Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LISAT-9, LISAT-11)

Download Clinical Summary PDF

Tool Description

  • Originally developed as a checklist rather than a measure of life satisfaction (Fugl-Maeyer et al. 1991).
  • Target important life domains: vocational, financial and leisure situations, contacts with friends, sexual life, self-care management, family life, partner relationships; physical and psychological health were added (Melin et al. 2003).

ICF Domain:

Quality of Life.

Number of Items:

LISAT-9: 9 items; LISAT-11: 11 items. The LISAT-11 has 2 extra items asking about the level of satisfaction of the individual’s physical health and psychological health.

Brief Instructions for Administration & Scoring

Administration:

  • Each item is scored on a 6-point scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied).
  • Administration of either test takes approximately 5 minutes.

Equipment: None.

Scoring:

  • Item scores can be summed and an average score is produced.
  • It seems more appropriate to use mean domain scores rather than a total score in order to keep the information on each domain available for clinical interventions.

Interpretability

MCID: not established in SCI
SEM & MDC: not established in SCI
Standard error of item location (SE) and MDC of LISAT-9 (calculated from data in Geyh et al. 2010):

Variable SE MDC
Life as a whole 0.07 0.19
Self care 0.05 0.14
Vocational situation 0.06 0.17
Financial situation 0.06 0.17
Leisure situation 0.06 0.17
Sexual life 0.06 0.17
Partner relations 0.07 0.19
Family Life 0.06 0.17
Contact w/ friends 0.07 0.19
  • No cut-points or normative data have been published for the SCI population.
  • Published data for the SCI population is available for comparison (see Interpretability section of Study Details sheet)

Languages:

Available in 8 languages

Training Required:

None.

Availability:

For both the LISAT-9 and LISAT-11, see the ‘How-to use’ page.

Clinical Considerations

  • The LISAT provides meaningful information on quality of life for clinical and research purposes in the field of SCI. To date, it has been used in several studies involving a SCI population.

Measurement Property Summary

For the LISAT-9

# of studies reporting psychometric properties: 2

Reliability:

  • Internal consistency is moderate for the LISAT-9 total score (Cronbach’s a=0.75).
  • Item-to-total correlations for the 9 questions ranged from 0.21 to 0.64.

[Post et al. 2012]

Validity:

  • Correlation of the LISAT-9 is moderate for the Short Form-36 – mental health subscale (Spearman’s r=0.52) and the Sickness Impact Profile – Social dimension (Spearman’s r=-0.45).
  • As expected, correlation of the LISAT-9 is low for the Functional Independence Measure – Motor subscale (Spearman’s r=0.29).
  • Correlation of the LISAT-9 is high for the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Spearman’s r=0.60).

[Post et al. 2012]

Responsiveness:

No values were reported for the responsiveness of the LISAT-9 for the SCI population.

Floor/ceiling effect:

No values were reported for the presence of floor/ceiling effects in the LISAT-9 for the SCI population.

For the LISAT-11

No articles examining the measurement properties of the LISAT-11 were found.

Reviewer

Dr. Ben Mortenson, Kyle Diab

Date Last Updated:

Mar 23, 2017

Download the measure

Download Worksheet:

Worksheet Document

Video

n/a

Scoring

n/a

Equipment Needed

LISAT-9, LISAT-11:

Conway K, Chaput M, Fugl-Meyer KS, Fugl-Meyer A, Kubin M. Linguistic validation of the Fugl-Meyer Life Satisfaction Checklist (LiSat 8) into 8 languages. Qual Life Res 2000;9:41.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=Linguistic+validation+of+the+Fugl-Meyer+Life+Satisfaction+Checklist+%28LiSat+8%29+into+8+languages&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Fugl-Meyer A, Bränholm I-B, Fugl-Meyer K. Happiness and Domain-Specific Life Satisfaction in Adult Northern Swedes. Clin Rehabil 1991;5:25-33.
http://cre.sagepub.com/content/5/1/25.short

Geyh S, Fellinghauer BAG, Kirchberger I, Post MWM. Cross-cultural validity of four quality of life scales in persons with spinal cord injury. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2010; 8:94-109.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20815864

Kennedy P, Lude P, Taylor N. Quality of life, social participation appraisals and coping post spinal cord injury: A review of four community samples. Spinal Cord 2006;44:95-105.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16130026

Melin R, Fugl-Meyer K, Fugl-Meyer A. Life Satisfaction in 18-64 Year Old Swedes in Relation to Education, Employment Situation, Health and Physical Activity. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:84-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12691338

Post M, De Witte L, Schrijvers A. Quality of life and the ICIDH: Towards an Integrated Conceptual Model for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:5-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10327092

Post M, De Witte L, Van Asbeck F, Schrijvers A. Predictors of Health Status and Life Satisfaction of People with Spinal Cord Injuries. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:395-402.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9552104

Post MW, van Leeuwen CM, van Koppenhagen CF, de Groot S. Validity of the Life Satisfaction questions, the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Satisfaction With Life Scale in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 93(10): 1832-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22484088

Van koppenhagen CF, Post MW, Van der woude LH, et al. Changes and determinants of life satisfaction after spinal cord injury: a cohort study in the Netherlands. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(9):1733-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18675395