Schalock Quality of Life Model
Also known as: Schalock-Verdugo QOL Model, Eight-Domain Quality of Life Framework, Multidimensional QOL Model, QOL Domains Model
The Schalock and Verdugo Quality of Life model is a multidimensional framework for conceptualizing and measuring quality of life among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Drawing on cross-cultural and empirical work synthesized in their 2002 Handbook on Quality of Life for Human Service Practitioners, Schalock and Verdugo define quality of life as a composite of eight core domains: emotional well-being, interpersonal relations, material well-being, personal development, physical well-being, self-determination, social inclusion, and rights. These domains are organized under three higher-order factors — independence, social participation, and well-being — that give the model a coherent structure. Crucially, each domain is measured using both objective indicators, such as observable life conditions, and subjective indicators, such as the person's own satisfaction, recognizing that quality of life has both an external and an experienced face. The framework is designed not only to describe a person's quality of life but to drive person-centered planning and to evaluate whether services actually improve the outcomes that matter to people.
Key highlights
- Decomposes quality of life into eight empirically supported domains, avoiding both single-proxy reduction and unmeasurable vagueness.
- Pairs objective and subjective indicators in every domain, capturing both life conditions and the person's own experience.
- Organizes the domains under three coherent higher-order factors, giving the framework both structure and the ability to summarize.
- Ties measurement directly to person-centered planning and outcome evaluation, making it a practical tool rather than only a description.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use the Schalock and Verdugo model when you want to measure, plan for, or evaluate quality of life among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in a structured, multidimensional way. It is well suited to person-centered planning, to evaluating whether services improve the outcomes people value, and to research comparing quality of life across individuals, programs, or time. The model is appropriate when you can gather both objective indicators of life conditions and subjective reports of satisfaction, and when you accept that quality of life is best represented as a profile across domains rather than a single index. It is less suited to settings that need a single global score, to populations or constructs the domains were not designed for, or to situations where only objective administrative data are available, since omitting the subjective side undermines the model's central logic.
Strengths & limitations
- Decomposes quality of life into eight empirically supported domains, avoiding both single-proxy reduction and unmeasurable vagueness.
- Pairs objective and subjective indicators in every domain, capturing both life conditions and the person's own experience.
- Organizes the domains under three coherent higher-order factors, giving the framework both structure and the ability to summarize.
- Ties measurement directly to person-centered planning and outcome evaluation, making it a practical tool rather than only a description.
- Gathering both objective and subjective indicators across eight domains is data-intensive and demanding to administer well.
- Subjective satisfaction can be inflated by adaptation, so high subjective scores may coexist with poor objective conditions and require careful interpretation.
- Weighting and aggregating indicators within domains involves judgment that can affect scores and comparability.
- The domains were developed largely in the intellectual disability field, so applying them to other populations or cultures requires validation rather than assumption.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
Why does the model use eight domains instead of a single quality-of-life score?
Because quality of life is genuinely multidimensional, and a single score hides exactly the information that makes the construct useful. Schalock and Verdugo's research found eight domains that recur across cultures, and a person's life can be strong in some and weak in others. A global number would average these away, whereas a domain profile shows where a life is going well and where support should be focused. The model can summarize the domains under three higher-order factors when a coarser view is needed, but it deliberately preserves the domain-level detail.
What is the point of measuring both objective and subjective indicators?
The two capture different things and can disagree. Objective indicators describe a person's life conditions — their home, relationships, work, choices — while subjective indicators capture how satisfied the person is with those conditions. A person can have good objective circumstances yet feel dissatisfied, or modest circumstances yet feel content, a divergence sometimes called the disability paradox. Measuring only one side distorts the picture: objective data alone ignore the person's experience, and subjective data alone can mask deprivation through adaptation. The model insists on both in every domain.
Is the Schalock model an assessment instrument I can administer directly?
It is a conceptual and measurement framework rather than a single questionnaire, though it has guided the design of specific instruments. The model specifies the eight domains, the three higher-order factors, and the principle of paired objective and subjective indicators, but the exact items and scoring depend on the instrument built on it for a given population and purpose. In practice, practitioners use validated tools derived from the framework and interpret results as a domain profile that feeds person-centered planning and outcome evaluation.
Sources
- 1.Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002). Handbook on Quality of Life for Human Service Practitioners. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.ISBN 9780940898776
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). Schalock Quality of Life Model. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/disability-studies/schalock-quality-of-life