Background  The importance of the valid assessment of quality of life (QOL) is heightened with the increased use of the QOL construct as a basis for policies and practices in the field of intellectual disability (ID).Method  This article discusses the principles that should guide the measurement process, the major interrogatories (i.e. who, what, when, where, why, and how) of QOL measurement, issues and procedures in the cross‐cultural measurement of QOL, and the current uses of QOL data.Results  Based on the above methods, the article presents a number of important guidelines regarding QOL measurement.Conclusion  From a measurement perspective the use of the QOL construct is changing. Initially it was used as a sensitizing notion, social construct, and unifying theme. Increasingly, it is being used as conceptual framework for assessing quality outcomes, a social construct that guides quality enhancement strategies, and a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of those strategies. This new role places additional emphasis on the valid assessment of one's QOL.

As more individuals with intellectual/developmental disabilities are physically included in community life, in schools, neighborhoods, jobs, recreation, and congregations, the challenge of going beyond physical inclusion to true social inclusion becomes more apparent. This article summarizes the status of the research about community participation and social inclusion, summarizes some debates and points of contention, notes emerging research issues, and highlights needed areas of research. It is clear that most research on these topics has been conducted with individuals who are in paid formal services, and there are great needs for understanding the community participation of individuals who live on their own or with their families, as well as researching social inclusion by focusing on the attitudes and experiences of community members themselves, not just individuals with disabilities and paid providers.

Personal control exercised by 74 adults from community living settings in Minnesota was evaluated. Comparisons between living-unit sizes or types controlled statistically for pre-existing differences in adaptive and challenging behavior. Individuals living semi-independently exercised more personal control than did residents of HCBS Waiver-funded settings, who had more personal control than persons from community ICFs/MR. Within the 1- to 5-person size range, size-related differences were detected in personal control. Using hierarchical regression, we found that personal characteristics, self-determination competencies, and environmental variables all made significant, unique contributions to predicting personal control. Path analysis also revealed that this range of variables was related to personal control. These findings strongly support an ecological approach to self-determination.