How Do Deaf Adults Define Quality of Life?

Autor/inn/en	McAbee, Emilee R.; Drasgow, Erik; Lowrey, K. Alisa
Titel	How Do Deaf Adults Define Quality of Life?
Quelle	In: American Annals of the Deaf, 162 (2017) 4, S.333-349 (17 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0002-726X
Schlagwörter	Adults; Deafness; Quality of Life; Definitions; Well Being; Interpersonal Relationship; Social Integration; Inclusion; Individual Development; Self Determination; Civil Rights; Structured Interviews; Pilot Projects; Video Technology; Coding; Data Analysis; Self Concept; Friendship; Independent Living; Vocational Rehabilitation; Barriers; Deaf Interpreting + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Gehörlosigkeit; Taubstummheit; Lebensqualität; Begriffsbestimmung; Well-being; Wellness; Wohlbefinden; Interpersonal relation; Interpersonal relations; Interpersonelle Beziehung; Zwischenmenschliche Beziehung; Soziale Integration; Inklusion; Individuelle Entwicklung; Selbstbestimmung; Bürgerrechte; Grundrechte; Zivilrecht; Pilot project; Modellversuch; Pilotprojekt; Codierung; Programmierung; Auswertung; Selbstkonzept; Freundschaft; Selbstverantwortung; Berufliche Rehabilitation
Abstract	Six deaf adults defined quality of life (QOL) in personal interviews. Questions were based on an eight-domain QOL framework: physical well-being, emotional well-being, interpersonal relations, social inclusion, personal development, material well-being, self-determination, and rights (Schalock & Alonso, 2002). The interview process had three phases. First, a pilot study (N = 3) evaluated the questions for logic, clarity, and applicability. Next, six deaf adults participated in videotaped, structured interviews. Then four deaf adults participated in videotaped, structured follow-up interviews. Interpretive coding was used in data analysis to establish themes across participants. Five QOL themes, as explained by the participants, emerged from the interviews: (a) Being deaf was integral to who the study participants were. (b) Friends and family were important. (c) Independence was valued. (d) The local vocational rehabilitation services department hindered QOL. (e) Multiple problems existed with interpreters and interpreting in the medical field. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Gallaudet University Press. 800 Florida Avenue NE, Denison House, Washington, DC 20002-3695. Tel: 202-651-5488; Fax: 202-651-5489; Web site: http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01