OLSON & BARNES QUALITY

OF LIFE SCALE
 2

YO. GENERAL DATA

Instrument name: Olson & Barnes Quality of Life Scale
Authors: David Olson & Howard Barnes
Year: 1982
Goals:
Identify quality of life levels in the following domains:
family life, friends, extended family, health, home,
education, etc.
Areas/Factors/Dimensions:
 Family life
 Friends
 Extended Family
 Health
 Home
 Education
 Leisure
 Religion
 Media
 Economic wellness
 Neighborhood and Community
Addressed to: Adolescents from 13 years old

II. THEORETICAL ASPECTS

Quality of life is a topic of great importance, hence there are many disciplines
and subjects that are related to its study, social psychology, cultural
anthropology, sociology, politics, economics, among others. This diversity of
approaches makes studying this variable somewhat controversial.

Rozas (1998) points out that quality of life is not only the optimization of
services, the efficiency of machines, the benefit of materials, home insurance,
but also those aspects related to the psychological and social cultural fields. .
The development of the individual as a person, psychologically speaking, is
quality of life. That is, for example, aspects such as development of self-
esteem, identity, self-realization, the development of their potential, and the
management of new skills (Grimaldo,2003).

On the other hand (Ramírez, 2000) defines quality of life as a dynamic, complex
and individual process; That is, it is the physical, psychological, social and
spiritual perception that the person or patient has regarding a health event and
the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that will influence their well-being.

According to the aforementioned assumptions, the quality of life phenomenon is

the result of the relationships between the objective conditions of life and more
subjective and personal variables, in a relationship that results in a greater or
 3

lesser index of satisfaction and happiness. the individuals. Hence its complexity
in the definition of this concept.

Quality of life can be understood as a composite measure of physical, mental

and social well-being, as perceived by each individual and each group; and
happiness, satisfaction and reward, which means understanding and analyzing
the subjective experiences that the individuals who make it up have of their
existence in said society.

In this sense, evaluate the gratification that people derive from the degree of
satisfaction of their material, psychological and social needs. The concept of
quality of life covers all aspects of life as they are experienced by individuals;
aspects such as: health, marriage, family, work, housing, financial situation,
educational opportunities, self-esteem, creativity, competence, sense of
belonging to certain institutions and trust in others.

It can also be noted that this concept includes a set of aspects in which the self-
realization of the subject is involved. Thus, the quality of life in a society would
be the degree to which the conditions of said society allow its members to fulfill
themselves in accordance with the established ideological values, providing
them with a satisfactory subjective experience of their existence (Morales &
Blanco, 1995, cited by Grimaldo, 2003).

On the other hand, in relation to the Quality of Life indicators, there are two
general assessments that try to measure this concept. One constitutes the
objective measure, the same one obtained from the statistics of specific social
and economic indicators. The other measure constitutes a subjective measure,
which reveals us about people's perceptions of their life situations.

Regarding the subjective measure, there are also various ways to identify
quality of life indicators. Some refer to the quality of physical health, as well as
the practice of certain activities, and in other cases the quality of social
relationships is emphasized.

Olson & Barnes (1982) state that a common characteristic of quality of life
studies is the elevation of satisfaction as domains of individuals' life
experiences. Each domain focuses on a particular facet of life experience, such
as marital and family life, friends, home and living facilities, education,
employment, religion, among others.

The way in which each person manages to satisfy these domains constitutes a
subjective individual judgment of the way in which they satisfy their needs and
achieve their interests in their environment. It is the perception that this person
has of the possibilities that the environment offers to achieve said satisfaction.

Campbell, Converse & Rodgers (1976) point out that in the face of the objective
Attribute raised by the surrounding environment, a special and personal form
called Perceived Attribute is generated, which will depend subjectively on the
 4

individual, giving rise to the Evaluated Attribute; to finally reach mastery

satisfaction.

III. CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA

The authors developed two versions, one aimed at parents with 43 items and 12
areas (marital and family life, friends, extended family, health, home education,
time, religion, employment, media, economic well-being and neighborhood, and
community ); a version for adolescents with 25 items with the same areas as the
adult scale with the exception of marriage and employment.

IV. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

It's a pencil and paper test. The items are Likert type with the following options:
Dissatisfied, a little satisfied, more or less satisfied, quite satisfied and completely
satisfied.

The correction is carried out in the following way: initially the scores
corresponding to each of the answered items are added, considering that each
response has a score corresponding to: 1,2,3,4 and 5 based on the mark made.
by the examinee. Where Dissatisfied is equal to 1; a little satisfied, worth 2 and
so on. Then, we work with the direct scores obtained; Finally, these scores are
converted into centiles using the corresponding scales.

The administration of this instrument can be individual or collective. Application

time is approximately 20 minutes.

V. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE ORIGINAL VERSION

VALIDITY

The validity of this scale was determined through construct validity based on factor
analysis, which supported the initial conceptual structure of the scale, with few
exceptions. Some conceptual Scales were combined to define a single factor; The
Home scale was divided into items related to space and items related to domestic
responsibilities, grouping the adolescent's specific concerns into a single factor.
Factor analysis with rotation was applied for the total scale.

RELIABILITY
 5

Reliability was worked through the test-retest method, using the adolescent form
with 124 subjects from twelve university and high school classes. The time that
elapsed between the first and second application was four to five weeks. The
Pearson correlation for the Total Scale is .64 and the correlations for the twelve
factors range from .40 to .72.

Table 1 presents the Pearson correlations between the two applications for each
of the subscales and the total scale.

Table 1
Test – Retest Reliability

Domains r
Family life ,7212
Friends ,4937
extended family ,4388
Health ,6489
Home ,5755
Education ,5067
Leisure ,4042
Religion ,4970
Media ,5303
Economic wellness ,6767
Neighborhood and ,5023
Community
Total Scale ,6476
Source: Olson & Barnes (sf)

On the other hand, the reliability of internal consistency was determined with
Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient, reaching .86 for the Adolescent Scale.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN OUR COUNTRY

Grimaldo (2003) carried out a study to determine the validity and reliability of this
instrument, in a sample of 589 students, of both sexes, whose ages ranged
between 14 and 18 years, from the 4th and 5th year of secondary school in state
educational centers. and individuals.

VALIDITY

Construct Validity

Factor Analysis was carried out using the principal axes extraction method.
Regarding the Rotation method, the Promax rotational method was chosen.

TO. Factorial analysis

 6

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of Sample Adequacy was used, as seen in

Table 2, where it can be seen that the value obtained was 0.87; which suggests
that the correlation matrix R of the items may be optimal for factor analysis. In
the same way, Bartlett's Sphericity Test was applied.

Table 2
Statistical tests used to determine
the applicability of Factor Analysis

Statistical Tests Worth Significance

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
measure of sample 0,87
adequacy
Bartlett's Test of Chi Square=335,919
Sphericity gl = 300 p  .001

Legend:
gl Degrees of freedom
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

b. Determination of the Number of Factors

It was carried out based on several criteria, the first was applying Kaiser's rule,
based on which the factors must have an eigenvalue greater than 1.

Table 3 shows that the seven factors extracted with the criterion of eigenvalue
greater than 1 contain 56% of the variance of the items, which means that these
factors manage to explain, to some degree, the conceptual meaning of the
correlations. between the items.

Table 3
Total Variance for the Seven Factors Identified with Eigenvalues

Factor Self-values
Total % Variance % Accumulated
1 6,234 24,935 24,935
2 1,655 6,620 31,556
3 1,578 6,311 37,866
 7

4 1,343 5,373 43,240

5 1,250 5,002 48,241
6 1,095 4,380 52,621
7 1,091 4,364 56,986
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

c. First Order Factor Analysis

In Table 4, 7 extracted factors have been identified, which confirm the
theoretical structure of the instrument. Although it is observed that items 5, 9
and 15 do not load satisfactorily with any factor, this does not suggest that
these items should be discarded from the scale, since as will be seen in the
reliability analysis, they have a moderate item correlation. -test.
 8

Table 4
Significant Values of the pattern and structure matrix*
Items Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 0,708
(0,757)
20 0,910
(0,852)
21 0,726
(0,702)
12 0,627
(0,635)
10 0,441
(0,453)
15 0,172 0,146 0,058 0,252 0,029 0,112 -0,225
0,112
16 0,594
(0,603)
17 0,456
(0,534)
18 0,656
(0,663)
8 0,504
0,629)
1 0,494
(0,653)
2 0,945
(0,859)
3 0,528)
(0,547)
6 0,466
(0,593)
7 0,617
(0,662)
13 0,798
(0,721)
14 0,354
(0,411)
4 0,382 0,320
(0,312) (0,421)
 9

items factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22 0,375
(0,486)
23 0,773
(0,705)
24 0,788
(0,738)
9 0,263 -0,037 0,076 0,257 -0,109 0,249 -0,028
11 0,580
(0,234)
25 0,448
(0,549)
*Structure array values are in parentheses
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

d. Second Order Factor Analysis

The latent structure between them was examined with second-order factor
analysis. In this way, it was factored hierarchically and an eigenvalue greater
than 1 (3.24507) was obtained, as presented in Table 5, which indicates that a
unidimensional model better represents the underlying relationships between
the seven factors of the Quality of Life instrument. .

Table 5
Hierarchical Factor Analysis
Factor Self-worth
1 3,24507
2 ,87855
3 ,83062
4 ,62682
5 ,55069
6 ,46329
7 ,40497
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

The correlations between the factors and of these with the second-order factor
appear in Table 6, where it is observed that the correlations range from .19
to .52. The systematically lowest correlations come from factor 7, whose low
level of correlation is also maintained with the second-order factor. These
values suggest that the shared variance between the second-order factor and
the others is moderate but acceptable to define a unidimensional construct
latent to all the first-order factors.
 10

Table 6
Correlations between first-order and second-order factors

Factors 2 4 1 5 3 7 6 Second
order
factor
2 1,00 -,72
4 -,38 1,00 ,61
1 -,55 ,49 1,00 ,71
5 ,40 -,19 -,33 1,00 -,47
3 ,52 -,46 -,50 ,32 1,00 -,72
7 ,27 -,22 -,22 ,19 ,21 1,00 -,35
6 ,43 -,43 -,41 ,34 ,49 ,25 1,00 -,65
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

Table 7 shows the factor loadings between the items with the second-order
factor. It is observed that the loadings range from .32 to .58, which are quite
acceptable magnitudes to define a latent factor. Here it can be seen that all
items loaded with appropriate values with the second-order factor, that is, they
all measure the construct of quality of life.
 11

Table 7
Factor Analysis between the items and the Second Order Factor

Items Second Order

Factor
1 ,51
2 ,42
3 ,38
4 ,35
5 ,39
6 ,44
7 ,40
8 ,53
9 ,47
10 ,35
11 ,35
12 ,44
13 ,33
14 ,34
15 ,42
16 ,32
17 ,41
18 ,33
19 ,58
20 ,58
21 ,50
22 ,46
23 ,48
24 ,51
25 ,47
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

Divergent Validity

Pearson's r Coefficient was used to establish the correlational analysis between

the Olson & Barnes Quality of Life Scale, the General Self-Efficacy Test and the
Inventory of Positive and Negative Affects (SPANAS).

Table 8 shows a low correlation between the Self-Efficacy Test and the Quality
of Life Scale, which indicates that these constructs maintain their
independence, since they share a .311 squared relationship between them.
Similarly, with the Inventory of Positive and Negative Affects (SPANAS), where
a low correlation is observed. In this way, the Divergent Validity of the Quality of
Life Scale is tested with the other instruments applied.
Table 8
 12

Correlational Analysis (Pearson's r) between the scales

Evidence Quality of Self-efficacy SPANAS SPANAS

Managed life General Positive Negative
Total
Quality of Life Scale 1,000
General Self-Efficacy Test ,311** 1,000
SPANAS Positive ,274** ,392** 1,000
SPANAS Negative -,223** -,196** -,029 1,000
** p < 0.01 (2-tailed)
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

RELIABILITY

We worked from Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the total sample, where .86
was obtained; for the sample of private schools where a .83 was reached; for
state schools, reaching .86 and for the North American sample, .86; as seen in
table 9.

Table 9
Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the sample groups, the total and the North
American sample

Schools N Cronbach's alpha

Schools ,83
Individuals
Schools ,86
State
Total Sample 489 ,86
North American Sample 399 ,86
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

The reliability study also included the analysis of the identified factors, as
presented in table 10.
 13

Table 10
Reliability Factor by Factor

Factors No. Item Reliability

Item Alpha of
Cronbach
¡ 8 Housing conditions ,82
19 Satisfaction of basic needs
20 Luxuries
21 Money to spend
2 4 Your friends ,67
22 Shopping Ease
23 Neighborhood safety
24 Neighborhood
3 1 Your family ,71
2 Siblings
3 Number of children in the family
4 10 School situation ,56
11 Own free time
12 Use of free time
5 16 Quality of television programs ,64
17 Cinema quality
18 Quality of newspapers and magazines
6 13 Religious life in the family ,47
14 Religious life in the community
7 6 Your own health ,58
7 Family health
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

Rules for Total Score

Table 11 shows the norms corresponding to the conversion of direct scores to

standardized scores, both for the total score, for the group of men and women,
as well as for the differentiated groups based on socioeconomic level.
 14

Table 11
Norms for Total Scores of the Quality of Life Scale for a sample of university
students

Direct Standardize T scores Women's T T scores T scores

Score d T scores Men Scores Partner Partner
Total Level Level
Sample Medium Economic
Economic Low
42 21 23 23 23 23
43 21 23 23 23 23
44 21 23 23 23 23
45 23 23 23 23 25
46 23 23 23 23 25
47 23 23 23 23 25
48 23 23 23 23 25
49 23 23 23 23 25
50 24 26 23 23 25
51 24 26 23 23 25
52 26 27 25 23 28
53 26 27 25 23 28
54 26 27 25 23 28
55 27 28 27 23 30
56 29 28 30 23 32
57 30 28 30 23 32
58 30 28 30 23 32
59 30 29 31 23 33
60 32 31 32 23 35
61 32 31 32 23 35
62 32 31 32 23 35
63 33 32 33 23 36
64 33 33 34 25 36
65 34 33 34 25 37
66 34 33 35 25 37
67 35 34 36 25 39
68 35 35 36 25 39
69 36 36 36 27 39
70 37 37 37 30 40
71 37 37 37 31 41
72 38 38 38 31 42
73 39 38 39 32 42
74 39 39 39 33 43
75 39 39 39 33 43
76 40 40 40 34 43
77 41 41 41 35 45
 15

Continuation of Table 11
Direct Standardize T scores Women's T T scores T scores
Score d T scores Men Scores Partner Partner
Total Level Level
Sample Medium Economic
Economic Low
78 42 42 41 36 45
79 42 42 42 36 46
80 43 43 43 37 47
81 44 43 44 38 48
82 45 44 45 39 48
83 45 45 45 41 49
84 46 45 46 41 50
85 46 46 47 42 50
86 47 46 48 43 51
87 48 47 49 44 52
88 49 48 50 45 53
89 50 49 51 46 54
90 50 49 51 47 54
91 51 50 52 47 55
92 52 51 53 48 56
93 53 52 53 49 56
94 54 53 54 51 57
95 55 54 55 52 58
96 56 55 56 53 59
97 57 56 57 54 60
98 58 57 59 55 61
99 59 57 60 56 62
100 59 58 61 57 62
101 60 59 62 58 63
102 61 60 62 59 64
103 62 61 63 60 64
104 63 61 64 61 64
105 63 62 65 62 65
106 64 63 66 63 66
107 66 63 69 64 68
108 67 64 70 65 68
109 67 64 72 66 69
110 69 66 73 67 70
111 70 67 73 68 71
112 70 68 73 69 72
113 72 70 73 70 73
114 72 71 73 71 73
115 73 73 73 72 75
116 75 77 73 73 77
 16

Continuation of Table 11
Direct Standardize T scores Women's T T scores T scores
Score d T scores Men Scores Partner Partner
Total Level Level
Sample Medium Economic
Economic Low
117 76 87 73 73 87
118 76 87 73 73 87
119 77 87 75 75 87
120 77 87 75 75 87
121 87 87 87 87 87
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

Likewise, Table 12 shows the categorization of the T scores corresponding to

the Olson & Barnes Quality of Life Scale.

Table 12
Categorization of T Scores for the Quality of Life Scale

Scores Category
61 or more Optimal Quality of Life
51 to 60 Trend towards Good Quality of Life
40 to 50 Tendency towards Low Quality of Life
Up to 39 Poor Quality of Life
Source: Grimaldo (2003)

SAW. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

Campbell A., Converse P. & Rodgers W. (1976). The Quality of American Life:
perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions . New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

Grimaldo, M. (2003). Barnes & Olson Quality of Life Scale Technical Manual.
Lima, Peru: University of San Martín de Porres.

Olson D., & Barnes, H. (1982). Quality of life . (paper).

 17

VII. APPENDIX

INSTRUMENT PROTOCOL
Instructions:

Below we present prayers referring to different aspects of your life. Read each one of them
and mark the alternative that you consider appropriate. Remember that there are no right or
wrong answers.

RESPONSE SCALE
How satisfied are you with: 1 2 3 4 5
Dissatisfied A bit More or Quite Completely
Satisfied less Satisfied Satisfied
Satisfied
HOME AND ECONOMIC WELL-
BEING

1. Your current housing conditions

2. Your responsibilities at home

3. Your family's ability to meet

their basic needs

4. Your family's ability to give them

luxuries

5. The amount of money you have

to spend
FRIENDS, NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY

6. Your friends

7. The facilities for shopping in

your community

8. Safety in your community

9. The neighborhood where you

live
 18

RESPONSE SCALE
How satisfied are you with: 1 2 3 4 5
Dissatisfied A bit More or Quite Completely
Satisfied less Satisfied Satisfied
Satisfied
10. Recreation facilities
(park, playgrounds, etc.)
FAMILY LIFE AND EXTENDED FAMILY

11. Your family

12. Your brothers
13. The number of children in your
family

14. Your relationship with your

relatives
(grandparents, uncles, cousins...)

EDUCATION AND LEISURE

15. Your current school situation

16. The free time you have

17 The way you use your free time

MEDIA

18. The amount of time your family

members spend watching
television

19. Quality of television programs

20. Cinema quality

21. The quality of newspapers and magazines

RELIGION

22. The religious life of your family

 19

RESPONSE SCALE
How satisfied are you with: 1 2 3 4 5
Dissatisfied A bit More or Quite Completely
Satisfied less Satisfied Satisfied
Satisfied

23. The religious life of your

community
HEALTH

24. Your own health

25. The health of other family

members
20