bs_bs_banner

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01539.x

319
volume 57 part 4 pp 319–332 april 2013

Patterns and determinants of leisure participation of

youth and adults with developmental disabilities jir_1539 319..332

M. Badia,1 M. B. Orgaz,2 M. Á. Verdugo1 & A. M. Ullán3

1 Institute on Community Integration (INICO), University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
2 Department of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
3 Department of Social Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

Abstract underscore the differences in leisure activity partici-

pation, preference and interest depending on the
Background People with developmental disabilities
severity of the disability.
are at high risk for a limited participation in leisure
Conclusions The findings reveal interesting patterns
activities. The aim of this study was to investigate
of participation in leisure activities from the view-
the participation in, preference for and interest in
point of youngsters and adults with developmental
leisure activities of young and adults with develop-
disabilities. Leisure participation among people with
mental disabilities, and to examine the factors asso-
developmental disabilities is likely to be more
ciated with leisure activity.
affected by environmental factors than by personal
Methods A cross-sectional design was used with a
factors.
convenience sample of 237 people aged 17 to 65,
living in the community. Leisure participation was Keywords adults, developmental disabilities,
assessed with the Spanish version of Leisure Assess- leisure activities, young
ment Inventory. Percentages were calculated by
types of activity, and repeated measures anovas
were used to analyse the differences between types Introduction
of activities, and mixed anovas to analyse the
Article 30 of the United Nations (2006), the Con-
factors that explain differences in leisure activity
vention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
participation, preference and interest.
affirms the obligation of States to ‘ensure their par-
Results Leisure social activities and recreation
ticipation in cultural life, recreational activities,
activities at home were mostly solitary and passive
leisure, and sports’ (United Nations 2006). Current
in nature and were identified as those being most
research shows increasing interest in determining
commonly engaged in. Respondents expressed pref-
the special characteristics of leisure activities of
erence for more social and physical activity, and
people with developmental disabilities, and which
they were interested in trying out a large number of
factors are related to the results of participation in
physical activities. Age and type of schooling deter-
leisure activities. The theoretical models of human
mine participation in leisure activity. The results
functioning, such as the International Classification
Correspondence: Dr Marta Badia, Institute on Community Inte-
of Functioning, Disability and Health ( World
gration (INICO), University of Salamanca, Avda. de la Merced, Health Organization 2001), and the American
109-131, 37005 Salamanca, Spain (e-mail: badia@usal.es). Association on Intellectual Disabilities and

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
320
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) model (Scha-
lock et al. 2010) include participation as an essential
dimension. According to the International Classifi-
cation of Functioning, Disability and Health, par-
ticipation is defined as the act of engaging in a life
situation. Some examples of life situations in which
adults usually participate include relations with
friends and family, domestic life, learning and
applying knowledge, and community, social, and
civic life, including leisure activities. The AAIDD
manual considers participation ‘the performance by
people of life activities and it is related to the per-
son’s functioning in society’ (Schalock et al. 2010,
p. 10). Participation includes the social roles that
are considered normal for the specific age group,
for example, leisure activities.
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. The AAIDD defines leisure as available
free choice time and the individually selected activi-
ties that characteristically are not related to work or
to other obligatory forms of activity, and which are
expected to promote feelings of pleasure, friendship,
happiness, spontaneity, fantasy or imagination,
fulfilment, creativity, self-expression and self-
development (AAIDD 2010).
Research has shown that participation in leisure
activities of people with developmental disabilities
favours their inclusion in the community and it
improves their perception of quality of life and
contributes to the acquisition of adaptive skills
(Cummins & Lau 2003; Kraemer et al. 2003;
Duvdevany & Arar 2004; Orsmond et al. 2004).
However, diverse studies have shown that people
with disabilities participate less in social and leisure
activities in comparison to people who have no dis-
abilities (Duvdevany 2002; Duvdevany & Arar
2004; Orsmond et al. 2004; Van Naarden Braun
et al. 2006; Poulsen et al. 2007). Likewise, it has
been confirmed that people with developmental dis-
abilities predominantly participate in segregated
leisure activities that are organised and planned in
day care centres (Beart et al. 2001; Verdonschot
et al. 2009a), and that, moreover, they are predeter-
mined by the professionals and the family, so that
the leisure engaged in by people with a disability
does not really reflect their personal interests
(Hawkins 1993; Zijlstra & Vlaskamp 2005). Some
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
studies have also shown that adults with develop-
mental disabilities spend a lot of time performing
activities at home that are passive and solitary (i.e.
watching TV), and they have no friends or any
contact with people without disabilities from their
community (Hoge & Dattilo 1995; Buttimer &
Tierney 2005; Luftig & Muthert 2005; Sheppard-
Jones et al. 2005).
Currently, research is also aimed at the identifica-
tion of the factors that affect participation in leisure
activities, analysing environmental and personal
factors that intervene as facilitators or barriers to
participation in leisure activities in the community.
For example, it has been shown that adults with
intellectual disability (ID) who use day care centres
and residences have very limited access to norma-
lised leisure activities (Zijlstra & Vlaskamp 2005),
just as people who live in large institutions have
fewer opportunities for integrated leisure than
people who live in community residences ( Jahoda &
Cattermole 1995; Verdonschot et al. 2009a). Heller
(2002) concluded that community-based residential
services generally achieve better results for the
residents with regard to adaptive skills, self-
determination, participation in the community and
in social networks, a similar result as that obtained
in the study of Duvdevany (2008) on adults with
ID, which showed that those who lived with families
engaged more and were more independent in their
leisure activities. Lastly, it was found that negative
attitudes towards disability and the lack of social
support have a negative impact on participation in
leisure activities in the community (Buttimer &
Tierney 2005; Duvdevany 2008; Verdonschot et al.
2009b).
Most Spanish people with developmental disabili-
ties live in the community, either with family, in
foster homes or in a supported living arrangement.
Over the last 15 years, the FEAPS [Federación de
Organizaciones en Favor de Personas con Dis-
capacidad Intelectual (Spanish Confederation of
Organisations in Favor of Persons with Intellectual
Disabilities)] has adhered a service delivery model
that emphasises quality of life principles, ethics and
quality management (Schalock et al. 2008). As a
result, Good Practice Manuals were developed to
guide services changes and improve quality of life
of people with developmental disabilities (FEAPS
2001).
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
321
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
Although there is currently more interest in the
leisure time of people with disabilities, there are still
few international studies that analyse the involve-
ment of these young people and adults in leisure
activities. Therefore, this study proposes to address
the characteristics of this participation within the
sociocultural context of Spain, which could serve to
plan interventions in accordance with these people’s
needs, and to guide the processes of change and
improvement of the support services of leisure
(Schalock & Verdugo Alonso 2007).
The present study had three goals: (1) to analyse
the participation in leisure activities of youngsters
and adults with developmental disabilities (leisure
activity participation, preference and interest); (2)
to analyse the characteristics of the type of activities
they carry out (social activities, leisure activities at
home and physical activities); and (3) to identify
the factors related to their participation in leisure
activities.
Participants
A convenience sample of adults with disabilities was
obtained from various service centres that were
located in diverse regions of Spain that were part of
the FEAPS and the Spanish Confederation of Fed-
erations and Associations for the Care for People
with Cerebral Palsy and Related Disabilities
(ASPACE).
In order to achieve a heterogeneous and repre-
sentative sample of the population of youngsters
and adults with developmental disabilities, the
centres were recruited from the two most represen-
tative organisations that, in addition, are imple-
mented in all 17 regions of Spain (FEAPS and
ASPACE). The representatives of the organisations
spread the news about the investigation and a total
of 15 centres responded to the request to participate
in the study. Recruitment criteria included the
ability to hold a simple conversation and being aged
between 17 and 65 years. An additional exclusion
criterion for the developmental disabilities group
was the presence of mental health problems.
A total of 237 adults participated in the study.
Most of them were people with ID (70.4%) and
cerebral palsy (16%). Of these people, 83.2% had a
disability degree percentage that exceeded 65%
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
(according to the system of acknowledgement, dec-
laration and classification of the degree of disability
endorsed by the Ministry of Health and Social
Policies-Spain), so that they are the beneficiaries of
certain economic rights (e.g. economic benefits, tax
exemptions) and services (e.g. supported housing,
residence, occupational centre). Over half of the
participants (54.9%) had a moderate or severe
level of ID, and only 14.8% took some kind of
medication.
As shown in Table 1, our sample included a
slightly higher percentage of men (51.9%) than of
women (48.1%). Participant ages ranged between
17 and 64 years (M = 34.97, SD = 11.36). All but
one of the participants indicated that they were
single, and the majority (85.2%) of them said that
they did not have a partner. In terms of socioeco-
nomic level, the majority of the participants came
from the middle class (66%), lived in urban settings
(76.7%) and lived at home with their families
(56.1%). In terms of educational level, slightly more
than half percentage (54%) had attended in a
regular educational centre (rather than in a special
education school) but did not go beyond primary
education. In terms of their job situation, half of the
participants were working (50%).
Measures
Leisure activity participation, preference
and interest
Leisure activity participation, preference and inter-
est were measured with the Spanish version of the
Leisure Assessment Inventory (LAI) (Badia et al.
2011). This instrument was developed to measure
leisure behaviour in adults (Hawkins et al. 2002).
The LAI has three indexes: (1) participation in
leisure activities, reflects the respondent’s participa-
tion in the diverse activities; (2) preference for dif-
ferent leisure activities, reflects the most preferred
activities out of the activities they actually engage
in; and (3) interest in leisure activities, reflects the
activities that the participants do not currently
engage in but which they would like to try out.
The inventory consists of questions about partici-
pation in 53 leisure activities. Two of the items of
the original version were modified because they did
not match the Spanish context: ‘playing shuffle-
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research volume 57 part 4 april 2013
322
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure

Table 1 Sociodemographic profile and disability profile (n = 237) quently (preference). Finally, they indicate whether
or not they would like to try the activities that they
Variable n (% of valid n) do not currently practice (interest).
The analyses of construct validity, discriminant
Gender and convergent validity of the Spanish version of
Male 120 (51.9) the instrument showed that the LAI indexes are
Female 111 (48.1) valid measures of the attributes of leisure behaviour
Age (years) (Badia et al. 2011). Moreover, the LAI showed high
17–29 90 (30.8)
test–retest reproducibility: the test–retest reliability
30–44 92 (38.8)
45–65 55 (23.2) of the instrument, calculated from the intraclass
Types of disability correlation, for the participation (0.878), preference
Intellectual disability 167 (70.46) (0.980) and interest (0.934) indexes were excellent
Others (cerebral palsy and others) 70 (29.5) (Badia et al. 2011) according to a commonly used
Percentage of disability
ranking (Fleiss 1981).
ⱖ65% 159 (83.2)
<64% 32 (16.8)
IQ level Type of activities
Severe 14 (8.0)
Moderate 82 (46.9) To determine the type of activities they performed,
Mild 50 (28.5) we classified the 55 activities of the participation in
Borderline 29 (16.6) leisure activities index into three different sections,
Has a partner
based on previous studies of the topic (Buttimer &
Yes 31 (14.8)
No 179 (85.2) Tierney 2005; Abells et al. 2008): (1) leisure activi-
Education level ties at home; (2) social participation activities; and
Up to elementary school 119 (70.0) (3) physical activities.
Higher than elementary school 51 (30.0)
Type of schooling
Special school 75 (46.0) Personal and disability factors
Regular school 88 (54.0)
The following personal factors were examined:
Occupation
Unemployed 103 (49.0) gender (male vs. female), age (17–29, 30–44 and
Employed (ordinary job, supported job, 107 (51.0) 45–64), socioeconomic level (high, medium, low),
special employment centre or having a partner (yes vs. no), residence location
occupational centre) (rural vs. urban), type of residence (family vs.
Socioeconomic level
other), type of schooling (special school vs. regular
High 17 (8.0)
Medium 140 (66.0) school), educational level (up to primary education
Low 55 (25.9) vs. higher than primary education) and job situation
Residence location (working vs. not working).
Rural area 50 (23.3) The following disability-related factors were
Urban area 165 (76.7)
examined: type of disability (ID vs. others), percent-
Residential placement
Family 115 (56.1) age severity of the disability (33–44%, 45–64%,
Other (residence, supported or 90 (43.9) >65%), and whether or not a participant was receiv-
supervised housing) ing medication (yes vs. no).

board’ was changed to ‘playing petanque’ and
‘playing softball or baseball’ was changed to ‘playing
soccer’. Firstly, respondents indicate whether or not
they participate in each one of them. Then, through
an additional item, they also indicate whether they
would like to perform these activities more fre-
Procedure
We recruited participants by contacting by mail the
directors of 15 centres, who were interested in
scheduling an appointment with the research team
to administer the instrument. The inventory was
administered in the form of an individually struc-

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
323
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
tured interview that took an average of 45 min. The
interviews were carried out by three field research-
ers who received formal training from a research
assistant before beginning the study. We obtained
informed consent from each participant and guar-
anteed the privacy of their data. This study received
a favourable report from the Bioethical Committee
of the University.
Statistical analysis
Analyses were performed with spss version 18.0
using a 0.05 level of significance.
For each one of the leisure activities included in the
LAI, we calculated: the percentage of people who
participated in that activity by dividing the number
of people who actually performed the activity by
the total number of people interviewed (n = 237);
the percentage of participants who would like to
perform each one of the activities more often, by
dividing the number of participants who wished to
perform the activity more frequently by the number
of participants who actually performed it (n of par-
ticipation in leisure activities); the percentage of
participants who expressed interest in participating
in this activity, but which they had not practiced
previously, by dividing the number of participants
who expressed interest in the activity by the
number of people who did not practice the activity.
Subsequently, we calculated the mean percent-
ages of participation in the different kinds of
activities – and the activities included in each type –
in order to identify which activities had a higher
participation index, which were the most preferred
among the ones currently performed, and which
activities the respondents would like to try out,
from among those that they did not currently
perform.
Next, we calculated the level of the leisure activ-
ity participation, preference and interest for each
participant. The levels were calculated by adding
the activities that each one of the participants of the
study reported that they carried out within each
type of activity (level of activity participation); the
activities that the participant wished to perform
more frequently (level of preference), and the activi-
ties that the participants did not currently engage
in but which they would like to try out (level of
interest).
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
Next, to determine whether there were significant
differences among the types of activities (leisure
activities at home, social activities, physical activi-
ties) with regard to respondents’ participation,
preference and interest, we conducted repeated
measures anovas with Bonferroni testing for post
hoc comparisons.
Lastly, the association of personal factors and
disability-related factors with leisure activity partici-
pation, preference and interest in the diverse types
of activities was examined by analysing Type of
Activity ¥ Personal Factors or Disability Factors,
using the ‘one-within subjects, one-between sub-
jects’ anova for leisure activity participation, prefer-
ence and interest with Bonferroni testing for post
hoc comparisons.
Results
The results are organised in two sections: first, we
assess the diverse types of activities (leisure activi-
ties at home, social activities, physical activities)
with regard to participation, preference and interest,
and next, the factors (sociodemographic and
disability-related) that affect participation, prefer-
ence and interest in the different kinds of activities.
Types of leisure activities: analysis of participation,
preference and interest
In this section, we shall analyse the percentages of
leisure activity participation, preference and interest
in the diverse types of activities from a dual per-
spective. Firstly, from the perspective of the activi-
ties, we shall assess the percentage of participants
who perform the diverse activities, those who would
be interested in performing them more frequently,
and those who would like to try them. Secondly,
from the viewpoint of the participants, we shall cal-
culate the mean of the activities in which they par-
ticipate, the mean of the activities in which they
participate and would like to do more often. And
lastly, the mean of the new activities they would like
to try out.
Analysis of leisure activities participation, preference and
interest percentages
We obtained the highest mean percentage of partici-
pation in social activities (64.9%), followed by
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research volume 57 part 4 april 2013
324
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure

Table 2 Participation, preference and

LAP L-PREF L-INT interest indexes of the diverse social
activities in frequencies and percentages

Social activities n % n % n %

Hanging out 231 97.5 163 70.6 0 0

Celebrating birthdays 223 94.1 134 60.1 0 0
Going shopping 215 90.7 119 55.3 2 9.1
Eating at a restaurant 205 86.5 148 72.2 2 6.2
Travelling 200 84.4 153 76.5 1 2.7
Going out to dance 190 80.2 122 64.2 5 10.6
Visiting 187 78.9 106 56.7 5 10.0
Going to class 179 75.5 94 52.5 1 1.7
Going on an excursion 171 72.2 117 68.4 7 10.6
Attending religious activities 170 71.7 73 42.9 2 3.0
Going to museums 169 71.3 95 56.2 4 5.9
Going to the cinema 149 62.9 94 63.1 13 14.8
Going on a picnic 143 60.3 100 69.9 14 14.9
Taking pictures 141 59.5 91 64.5 36 37.5
Going to concerts 137 57.8 107 78.1 23 23.0
Attending sports matches 135 57.0 85 63.0 32 31.4
Going for a boat ride 69 29.1 49 71.0 59 35.1
Going out on a date 64 27.0 42 65.6 63 36.4
Camping 57 24.1 38 66.7 75 41.7
Volunteering 43 18.1 32 74.4 95 49.0

LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-INT, leisure
interest.

leisure activities at home (59.4%), and, lastly, with a
fairly low mean percentage (27.4%), physical activi-
ties. Among the social activities that obtained higher
percentages were: hanging out, celebrating birth-
days, going shopping, eating at a restaurant, travel-
ling, going out to dance, visiting, going to class,
going on an excursion, attending religious activities
and visiting museums; those that obtained lower
percentages were: volunteering, camping, going out
on a date, going for a boat ride, attending sports
matches, going to concerts, taking pictures, going
for a picnic and going to the cinema (see Table 2).
Among the leisure activities at home, the follow-
ing obtained rates above the mean: watching TV,
resting, listening to music, talking on the phone,
board games, reading, singing and painting; and
those that scored below the mean were: performing
do-it-yourself work, playing an instrument, collect-
ing things, sewing, gardening, cooking, caring for
pets and handcrafts (see Table 3).
Lastly, the physical activities with the highest
rates were: gymnastics, swimming, bowling, basket-
ball, bicycling, jogging, petanque, ping-pong and
soccer; and those with the lowest rates were: water
skiing, skiing, skating, golf, volleyball, fishing, horse-
back riding and tennis (see Table 4).
We assessed preference and found a slightly higher
mean percentage of people who would like to carry
out social activities (63.7%) and physical activities
(63.7%) more frequently, in comparison to those
who engaged in leisure activities at home (51.3%).
Specifically, they would like to carry out the follow-
ing social activities more frequently: going to con-
certs, travelling, volunteering, eating at a restaurant,
going for a boat ride, hanging out, going to a picnic,
going on an excursion, camping, going out on a
date, taking pictures and going out to dance (see
Table 2). Among the leisure activities at home were:
do-it-yourself work, cooking, playing an instrument,
gardening, board games, caring for pets, singing,
listening to music, handcrafts, sewing and collecting
things (see Table 3). Lastly, they would like to prac-
tice the following physical activities more frequently:
horse-back riding, petanque, bowling, fishing,
soccer, water skiing, swimming, basketball, bicycling,
skating and ping-pong (see Table 4).

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research volume 57 part 4 april 2013
325
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure

Table 3 Participation, preference and

LAP L-PREF L-INT interest indexes of the leisure activities at
home in frequencies and percentages

Activities at home n % n % n %

Watching TV 233 98.3 92 39.5 0 0

Resting/relaxing 231 97.5 108 46.8 3 50.0
Listening to music (radio/CD) 227 95.8 121 53.3 0 0
Talking on the phone 210 88.6 91 43.3 13 48.1
Board games 181 76.4 102 56.3 5 8.9
Reading 175 73.8 86 49.1 23 37.1
Singing 158 66.7 85 53.8 11 13.9
Painting 149 62.9 75 50.3 12 13.6
Handcrafts 105 44.3 55 52.4 33 25.0
Caring for pets 105 44.3 57 54.3 30 22.7
Cooking 94 39.7 62 66.2 60 42.0
Gardening 85 35.9 50 58.8 50 32.9
Sewing 84 35.4 44 52.4 46 30.1
Collecting things 71 30.0 37 52.1 30 18.1
Playing an instrument 58 24.5 38 65.5 76 42.4
Do-it-yourself work 49 20.7 34 69.4 80 42.6

LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-INT, leisure
interest.

Table 4 Participation, preference and

LAP L-PREF L-INT interest indexes of the diverse physical
activities in frequencies and percentages

Physical activities n % n % n %

Gymnastics 165 69.6 89 54.0 12 17.7

Swimming 158 66.7 105 66.5 13 16.5
Bowling 111 46.8 78 70.3 48 38.1
Basketball 84 35.4 55 65.5 30 19.6
Bicycling 80 33.8 52 65.0 27 17.2
Jogging 80 33.8 48 60.0 24 15.3
Petanque 71 30.0 50 70.4 73 44.0
Ping-pong 70 29.5 45 64.3 58 34.7
Soccer 68 28.7 46 67.6 30 17.8
Tennis 50 21.1 27 54.0 74 39.6
Horse-back riding 47 19.8 36 76.6 67 35.3
Fishing 32 13.5 22 68.8 93 45.5
Volleyball 26 11.0 16 61.5 68 32.2
Golf 25 10.5 12 48.0 97 46.0
Skating 20 8.4 13 65.0 59 27.2
Skiing 14 5.9 8 57.1 93 41.7
Water skiing 6 2.5 4 66.7 99 42.9

LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-INT, leisure
interest.

Finally, we assessed interest in the activities that who wanted to try out leisure activities at home
they did not perform, finding that the percentage of (24.7%) or social activities (20%). Specifically,
participants who would like to try out physical among the physical activities they were most inter-
activities (33%) was higher than that of participants ested in were: golf, fishing, petanque, water skiing,

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
326
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
Indexes LAP
Leisure activities at home M 9.36
SD (2.41)
Social activities M 12.99
SD (3.29)
Physical activities M 4.67
SD (3.09)
LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-INT, leisure
interest.
skiing, tennis, bowling, horse-back riding and ping-
pong (see Table 4). Among the leisure activities at
home were: resting, talking on the phone, perform-
ing do-it-yourself work, playing an instrument,
cooking, reading, gardening, sewing and handcrafts
(see Table 3). Lastly, with regard to social activities:
volunteering, camping, taking pictures, going out on
a date, going for a boat ride, attending sports
matches and going to concerts (see Table 2).
Analysis of leisure activity participation, preference and
interest levels
We analysed the leisure activity participation level
and found significant differences among the types
of activities, F2,472 = 918.55, P < 0.001, h2 = 0.80,
indicating that the respondents participated signifi-
cantly more in the social activities, followed by
leisure activities at home, lastly, by physical activi-
ties; in all cases, the level of significance was
P < 0.001. They participated in an average of 13
social activities, nine leisure activities at home and
four physical activities (see Table 5).
Likewise, the differences were also significant for
the preference level, F2,376 = 296.21, P < 0.001,
h2 = 0.61, and the differences found followed the
same pattern (P < 0.001): participants would like to
perform social activities more frequently, followed
by leisure activities at home and, lastly, by physical
activities. Of the activities in which they already
participated, they would like to perform more
habitually an average of nine social activities, five
leisure activities at home and three physical activi-
ties (see Table 5).
Lastly, when analysing the interest level, we found
statistically significant differences, F2,384 = 93.85,
P < 0.001, h2 = 0.33; in this case, participants would
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
Table 5 Means and standard deviations
L-PREF L-INT in the diverse indexes for the different
types of activities
5.43 2.26
(2.73) (1.79)
9.31 2.17
(3.73) (1.57)
3.58 4.33
(2.34) (2.91)
be interested in trying out physical activities
(P < 0.001), but there were no statistically signifi-
cant differences between leisure activities at home
and social activities (see Table 3). Specifically, they
were interested in trying out an average of four
physical activities, two leisure activities at home and
two social activities (see Table 5).
Factors associated with leisure activity
participation, preference and interest
In this second section, we present the results about
the factors that affect participation, preference and
interest in leisure activities, dividing them into two
large blocks: in the first block, we focus on personal
factors, and in the second block, we consider
factors related to disability.
Personal factors
We found no main effects of the variable gender in
any case, but we did find that the interaction
Gender ¥ Type of Activity was significant in the
three indexes considered: participation, F2,470 = 6.35,
P = 0.002 h2 = 0.03; preference, F2,374 = 3.78,
P = 0.02, h2 = 0.02; and interest, F2,382 = 3.48,
P = 0.03, h2 = 0.02. In the case of the leisure par-
ticipation and interest levels, we found that the
males participated more in physical activities than
the females, and also that the males were more
interested in trying out more physical activities,
although these differences were not statistically sig-
nificant (P > 0.05). With regard to the preference
level, we only found significant differences
(P = 0.02) between males and females when consid-
ering the leisure activities at home: the women
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research volume 57 part 4 april 2013
327
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure

Table 6 Means and standard deviations in participation, preference and interest for the diverse kinds of activities as a function of sociode-
mographic variables

LAP L-PREF L-INT

Sociodemographic factors Home Social Physical Home Social Physical Home Social Physical

Gender Males 9.10 12.83 5.02 5.01 8.88 3.67 2.10 2.31 4.62
(2.41) (3.24) (3.04) (2.30) (2.41) (2.09) (1.84) (1.61) (2.94)
Females 9.62 13.16 4.28 5.93 9.84 3.46 2.42 2.03 4.02
(2.40) (3.35) (3.11) (3.10) (4.11) (2.62) (1.74) (1.53) (2.87)
Age (years) 17–29 10.16 14.12 5.76 6.07 10.48 4.31 2.19 2.17 3.84
(2.51) (2.99) (3.52) (2.86) (3.33) (2.58) (1.71) (1.32) (2.63)
30–44 9.06 12.82 4.15 5.08 9.00 3.24 2.49 2.22 5.00
(2.34) (3.38) (2.61) (2.56) (3.85) (2.24) (1.93) (1.86) (3.22)
45–64 8.49 11.42 3.76 4.88 7.79 2.86 1.98 2.09 3.94
(1.97) (2.92) (2.56) (2.60) (3.64) (1.63) (1.64) (1.43) (2.60)
Partner Yes 9.68 13.29 4.55 5.63 10.50 3.58 2.44 2.08 5.08
(2.41) (3.10) (2.92) (3.23) (8.87) (2.48) (2.06) (1.26) (2.66)
No 9.20 12.72 4.68 5.36 8.87 3.54 2.24 2.14 4.27
(2.46) (3.33) (3.15) (2.61) (3.56) (2.38) (1.74) (1.60) (2.94)
Place of residence Rural 9.66 12.14 4.72 5.65 8.70 3.58 2.00 2.05 4.35
(2.10) (3.61) (3.55) (2.52) (3.60) (3.05) (1.97) (1.63) (3.33)
Urban 9.15 13.03 4.67 5.30 9.19 3.56 2.34 2.19 4.35
(2.51) (3.15) (2.96) (2.75) (3.60) (2.11) (1.72) (1.54) (2.81)
Type of residence Family 9.55 13.27 5.18 5.70 9.24 3.89 2.35 2.18 4.65
(2.49) (3.20) (3.30) (2.68) (3.58) (2.36) (1.80) (1.57) (3.16)
Other 8.99 12.31 4.22 5.07 9.00 3.26 2.24 2.01 3.90
(2.32) (3.19) (2.90) (2.76) (3.67) (2.47) (1.73) (1.54) (2.52)
Type of schooling Special education 9.11 12.07 4.80 5.21 7.97 3.35 2.52 2.47 4.82
(2.36) (3.25) (2.87) (2.49) (3.15) (2.21) (1.91) (1.68) (3.10)
Regular education 9.74 13.61 5.12 5.61 10.03 4.13 2.18 1.89 4.04
(2.49) (3.20) (3.49) (2.92) (3.61) (2.37) (1.74) (1.47) (2.72)

LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-INT, leisure interest.

wished to carry out more leisure activities at home
more frequently (see Table 6).
Age level had significant effects on the leisure
activity participation level, F2,234 = 16.71, P < 0.001,
h2 = 0.12, and on the preference level, F2,186 =
10.15, P < 0.001, h2 = 0.10; the younger respondents
participated in more leisure activities and expressed
preference for increasing their participation in more
leisure activities at home, social and physical activi-
ties. We found no differences in their interest in par-
ticipating in new activities as a function of age (see
Table 6).
The fact of having a partner only had effects on
the preference level, F2,336 = 2.93, P = 0.05,
h2 = 0.02; respondents who had a partner wanted to
participate in social activities more frequently than
those who had no partner (P = 0.04) (see Table 6).
With regard to the factors related to residence,
we obtained a significant main effect for type of resi-
dence, F1,203 = 5.94, P = 0.02, h2 = 0.03; the respon-
dents who lived with their family had higher mean
participation indexes than those who lived in resi-
dences or flats. However, the residence location
interacted with the type of activity, F2,426 = 4.54,
P = 0.01, h2 = 0.02, indicating that, although the
difference is not statistically significant (P > 0.05),
the respondents from rural settings participated less
in social activities (see Table 6).
With regard to educational factors, the type of
schooling, but not the educational level itself, had
significant effects. We obtained significant main
effects for the leisure activity participation level,
F1,161 = 4.75, P = 0.03, h2 = 0.03, the preference
level, F1,130 = 7.73, P = 0.006, h2 = 0.06, and the

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research volume 57 part 4 april 2013
328
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure

Table 7 Means and standard deviations in participation, preference and interest for the diverse kinds of activities as a function of disability-
related variables

Disability factors LAP L-PREF L-INT

Activities Home Social Physical Home Social Physical Home Social Physical

Type of disability Intellectual disability 9.50 12.74 4.96 5.71 9.36 3.80 2.25 2.10 4.42
(2.35) (3.29) (3.28) (2.82) (3.74) (2.51) (1.75) (1.52) (2.96)
Other 8.60 13.15 3.94 4.45 8.36 3.05 2.35 2.40 4.23
(2.53) (3.19) (2.22) (2.24) (3.15) (1.80) (1.84) (1.65) (2.74)

LAP, leisure activity participation; L-PREF, leisure activity preference; L-INT, leisure interest.

interest level, F1,133 = 5.14, P = 0.04, h2 = 0.03,
which indicates that the participants who had been
schooled in a regular school carried out more
leisure activities and wished to increase their par-
ticipation in a larger number of activities than those
who had been schooled in special school. However,
in the case of the interest level, the participants who
had been schooled in special school were more
interested in trying out new activities. We also
found a significant Type of Schooling ¥ Type of
Activity interaction in the leisure activity participa-
tion level, F2,322 = 3.69, P = 0.02, h2 = 0.02, and the
preference level, F2,260 = 5.35, P = 0.005, h2 = 0.04.
Specifically, the respondents who had attended a
normal education centre participated significantly
more in social activities (P = 0.003), and they were
also significantly more interested in increasing their
participation in such activities (P = 0.001) (see
Table 6).
Of the personal factors assessed, only socioeco-
nomic level and job situation had no significant
impact on any of the indexes considered.
Disability-related factors
Among the disability-related factors, we found that
only the type of disability had significant main effects
on the preference level, F1,174 = 6.57, P = 0.01,
h2 = 0.04. The respondents with ID expressed pref-
erence for more frequent participation in a greater
number of leisure activities at home, as well as in
social and physical activities. The effect of the Type
of Disability ¥ Type of Activity interaction on the
leisure activity participation level was also signifi-
cant, F2,436 = 5.90, P = 0.003, h2 = 0.03, indicating
that respondents with ID performed more leisure
activities at home (P = 0.02) and more physical
activities (P = 0.04) (see Table 7).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to describe the patterns
and level of participation in leisure activities of
youngsters and adults with developmental disabili-
ties. We attempted to analyse the type of activities
that they practice, prefer and are interested in prac-
ticing, as well as their levels of participation, prefer-
ence and interest. In addition, we analysed the
personal and disability factors that affect participa-
tion in these activities.
Nowadays, the participation results are consid-
ered one of the most relevant goals of the support
services for people with developmental disabilities;
however, we do not really know what opportunities
these youngsters and adults with disabilities have to
participate in the leisure activities of the commu-
nity. From this perspective, it is therefore important
to analyse all the dimensions of the construct par-
ticipation to achieve better understanding of these
people’s engagement in the diverse leisure activities,
their expressed preferences, interest in new leisure
activities and the perceived degree of freedom of
choice (Hawkins et al. 1998). It is also interesting to
determine which factors are associated with partici-
pation in leisure activities in the community, as this
could help to implement effective programmes to
promote and develop intervention strategies with
the aim of intensifying the social participation and
promoting the quality of life of youngsters and
adults with developmental disabilities (Schalock &
Verdugo Alonso 2007).

© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
329
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
The results of this study show that youngsters
and adults with disabilities participate to a greater
extent in social activities, followed by leisure activi-
ties at home, and, to a lesser degree, physical activi-
ties. It has been shown that youngsters and adults
with developmental disabilities participate in an
average of 13 social activities, among which are
noteworthy: hanging out, celebrating birthdays,
going shopping, eating at a restaurant and travelling
– all of them with participation rates over 80%. The
great number of experiences in social activities of
the participants with developmental disabilities is
likely to demonstrate the effectiveness of leisure
provider services in Spain offered by recreational
programmes guided by the principles of normalisa-
tion and social inclusion.
In this study, recreational activities at home men-
tioned the most were watching TV, resting and lis-
tening to music. These results are similar to those
obtained in previous studies that state that the most
frequently performed leisure activities at home are
passive and solitary ones (Buttimer & Tierney 2005;
Luftig & Muthert 2005). We may conclude that
passive activities made by participants at home
could show the influence of relatives and profes-
sionals on the choice of recreational activities
meaning that they have limited freedom to make
their own choices.
Studies also revealed low level of participation in
physical activities. In this sense, this investigation
endorses the results of previous studies that point
out the scarcity of participation in sports of people
with disabilities (European Commission 2001;
Temple 2007). The most frequently practiced physi-
cal activities were gymnastics and swimming, which
probably reflects the rehabilitating nature of these
sports for youngsters and adults with developmental
disabilities. Provider support services for people
with disabilities in Spain have physical rehabilitation
and therapeutic swimming programmes and partici-
pants usually tend to identify these activities as
physical activity.
According to the preference expressed by the par-
ticipants for the activities they would like to practice
more frequently, they indicated a higher number of
social participation activities (e.g. going to concerts,
travelling or volunteering). This study showed that
participants in this sample were engaged in a large
set of social activities. However, they may partici-
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
pate in diverse social activities, but have no prefer-
ence for any of them. Our results indicate that
participants prefer some activities over others; that
is, they expressed interest in increasing their partici-
pation in some social activities. Hence, their satis-
faction in leisure activities would increase if they
could carry out their preferred activities.
The results obtained in the preferences of leisure
activities at home show that the participants basi-
cally perform passive leisure activities but they
would prefer to carry out more active leisure activi-
ties (i.e. do-it-yourself work or cooking). This may
be due to the fact that preferences of participation
at home depend on another person’s decision to
participate (Buttimer & Tierney 2005). Likely, their
parents or other relatives do not see them capable
to participate alone in those preferred leisure activi-
ties. Therefore, the majority of individuals in this
sample population were dependent on their parents
or other family members to carry out a leisure
activity at home.
Also, the participants expressed their preference
for physical activities that they are actually taking
part in (horse-back riding, petanque and bowling).
Likewise, the type of physical activities the partici-
pants in this sample prefer were shown to have rec-
reational and socialisation aims, confirming that
preference and enjoyment are associated with par-
ticipation in physical activity (Salmon et al. 2003;
Temple 2007).
With regard to trying out new leisure activities,
they expressed interest in a great number of physi-
cal activities (e.g. playing golf, fishing, playing or
skiing). The high interest of the participants in par-
ticipating in certain physical activities that they
do not currently practice or from which they are
impeded indicates the presence of barriers – either
personal or environmental – as also corroborated in
previous studies (Beart et al. 2001; Rimmer et al.
2004; Buttimer & Tierney 2005; Temple 2007). In
accordance with previous findings, our results reveal
the importance of support as an environmental
facilitator of participation in physical activities
(Mahy et al. 2010).
Our results regarding to the interest of the par-
ticipants in leisure activities at home show that they
do not participate in some activities that they would
like to do. Moreover, it also indicates their desire to
engage in some activities that they are not currently
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
330
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
doing (e.g. playing an instrument or cooking). Also,
the degree of interest is sensitive to the level of
self-determination in individual leisure activities
(Hawkins et al. 2002). We may conclude that par-
ticipants in this sample have few opportunities to
control what they want to do in one’s free time at
home. This study suggests that there is a need for
ongoing support for parents and other family
members to empower individuals to live self-
determination lifestyles.
Lastly, of the social activities, they were interested
in volunteering and camping. Among the results, we
note the participants’ high interest in volunteering,
a kind of activity that has been shown to have a
positive effect on community participation and on
the perception of life satisfaction (Choma &
Ochocka 2005).
The two most relevant personal factors that affect
participation, preference and interest in leisure
activities were age and type of schooling. The young-
est respondents participated the most and expressed
preference for performing a larger number of activi-
ties more frequently. Zijlstra & Vlaskamp (2005)
have documented that the differences in the
number and variety of activities depend on age; the
results indicated fewer leisure activities and less
variety in the activities of older adults with ID. In
contrast, gender was shown to have no effect on par-
ticipation, preference or interest.
The respondents who were schooled at a regular
school participated and wished to increase their
participation in a larger number of activities, mainly
social activities. In contrast, those who were
schooled at a special school showed more interest
in participating in new activities. This result may
reflect the fact that constraints to participation start
at an early age and increase over time, as shown in
the study of Rentinck et al. (2009). Likewise, Mich-
elsen et al. (2009) have shown that children who
attend special schools participate less frequently in
going out to eat, going shopping, practicing sports
and attending sports events in comparison to chil-
dren with disabilities from normal schools. We can
thus state that inclusive schooling is an environmen-
tal factor that facilitates participation in leisure
activities (Imms et al. 2009). At present, education
of students with special educational needs in Spain
takes place within regular school. Then, the results
of this study indicate that inclusive education with
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
the development of the paradigm of support, quality
of life and self-determination leads to high levels of
participation in leisure activities.
Out of the factors related to disability, only the
type of disability had significant effects. People with
ID participated in a large number of leisure activi-
ties at home and physical activities and expressed
their desire to increase their participation in more
leisure activities. This result might indicate that they
are not allowed to participate in those leisure activi-
ties that they would like to try (Buttimer & Tierney
2005) as well as their few opportunities to have self-
determination in leisure activities (Hawkins 1993;
Wehmeyer & Metzler 1995; Renblad 2002; Zijlstra
& Vlaskamp 2005).
In summary, this investigation contributes to the
advancement of the study of participation in leisure
activities from the viewpoint of the youngsters and
adults with development disabilities and from a
multidimensional perspective of the construct par-
ticipation (leisure activity participation, preference
and interest), and, moreover, we have verified some
of the factors related to participation.
The results from this study are encouraging. The
young and adults with developmental disabilities are
participating in many enriching of leisure activities.
Service providers in Spain take a leading role in
promoting inclusive practices to ensure that indi-
viduals with developmental disability can participate
in leisure activities. However, this study also indi-
cated that young and adults with developmental
disabilities preferred and were interested in certain
leisure activities but did not participate in them.
Then, service providers should provide support for
development of choice and self-determination abili-
ties to increase the satisfaction and involvement in
leisure activities for all people with developmental
disabilities.
A limitation of this study is that we did not
analyse the internal and external barriers that
hinder participation in leisure activities. Factors
related to the physical, social and attitudinal envi-
ronment probably contribute to better explain the
constraints of youngsters and adults with develop-
mental disabilities to participate in leisure activities
in the community. Therefore, future research should
identify barriers and environmental facilitators in
order to guarantee the fundamental right of people
with developmental disabilities to participate in
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
331
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
leisure activities. Another limitation of the study has
been not being able to analyse the effect of partici-
pation in leisure activities on the quality of life, an
investigation that should be undertaken in the near
future. Lastly, the lack of a comparison group may
be argued as weakness of the study. Future research
is needed to compare leisure activity participation,
preference and interest between youth and adults
with developmental disabilities and those without.
Acknowledgements
This article was supported in part by aid (Order
EDU/894/2009; Official Gazette of Castile and
Leon no. 77 of 27 of April) granted to the Research
Group for Excellence in Disability (GR197), Regional
Government of Castile and Leon, Spain.
Conflicts of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The
authors alone are responsible for the content and
writing of the paper.
References
Abells D., Burbidge J. & Minnes P. (2008) Involvement of
adolescents with intellectual disabilities in social and
recreational activities. Journal on Developmental Disabili-
ties 14, 87–94.
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities (AAIDD) (2010) Leisure. Available at: http://
www.aaidd.org/content_190.cfm (retrieved 12 July
2010).
Badia M., Orgaz B., Verdugo M. Á., Martínez M. &
Longo E. (2011) Adaptation and validation of the Spanish
version of the Leisure Assessment Inventory. 6th Interna-
tional Congress on Psychology and Education. 3rd
National Congress on Educational Psychology, Vallado-
lid, Spain. March 2011.
Badia M., Orgaz B., Verdugo M. Á., Martínez M. &
Longo E. (2011) El Inventario de Evaluación del Ocio
en jóvenes y adultos con discapacidad intelectual [The
Leisure Assessment Inventory in young people and
adults with intellectual disability]. Siglo Cero 42, 7–22.
Beart S., Hawkins D., Kroese B. S., Smithson P. & Tolosa
I. (2001) Barriers to accessing leisure opportunities for
people with learning disabilities. British Journal of
Learning Disabilities 29, 133–8.
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
Buttimer J. & Tierney E. (2005) Patterns of leisure par-
ticipation among adolescents with a mild intellectual
disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 9, 25–42.
Choma B. L. & Ochocka J. (2005) Supported volunteer-
ing: a community approach for people with complex
needs. Journal on Developmental Disabilities 12, 1–18.
Cummins R. A. & Lau A. L. D. (2003) Community inte-
gration or community exposure? A review and discus-
sion in relation to people with an intellectual disability.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 16,
145–57.
Duvdevany I. (2002) Self concept and adaptive behaviour
of people with intellectual disability in integrated and
segregated recreation activities. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research 46, 419–29.
Duvdevany I. (2008) Do persons with intellectual disabil-
ity have a social life? The Israeli reality. Salud Pública de
México 50, 222–9.
Duvdevany I. & Arar E. (2004) Leisure activities, friend-
ships, and quality of life of persons with intellectual dis-
ability: foster homes vs community residential settings.
International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 27, 289–
96.
European Commission (2001) Disability and Social Partici-
pation in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the
European Community, Luxemburg. Available at: http://
ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/disability_en.pdf
(retrieved 11 March 2011).
FEAPS (2001) Manuales de Buena Práctica [Manuals of
Good Practices]. FEAPS, Madrid. Available at: http://
www.feaps.org/archivo/publicaciones-feaps/libros/
manuales-de-buenas-practicas.htm (retrieved 15
February 2012).
Fleiss J. L. (ed.) (1981) Statistical Methods for Rates and
Proportions. Wiley, New York.
Hawkins B. (1993) An exploratory analysis of leisure and
life satisfaction of aging adults with mental retardation.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal 27, 98–109.
Hawkins B. A., Ardovino P. & Hsieh C. (1998) Validity
and reliability of the Leisure Assessment Inventory.
Mental Retardation 36, 303–13.
Hawkins B. A., Ardovino P., Rogers N. B., Foose A. &
Olsen N. (2002) Leisure Assessment Inventory. Idyll
Arbor, Ravensdale, WA.
Heller T. (2002) Residential settings and outcomes for
individuals with intellectual disabilities. Current Opinion
in Psychiatry 15, 503–8.
Hoge G. & Dattilo J. (1995) Recreation participation pat-
terns of adults with and without mental retardation.
Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Develop-
mental Disabilities 30, 283–98.
Imms C., Reilly S., Carlin J. & Dodd K. J. (2009) Charac-
teristics influencing participation of Australian children
with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation 31,
2204–15.
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
332
M. Badia et al. • Patterns and determinants of leisure
Jahoda A. & Cattermole M. (1995) Activities of people
with moderate to severe learning difficulties: living with
purpose or just killing time? Disability & Society 10,
203–19.
Kraemer B., McIntyre L. & Blacher J. (2003) Quality of
life for young adults with mental retardation during
transition. Mental Retardation 41, 250–62.
Luftig R. L. & Muthert D. (2005) Patterns of employment
and independent living of adult graduates with learning
disabilities and mental retardation of an inclusionary
high school vocational program. Research in Developmen-
tal Disabilities 26, 317–25.
Mahy J., Shields N., Taylor N. & Dodd K. (2010) Identi-
fying facilitators and barriers to physical activity for
adults with Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Dis-
ability Research 54, 795–805.
Michelsen S. I., Flachs E. M., Uldall P., Eriksen E. L.,
McManus V., Parkes J. et al. (2009) Frequency of par-
ticipation of 8-12-year-old children with cerebral palsy: a
multi-centre cross-sectional European study. European
Journal of Paediatric Neurology 13, 165–77.
Orsmond G., Krauss M. & Seltzer M. (2004) Peer rela-
tionships and social and recreational activities among
adolescents and adults with autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders 34, 245–56.
Poulsen A. A., Ziviani J. M. & Cuskelly M. (2007) Per-
ceived freedom in leisure and physical co-ordination
ability: impact on out-of-school activity participation
and life satisfaction. Child: Care, Health and Development
33, 432–40.
Renblad K. (2002) People with intellectual disabilities:
activities, social contacts and opportunities to exert
influence (an interview study with staff). International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research 25, 279–86.
Rentinck I., Ketelaar M., Jongmans M., Lindeman E. &
Gorter J. W. (2009) Parental reactions following the
diagnosis of cerebral palsy in their young child. Journal
of Pediatric Psychology 34, 671–6.
Rimmer J. H., Riley B., Wang E., Rauworth A. &
Jurkowski J. (2004) Physical activity participation
among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 26, 419–25.
Salmon J., Owen N., Crawford D., Bauman A. & Sallis
J. F. (2003) Physical activity and sedentary behavior: a
population-based study of barriers, enjoyment, and pref-
erence. Health Psychology 22, 178–88.
Schalock R. L. & Verdugo Alonso M. Á. (2007) El con-
cepto de calidad de vida en los servicios de apoyo para
las personas con discapacidad intelectual [The concept
© 2012 The Author. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
volume 57 part 4 april 2013
of quality of life in support services for people with
intellectual disability]. Siglo Cero 38, 21–36.
Schalock R. L., Verdugo M. Á., Bonham G. S., Fantova F.
& Van Loon J. (2008) Enhancing personal outcomes:
organizational strategies, guidelines, and examples.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 5,
276–85.
Schalock R. L., Borthwick-Duffy S. A., Bradley V., Buntix
W. H. E., Coulter M.-D., Craig E. M. et al. (2010) Intel-
lectual Disability. Definition, Classification, and Systems of
Support, 11th edn. American Association on Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, Washington, DC.
Sheppard-Jones K., Prout H. T. & Kleinert H. (2005)
Quality of life dimensions for adults with developmental
disabilities: a comparative study. Mental Retardation 43,
281–91.
Temple V. A. (2007) Barriers, enjoyment, and preference
for physical activity among adults with intellectual dis-
ability. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 30,
281–7.
United Nations (2006) Convention on the rights of persons
with disability. Available at: http://www.un.org/disabilities/
documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf (retrieved 15
February 2012).
Van Naarden Braun K., Yeargin-Allsopp M. & Lollar D.
(2006) Factors associated with leisure activity among
young adults with developmental disabilities. Research in
Developmental Disabilities 27, 567–83.
Verdonschot M., de Witte L., Reichrath E., Buntinx W. &
Curfs L. (2009a) Community participation of people
with an intellectual disability: a review of empirical find-
ings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 53, 303–18.
Verdonschot M., de Witte L., Reichrath E., Buntinx W. &
Curfs L. (2009b) Impact of environmental factors on
community participation of persons with an intellectual
disability: a systematic review. Journal of Intellectual Dis-
ability Research 53, 54–64.
Wehmeyer M. L. & Metzler C. A. (1995) How self-
determined are people with mental retardation? The
National Consumer Survey. Mental Retardation 33, 111–
19.
World Health Organization (2001) International Classifica-
tion of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health
Organization, Geneva.
Zijlstra H. & Vlaskamp C. (2005) Leisure provision for
persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabili-
ties: quality time or killing time? Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research 49, 434–48.
Accepted 11 January 2012
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.