indicators-Adult Consumer Survey (NCI-ACS) | Adults aged 18 or over with IDD | Self-report | Quality of services | 35 | 3, 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30 | United States |
[3] | NCI-ACS | 16 | 3, 8, 14, 21, 22, 23, 27 | United States | |||
[13] | Gencat Scale | Adults aged 18 or over with ID | Report of others: professionals | Rights (within the framework of QOL) | 10 | 5, 12, 16, 17, 22, 29 | Spain |
[13] | Integral Scale (Gómez et al., 2011) | Self-report | 8 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gómez, L.E.; Monsalve, A.; Morán, M.L.; Alcedo, M.Á.; Lombardi, M.; Schalock, R.L. Measurable Indicators of CRPD for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities within the Quality of Life Framework. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145123
Gómez LE, Monsalve A, Morán ML, Alcedo MÁ, Lombardi M, Schalock RL. Measurable Indicators of CRPD for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities within the Quality of Life Framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(14):5123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145123
Chicago/Turabian StyleGómez, Laura E., Asunción Monsalve, Mª Lucía Morán, Mª Ángeles Alcedo, Marco Lombardi, and Robert L. Schalock. 2020. "Measurable Indicators of CRPD for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities within the Quality of Life Framework" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14: 5123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145123