INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD

2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233

Adaptation and Validation of the Spanish Version of the Leisure

Assessment Inventory
Marta Badia, M. Begoña Orgaz-Baz, Miguel-Angel Verdugo, M. Magdalena Martı́nez-Aguirre,
Egmar Longo-Araújo-de-Melo, and Ana M. Ullán-de-la-Fuente

Abstract
Participation—defined as engagement in life situations, including leisure and recreational
activities—is associated with the improvement of people with disabilities’ quality of life. Several
specific instruments assess leisure, but none of them has been adapted to the Spanish context. The
goal of this study is to adapt and validate the Spanish version of the Leisure Assessment Inventory
(LAI; B. A. Hawkins, P. Ardovino, N. B. Rogers, A. Foose, & N. Olsen, 2002). The adaptation of
the original version of the LAI was carried out through translation and backward translation, and
the validity of the instrument was analyzed. Descriptive analyses (means and standard deviations)
were conducted for each LAI index. Construct validity was assessed through Pearson’s product-
moment correlation among the diverse LAI indexes, and convergent-discriminant validity through
the correlation of the diverse indexes and the measures of quality of life. Results show that the LAI
indexes are valid measures of the attributes of leisure behavior (participation, preference, interest,
and barriers). This study provides a valid instrument to assess the participation profile of adults with
disabilities in leisure activities.

Key Words: Leisure Assessment Inventory; LAI; leisure; test adaptation; validity; disabilities

Participation, an essential dimension of the Inter-
national Classification of Functioning Disability
and Health (ICF; World Health Organization,
2001), can be defined as engagement in life
situations. Some examples of life situations in
which adults usually participate include relations
and interactions with friends and family; domestic
life; learning and applying knowledge; and com-
munity, social, and civic life. Currently, the
positive result of participation is considered one
of the most important goals of the provision of
services for people with intellectual disability (ID;
Verdonschot, de Witte, Reichrath, Buntinx, &
Curfs, 2009).
The model of the American Association of
Intellectual Disability and Developmental Disabil-
ities (AAIDD) in its 11th edition of Intellectual
Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of
Supports (Schalock et al., 2010) is consistent with
the ICF model of human functioning. It defines ID
in terms of human functioning, conceptualizing
disability from an ecological and multidimensional
perspective, and stressing the significant role played
by individualized supports in the improvement of
human functioning. The AAIDD manual considers
participation one of the five dimensions of human
functioning and defines it as ‘‘people’s performance
of life activities, and it is related to the person’s
functioning in society’’ (p. 10). Participation
includes the social roles that are considered normal
for a specific age group, for example, leisure
activities. Research has shown that people with
ID favor participation in leisure activities that
include the community and that such participation
improves their perception of quality of life and
acquisition of adaptive skills (Cummins & Lau,
2003; Duvdevany & Arar, 2004; King et al., 2003;
Kraemer, McIntyre, & Blacher, 2003; Orsmond,
Krauss, & Seltzer, 2004). However, studies of
participation also found that people with ID
participate less in social and recreational activities
compared to people without a disability (Braun,
Yeargin-Allsopp, & Lollar, 2006; Duvdevany, 2002;
Duvdevany & Arar, 2004; Orsmond et al., 2004;

M. Badia et al. 233

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242
Poulsen, Ziviani, & Cuskelly, 2007) and that they
often lack the necessary skills for social interaction
and self-determination (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994;
Duvdevany, 2008; Wehmeyer & Metzler, 1995).
Leisure can be understood as a distinct and
major domain of life, similar to the domains of
family, education, work, and participation in the
community (Hawkins, 1994). AAIDD defines leisure
as available free-choice time and those individually
selected activities that characteristically are not
related to work or other obligatory forms of activity
that are expected to promote feelings of pleasure,
affiliation, happiness, spontaneity, fantasy, or imag-
ination, fulfillment, creativity, self-expression, and
self-development (AAIDD, 2010).
Leisure behavior is operationalized as engage-
ment in the leisure activity or repertory, expressed
leisure preferences, interest in new leisure activi-
ties, and some measure of perceived freedom of
choice (Hawkins, Ardovino, & Hsieh, 1998). The
Leisure Assessment Inventory (LAI), developed by
Hawkins and colleagues (1998), has four indexes
based on this conceptualization of leisure. The
Leisure Activity Participation Index (LAP) reflects
the level of leisure repertory and is a measure of a
person’s engagement in the activity. The Leisure
Preference Index (L-PREF) provides a measure of
the leisure activities that please a person and that
can be useful to increase participation. The Leisure
Interest Index (L-INT) measures the person’s level
of interest in certain leisure activities in which the
person does not currently participate or is impeded
from participating in. And, lastly, the Leisure
Constraints Index (L-CON) assesses the degree of
internal and external barriers that impede partic-
ipation in leisure activities. The validity and
reliability analyses of the LAI were obtained
through a longitudinal study of adults with ID
(Hawkins et al., 1998). Construct validity of the
LAI was determined through correlations among
the indexes and the capacity of each index to
discriminate between high and low performance.
The results showed a low or null significance
coefficient. Convergent and discriminant validity
were confirmed by calculating the correlation
coefficients with variables that may be related to
leisure behavior. These variables included per-
ceived life satisfaction and measures of adaptive
behavior. Life satisfaction and adaptive behavior
were measured with the Life Satisfaction Scale–
Modified (LSS-M.; Hawkins, Kim, & Eklund,
1995) and the Inventory for Client and Agency
234
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233
Planning (ICAP; Bruininks, Hill, Weatherman, &
Woodcock, 1986), the data of which were obtained
in the third year of a longitudinal study (Hawkins
et al., 1998).
The evidence of convergent validity was
revealed through the significant correlation of the
LAI with LSS-M. A significantly negative correla-
tion was expected between LSS-M and L-INT, as
well as between LSS-M and L-CON, because these
indexes are sensitive to unsatisfied leisure needs.
No significant relationships were found between
LSS-M and L-PREF, because a preference for
increasing participation in activities does not
necessarily mean that a person is satisfied with life.
Other findings that support convergent validity
were obtained through significant positive correla-
tions of the LAI indexes with the domains of
adaptive behavior of the ICAP. The correlations
among social and communication skills, life skills in
the community, and the LAP index were signifi-
cantly negative. The authors explain these results
as the effect of acquiescence of people with ID with
low social and communicative skills, which could
affect their responses. Also, people with ID who
had high life skills in the community were more
self-determined in leisure activities, and their
leisure repertory was more representative of their
interests (Hawkins et al., 1998). Overall findings
provide evidence of the instrument’s stability,
consistency, convergent and discriminant validity,
and construct validity.
Currently, there is much literature that reveals
the importance of people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities’ participation in leisure
activities and its influence on their achieving a
better quality of life; however, there is still no
instrument adapted to and validated for the
Spanish population. The LAI was developed to
assess the leisure behavior of adults with IDD, and
it can be used as a reference tool to plan leisure
support services, which permits acquiring the skills
involved in leisure, the promotion of physical and
health activities, and the establishment and
promotion of social networks, thereby facilitating
social inclusion and promoting self-determination
(Hawkins, 1993). This study focused on the
translation, adaption and validation of the LAI
into the Spanish language according to the
International Test Commission Guidelines for
translating and adapting educational and psycho-
logical tests (Hambleton, 1994).
Spanish Version of the LAI
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242
Method
Participants
A convenience sample of adults with IDD was
obtained from diverse services that depend on the
Federation of Organizations in favor of People with
Intellectual Disability (FEAPS) and the Associa-
tions for Organizations in favor of People with
Cerebral Palsy (ASPACE) in diverse regions of
Spain. In total, 237 adults participated in this study,
most of them (86.49%) had ID (70.46%); 16.03%
had cerebral palsy with associated ID; 83.2% had
disability rates higher than 65% (according to the
system of examination, declaration, and classifica-
tion of the degree of disability of Spain’s Ministry of
Health and Social Policy); more than one half
(54.9%) had a moderate or severe level of ID; and
only 14.8% took some kind of medication.
Of the participants in our study, there was a
slightly higher percentage of men (52.7%) than of
women (47.3%); their ages ranged between 17 and
64 years (M 5 34.97, SD 5 11.36); except for one
interviewee, the rest of those who reported their
civil status were single; when asked whether they
had a partner, most of them said they did not
(85.2%). With regard to the socioeconomic level,
the majority were from a medium level (66%); they
lived in urban settings (76.7%) and in the family
home (56.1%). With regard to the educational
level, a slight majority (54%) had attended regular
school, and 70% had not exceeded primary studies.
And, last, with regard to their work situation, one
half had an occupation (50%). See Table 1.
Instruments
The following instruments were used to collect the
necessary data:
Demographic questionnaire. The psychologist
of each center reported the age, place of residence,
gender, civil status, educational level, residential
modality, and type of intellectual disability of the
young people and adults.
The Leisure Assessment Inventory (LAI;
Hawkins, Ardovino, Rogers, Foose, & Olsen,
2002) is an instrument that was developed to
measure leisure behavior in adults. The LAI has
four indexes: (a) Participation in Leisure Activities
(LAP), (b) Interest in Leisure Activities (L–INT),
(c) Preference for Different Leisure Activities (L–
PREF), and (d) Constraints to Leisure (L-CON).
The inventory is applied in the format of an
individually structured interview with a mean
M. Badia et al.
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233
duration of 45 minutes, and it has three parts. The
first part consists of questions about participation in
53 leisure activities. The second part has 20 closed
questions about constraints to leisure participation,
and the third part is made up of open questions about
work, friends, family, and aging.
Two additional instruments were used to
determine the validity of the four LAI indexes: the
Escala integral de calidad de vida (Subjective Integral
Quality of Life Scale; Verdugo, Arias, Gómez, &
Schalock, 2009b) and the GENCAT Scale (Ver-
dugo, Arias, Gómez, & Schalock, 2009a). Starting
with the premise that the participation of people
with ID in leisure activities is related to their
perception of quality of life (Duvdevany & Arar,
2004), we used the scores in these instruments to
explore the validity of the LAI.
The Subjective Integral Quality of Life Scale
(Integral Subjective Scale) measures quality of life
in people with ID both objectively and subjectively.
This instrument is based on the theoretical model
of quality of life proposed by Schalock and Verdugo
(2002), which reflects the quality of life from the
perspective of the person with disabilities and from
the perspective of the professional.
The GENCAT Scale assesses objective quality
of life in users of social services and is also based on
the multidimensional model of quality of life
proposed by Schalock and Verdugo (2002), and it
provides a profile of the person’s quality of life that
serves to develop individualized support plans.
Design and Procedure
The design followed a cross-sectional study of the
adaptation with translation and backward transla-
tion of the original version of the LAI. For the
process of translating the instrument, the authors
followed the recommendations for the adaptation of
tests proposed by the International Test Commission
(ITC; Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz,
2000; Hambleton, 1994). At all times, these
recommendations for the process of cross-cultural
adaptation of the measurement instruments were
taken into account. Cross-cultural adaptation allows
one to obtain instruments that are internationally
comparable. In this sense, we followed a rigorous and
systematic methodology to guarantee that the
qualities of the adapted instrument would be similar
to those of the original instrument.
The study was developed in five phases:
1. Three translators performed the translation.
235
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233

Table 1 Table 1
Demographics of Participants (n 5 237) Continued
Variable n (% of valid n) Variable n (% of valid n)
Gender Residential placement
Male 120 (51.9) Supported housing 2 (1.0)
Female 111 (48.1) Family 115 (56.1)
Types of disability Supervised housing 20 (9.8)
Intellectual disability 176 (70.46) Residence 64 (31.2)
Cerebral palsy 38 (16.03) Others 4 (2.0)
Others 32 (13.50) Note. Mean 6 SD (range) 5 34.68 6 11.27 (17–64).
Percentage level of disability
.65% 159 (83.2) 2. A synthesis of the translations by consensus of
45%–64% 13 (6.7) the three translators, which produced the first
33%–44% 19 (10.1) Spanish version of the original instrument. Two
of the items of the original version were
IQ level
modified because they did not match the
Severe 14 (8.0) Spanish context: Item 37: ‘‘playing shuffleboard’’
Moderate 82 (46.9) was changed to ‘‘playing petanque,’’ and Item
Mild 50 (28.5) 46: ‘‘playing softball or baseball’’ was changed to
Borderline 29 (16.6) ‘‘playing soccer.’’
Marital status 3. The selection of two focal groups of 15 adults
with ID, aged from 20 and 50 years, whose verbal
Single 217 (99.5) and communication skills allowed them to
Married 1 (0.5) understand and respond to the questions in
Education level order to analyze the cultural acceptability of the
Without schooling 8 (4.7) concrete questions, images, or phrases that had
Incomplete elementary school 69 (40.6) produced misgivings about their equivalence
with the original version, and to obtain sugges-
Elementary school 42 (24.7)
tions and ensure the suitability of the items of
Middle school 14 (8.2)
the instrument. For this purpose, we showed
High school (9th and 10th grade) 18 (10.6) them the 53 photographs with the diverse leisure
High school (11th and 12th grade) 1 (0.6) activities and asked them, ‘‘What activity is this
Post-secondary education 1 (0.6) person doing?’’ ‘‘Does this photograph correctly
Vocational education 5 (2.9) show the activity the person is doing?’’ ‘‘What
Others 12 (7.1) would you change in the photograph?’’ The
Occupation information collected by the participants of the
two groups showed that each photograph
Unemployed 103 (49.0)
correctly reflected the leisure activity.
Ordinary job 7 (3.3)
4. Concordance and synthesis carried out by a
Job with support 27 (12.9) committee of experts made up of four profes-
Center of special employment 6 (2.9) sionals from the area of disability to achieve
Occupational center 65 (31.0) semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and concep-
Others 2 (1.0) tual equivalence.
Residence location 5. Backward translation carried out by two trans-
lators, whose maternal language was English and
Rural area 50 (23.3)
who were bilingual in Spanish, who met with
Urban area 165 (76.7)
the research team of the study, and together they
compared the differences or discrepancies of
both back-translated versions to the original

236 Spanish Version of the LAI

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ’AAIDD
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233

version, obtaining as a result the definite version Table 2

of the LAI. Descriptive Statistics of the Leisure Assessment
Inventory
The objective scale of the Integral Subjective
Indexes Mean SD Range n
Scale and the GENCAT Scale were completed by
professionals who had known the participant for at Leisure Activity
least three months. The data of the LAI and the Participation 26.83 7.28 11–53 236
Integral Subjective Scale were collected in the form Leisure Preference 16.07 8.01 1–38 235
of individual interviews carried out by three field Leisure Interest 8.05 5.01 0–27 234
researchers, who received formal training from a Leisure Constraints 6.00 3.07 0–15 217
research assistant before beginning the study. To
avoid possible biases, none of the test applicators
had any knowledge of the goals of the investigation, Moreover, the participants expressed interest (L-
and each instrument was applied by different INT) in participating in an average of 8 new
people to each participant. We obtained the activities, and they perceived an average of 6
informed consent of each participant and guaran- barriers (L-CON) to their participation in them.
teed the privacy of their data. This study received a According to the criteria of the original version of
favorable report from the Bioethical Committee of the instrument, a person’s score is interpreted as
the University of Salamanca. high or low depending on whether it is one
standard deviation above or below the mean for
that index.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were carried out with the SPSS
program, version 18. Descriptive analyses (means Validity of the Spanish Version of the
and standard deviations) were conducted for each Leisure Assessment Inventory Indexes
LAI index. Construct validity was assessed through To assess construct validity, we used, on the one
Pearson’s product-moment correlation among the hand, the intercorrelations between the indexes
diverse LAI indexes, and convergent-discriminant and, on the other, the capacity of each index to
validity through the correlation of the diverse differentiate between people with high and low
indexes and the measures of quality of life. levels of participation. For each index, the upper
and lower 10% of the scores (as z scores) were
Results compared with Student’s t test for independent
samples.
Descriptive Statistics The results of the correlations among the indexes
The scores on the LAP, L-PREF, and L-INT are presented in Table 3, and as expected (Hawkins
indexes were calculated with the 53 items about et al., 1998), we found moderately significant and
leisure activities presented in the scale. The score nonsignificant relations (see Table 3).
on the LAP index was the sum of the activities in
which respondents stated that they participated.
The L-PREF index was obtained by adding the
Table 3
preferred leisure activities from the list of activities
Correlations Among the Leisure Assessment Inventory
they carried out. The total score of the L-INT index Indexes—Spanish Version
was the sum of the leisure activities in which the
respondents did not take part, but which they Indexes LAP L-PREF L-INT L-COM
would be interested in doing. Last, the L-CON LAP — .549** 2.292** 2.114
index was calculated from 20 restrictions or barriers L-PREF — 2.059 2.024
to participation in activities about which they had L-INT — 2.094
expressed interest but in which they had not taken L-CON —
part.
Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, Note. LAP 5 Leisure Activity Participation; L-
and ranges for each index. The mean number of PREF 5 Leisure Activity Preference; L-INT 5
leisure activities (LAP) carried out was 27 out of Leisure Interest; L-CON 5 Leisure Constraint.
**
the 53 proposed, and 16 were preferred (L-PREF). p # .01.

M. Badia et al. 237

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242
Specifically, as expected, we found a moderate
and significant correlation (r 5 .549, p # .01)
between the LAP index and the L-PREF index
because L-PREF is obtained directly from the
activities in which the individual participates.
However, this correlation was not high, which
indicates that the L-PREF and the LAP index
represent different dimensions of leisure behavior.
However, the L-INT index is not derived from
the LAP index, and thus, we obtained a moderate,
low, and negative relation between these two
indexes (r 5 2.292, p # .01). This confirms that
the L-INT index measures a different dimension of
leisure behavior. The remaining correlations were
nonsignificant.
Student’s t-test was calculated using the two
subgroups of the sample (10% highest and lowest
scores), and the results were significant: LAP index:
t(47) 5 231.586, p # .01; L-PREF index: t(33.564)
5 237.451, p # .01; L-INT index: t(24.400) 5
222.78, p # .01; and L-CON index: t(46.878) 5
236.009, p # .01. These results provide evidence of
the construct validity for each index to measure the
different attributes of leisure behavior.
Correlations with Other Measures
To assess the convergent and discriminant validity
of the indexes of the Spanish version of the Leisure
Assessment Inventory, we examined the correla-
tions of the LAI indexes with two scales that
measure objective (GENCAT Scale) and subjec-
tive quality of life (Integral Subjective Scale;
Verdugo et al., 2009b). Both instruments have
good psychometric properties, based on the model
Table 4
Correlations Among the Leisure Assessment Inventory Indexes and the GENCAT Scale
Standard scales GENCAT LAP
Emotional Well-being .095
Interpersonal Relations .133
Material Well-being 2.026
Personal Development .181*
Physical Well-being 2.082
Self-determination .223**
Social Inclusion .201**
Rights 2.045
Note. AP 5 Leisure Activity Participation; L-PREF 5 Leisure Activity Preference; L-INT 5 Leisure Interest;
L-CON 5 Leisure Constraint.
*p # .05. **p # .01.
238
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233
proposed by Schalock and Verdugo (2002) and
adapted and validated for the Spanish population.
We expected to obtain positive correlations
between the LAP index and the different dimen-
sions of quality of life: the higher the LAP levels,
the higher the levels of quality of life. We found
positive and significant correlations with the
dimensions of the GENCAT Scale: Personal De-
velopment, Self-determination, and Social Inclu-
sion (see Table 4).
However, we expected significant negative
relations between the dimensions of quality of life
and the L-INT and L-CON indexes because these
two indexes indicate unmet leisure needs and
problems to satisfy them, so higher scores in these
indexes should be related to the perception of lower
levels of quality of life. We obtained significant
negative relations of the L-INT index with the
dimensions of Interpersonal Relations, Material
Well-being, Personal Development, and Self-deter-
mination of the GENCAT Scale (see Table 4).
With regard to the L-CON index, we found
significant negative correlations with the dimen-
sions of Interpersonal Relations and Material Well-
being of the GENCAT Scale (see Table 4) and
with the dimensions of Physical and Emotional
Well-being, Self-determination, and Material
Well-being of the Integral Subjective Scale (see
Table 5).
Last, we expected nonsignificant relations
between the L-PREF index and the dimensions of
quality of life, because a preference for certain leisure
activities that the person is already carrying out
should not be related to a worse perception of their
L-PREF L-INT L-CON
.137 2.071 2.153
.094 2.165* 2.190*
2.048 2.175* 2.158*
.121 2.189* 2.063
2.010 2.060 2.060
2.044 2.180* 2.096
.139 2.102 2.047
2.067 2.044 2.044
Spanish Version of the LAI
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242
Table 5
Correlations Among the Leisure Assessment Inventory Indexes and the Integral Subjective Scale
Subjective Integral Scale standard scores LAP
Self-determination .112
Social Inclusion 2.016
Labor Well-being 2.078
Material Well-being 2.019
Physical and Emotional Well-being .046
Family Well-being .039
Note. LAP 5 Leisure Activity Participation; L-PREF 5 Leisure Activity Preference; L-INT 5 Leisure Interest;
L-COM 5 Leisure Constraint.
*p # .05. **p # .01.
level of quality of life. As expected, no significant
positive relation was found with the dimensions of
the Integral Subjective Scale (see Table 5).
These results support the relation between the
diverse dimensions of leisure behavior, measured with
the corresponding indexes, and the perception of
quality of life. They also confirm that the diverse
indexes assess different dimensions of leisure behavior.
Discussion
This study analyzed the validity of the adaptation of
the four indexes of the Spanish version of the LAI.
Participation in family, school, work, and commu-
nity is important to all people, and it has been
shown to be related to a positive perception of
quality of life. Although the concept participation
in leisure activities is not new, the development of
its conceptualization and its measurement still
requires a further process of elaboration to clarify
and operationalize it.
Regarding construct validity, these results show
that the LAI indexes are valid measures of the
attributes of leisure behavior (participation, prefer-
ence, interest, and constraints). The LAP index
presents an inverse correlation with the L-INT
index, a similar result to that obtained in the original
version of the instrument (Hawkins et al., 1998).
The L-PREF index converged moderately with the
LAP index, and the correlations among the other
two indexes were nonsignificant, which shows that
each index measures a different aspect of leisure.
Convergent and discriminant validity of the
LAI indexes has been confirmed by the expected
relations with measures of quality of life. Various
studies have shown the influence of leisure
activities in promoting quality of life (Duvdevany,
M. Badia et al.
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233
L-PREF L-INT L-COM
.165 2.098 2.216*
.119 2.101 2.149
.042 2.054 2.028
.168 2.148 2.273**
.194* .123 2.277**
.049 .053 2.127
2008; Duvdevany & Arar, 2004; Iwasaki, 2007;
McManus, Corcoran, & Perry, 2008). The LAP
index was related to the objective perception of the
different dimensions of quality of life (Personal
Development, Self-determination, and Social In-
clusion). In this sense, participation in leisure
activities has been shown to predict the possibility
of learning and personal fulfillment, deciding for
oneself, being the causal agent of one’s own life,
and feeling like a member of society. Along these
same lines, McGuire and McDonnell (2008) also
found a positive correlation between the amount of
time dedicated to leisure and self-determined
behavior. In contrast, they found negative correla-
tions between the L-INT index and the dimensions
of Interpersonal Relations, Material Well-being,
Personal Development, and Self-determination of
the GENCAT Scale. These results suggest that
functional skills (personal competence, adaptive
behavior, and communication), economic resourc-
es, opportunities to learn, and the capacity for
willful action do not predict the desire to increase
participation in preferred activities. In the valida-
tion study of the original version of the LAI, the
scores in this instrument were correlated with the
LSS-M, and the same results were obtained
(Hawkins et al., 1998), showing that the L-INT
index measures a person’s interest in certain leisure
activities in which the person does not participate.
Likewise, an inverse correlation was found
between the L-CON index and the objective
quality-of-life domains of Interpersonal Relations
and Material Well-being; that is, a larger number
of relations with different people, having friends,
and the resources to manage money lowered the
tendency of the existence of environmental barriers
to participation in leisure activities (Duvdevany &
239
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242
Arar, 2004). In the original study of the develop-
ment and validation of the LAI, it was also found
that the higher a person’s life satisfaction, the fewer
the environmental barriers to participation in
leisure activities (Hawkins et al., 1998).
In this study, a significant correlation was
found between the dimension Physical and Emo-
tional Well-being of the subjective scale of the
Integral Quality of Life Scale and the L-PREF
index, indicating that life satisfaction, self-concept,
and health increase participation in leisure activ-
ities that please the person. This result coincides
with the findings of other investigations (Duvde-
vany, 2002; Duvdevany & Arar, 2004; Iwasaki,
2007). Likewise, this study has found inverse
correlations between the subjective quality of life
dimensions of Physical and Emotional of Well-
being, Self-determination, and Material Well-being
and the L-CON index, suggesting that feeling good
and enjoying good health, the availability of money
and work, and deciding for oneself may lead to
decrease external and internal barriers that impede
participation in leisure activities.
One limitation of the study was that it did not
provide evidence of reliability of the four LAI
indexes. In this sense, although we focused on the
analysis of validity, reliability was analyzed to test
measurement stability by applying the instrument
at two different moments. However, the second
measurement time was not very suitable because it
corresponded to a time interval with different
characteristics from the first one. Therefore, it
would be necessary to retest the stability of the
instrument in the near future.
The findings of the study indicate that the
Spanish language version of the LAI is a valid
instrument to measure leisure participation for
adults with intellectual and developmental disabil-
ities in Spain. Until now, no validated instrument
adapted to our context was available; the fact of
being able to adapt and specifically validate the
instrument in the Spanish context turns the LAI
into a specific instrument of our cultural context.
However, this study does not provide information
about the validity of the instrument in other
Spanish-speaking cultural contexts; even so, it
can be useful for other researchers interested in
this emergent construct of study. Future research
should consider the inclusion of Hispanic people
living in the United States or in Latin American
countries.
240
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233
Ultimately, this study falls within the frame-
work in the incipient efforts to develop robust
measurement instruments, based on the social
model of human functioning, and to provide
information about participation of adults with
IDD in leisure activities, which will serve to plan
interventions and guide the processes of changing
and improving the provision of such services.
Therefore, the LAI contributes to the advance-
ment of the study of participation in leisure
activities from the viewpoint of youngsters and
adults with IDD and from a multidimensional
perspective of the construct leisure participation
(leisure activity participation, preference, interest,
and barriers).
Summing up, the results obtained in this study
have shown that the relations between measures of
quality of life and the LAI indexes support the
validity of the instrument to assess the specific
attributes of leisure behavior. This, together with its
simplicity and feasibility, make it a useful instru-
ment to assess the participation profile of the adults
with disabilities in leisure activities, which will
serve to plan for the person’s support needs and to
guide the professionals in the process of change and
improvement of the leisure services.
References
American Association on Intellectual and Devel-
opmental Disabilities. (2010). Leisure. Avail-
able at http://www.aaidd.org/content_190.cfm
Beaton, D., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., &
Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process
of cross-cultural adaptation of self report
measures. Spine, 25, 3189–3191.
Braun, K. V. N., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Lollar, D.
(2006). Factors associated with leisure activity
among young adults with developmental dis-
abilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
27, 567–583.
Bruininks, R. H., Hill, B. K., Weatherman, R. F., &
Woodcock, R. W. (1986). Inventory for client
and agency planning (ICAP). Allen, TX: DLM
Teaching Resources.
Cummins, R. A., & Lau, L. D. (2003). Commu-
nity integration or community exposure? A
review and discussion in relation to people
with an intellectual disability. Journal of
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16,
145–157.
Spanish Version of the LAI
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242
Dattilo, J., & Schleien, S. J. (1994). Understanding
leisure services for individuals with mental
retardation. Mental Retardation, 32, 53–59.
Duvdevany, I. (2002). Self-concept and adaptive
behaviour of people with intellectual disability
in integrated and segregated recreation activ-
ities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
46(5), 419–429.
Duvdevany, I. (2008). Do persons with intellectual
disability have a social life? The Israeli reality.
Salud Pública de México, 50(Suppl. 2), 222–229.
Duvdevany, I., & Arar, E. (2004). Leisure activi-
ties, friendships, and quality of life of persons
with intellectual disability: Foster homes vs.
community residential settings. International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 27(4), 289–
296.
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting
educational and psychological tests: A progress
report. European Journal of Psychological Assess-
ment, 10, 229–244.
Hawkins, B. (1993). An exploratory analysis of
leisure and life satisfaction of aging adults with
mental retardation. Therapeutic Recreation Jour-
nal, 27(2), 98–109.
Hawkins, B. A. (1994). Leisure as an adaptative
skill area. AAMR News and Notes, 7(1), 5–6.
Hawkins, B. A., Ardovino, P., & Hsieh, C. (1998).
Validity and reliability of the Leisure Assess-
ment Inventory. Mental Retardation, 36, 303–
313.
Hawkins, B. A., Ardovino, P., Rogers, N. B., Foose,
A., & Olsen, N. (2002). Leisure assessment
inventory. Ravensdale, WA: Idyll Arbor.
Hawkins, B. A., Kim, K., & Eklund, S. J. (1995).
Validity and reliability of a five dimensional
life satisfaction index. Mental Retardation, 33,
295–303.
Iwasaki, Y. (2007). Leisure and quality of life in an
international and multicultural context: What
are major pathways linking leisure to quality of
life? Social Indicators Research, 82, 233–264.
King, G., Law, M., King, S., Rosenbaum, P., Kertoy,
M. K., & Young, N. L. (2003). A conceptual
model of the factors affecting the recreation
and leisure participation of children with
disabilities. Physical and Occupational Therapy
in Pediatrics, 23, 63–90.
Kraemer, B. R., McIntyre, L. L., & Blacher, J.
(2003). Quality of life for young adults with
mental retardation during transition. Mental
Retardation, 41, 250–262.
M. Badia et al.
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233
McGuire, J., & McDonnell, J. (2008). Relation-
ships between recreation and levels of self-
determination for adolescents and young adults
with disabilities. Career Development for Excep-
tional Individuals, 31(3), 154–163.
McManus, V., Corcoran, P., & Perry, I. J. (2008).
Participation in everyday activities and quality
of life in pre-teenage children living with
cerebral palsy in South West Ireland. BMC
Pediatrics, 8, 50.
Orsmond, G. I., Krauss, M. W., & Seltzer, M. M.
(2004). Peer relationships and social and
recreational activities among adolescents and
adults with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 245–256.
Poulsen, A. A., Ziviani, J. M., & Cuskelly, M.
(2007). Perceived freedom in leisure (PFL) and
physical coordination ability and the impact
on out of school activity participation and life
satisfaction. Child Care, Health, and Develop-
ment, 33, 432–440.
Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Bradley,
V., Buntix, W. H. E., Coulter, M.-D., Craig, E.
M., … Yeager, M. H. (2010). Intellectual
disability: Definition, classification, and systems
of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC:
American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. Á. (2002).
Handbook on quality of life for human service
practitioners. Washington, DC: American As-
sociation on Mental Retardation.
Verdonschot, M. M. L., de Witte, L. P., Reichrath,
E., Buntinx, W. H. E., & Curfs, L. M. G.
(2009). Impact of environmental factors on
community participation of persons with an
intellectual disability: A systematic review.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53(1),
54–64.
Verdugo, M. Á., Arias, B., Gómez, L. E., &
Schalock, R. L. (2009a). Escala GENCAT de
calidad de vida. Barcelona, Spain: Institut
Català d’Assistència i Serveis Socials.
Verdugo, M. Á., Arias, B., Gómez, L. E., &
Schalock, R. L. (2009b). Escala integral de
calidad de vida. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Cien-
cias de la Educación Preescolar y Especial
(CEPE).
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Metzler, C. A. (1995). How
self-determined are people with mental retar-
dation? Mental Retardation, 33, 111–119.
241
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2012, Vol. 50, No. 3, 233–242
World Health Organization. (2001). International
classification of functioning, disability, and health.
Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Received 1/20/11, first decision 4/19/11, accepted
9/16/11.
Editor-in-Charge: Stephanie Dean
242
’AAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.233
Authors:
Marta Badia (e-mail: badia@usal.es), Institute of
Integration on Community (INICO), Faculty of
Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca
37005, Spain; M. Begoña Orgaz-Baz, Miguel-Angel
Verdugo, M. Magdalena Martı́nez-Aguirre, Egmar
Longo-Araújo-de-Melo, and Ana M. Ullán-de-la-
Fuente, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Spanish Version of the LAI