Over the past 40 years the open field has evolved as a commonly used tool for the measurement of animal behavior. This review takes a critical look at the use of this instrument, especially with regard to the development of a standard form for its use. The various procedures and their shortcomings are discussed, with particular reference to the seemingly inconsequential details which have been shown to modulate open-field performance per se. Dependent parameters arc considered both with regard to their reliability and their validity for the measurement of such underlying constructs as emotionality.Since its introduction some 40 years ago, the open-field test has attained the status of one of the most widely used instruments in animal psychology. Its popularity probably stems in large part from the simplicity of the apparatus, the easy and rapid measurement of clearly defined behaviors, and a generally accepted interpretation of these behaviors. In addition, certain of the measured behaviors are sensitive to a wide range of genetic, experiential, physiological, and pharmacological manipulations and are sufficiently reliable under standardized conditions to give repeatable measures on an enormous range of independent variables. Simplicity, ease of quantification, and wide applicability are therefore probably the prime determinants of its popularity.However, in spite of its status as one of the most widely used tests of animal behavior, the open-field test has survived for 40 years with only one major review (Archer, 1973), and this was limited to a-consideration of its usefulness for estimating emotionality in rodents. Apparatus, techniques, subjects, parameters, analyses, and interpretations have We would like to express our gratitude to Otto

No abstract

In this article a number of issues involving the concept of quality of life as applied to persons with intellectual disabilities are summarized, and a number of agreed-upon principles regarding its conceptualization, measurement, and application are presented. We realize that the concepts and models presented in this article will vary potentially from country to country, and even from area to area within countries. The cross-cultural understanding of the concept of quality of life is in its infancy, and we hope that the discourses resulting from the material presented in this article will facilitate both cross-cultural understanding and collaborative work. The article reflects current thought about the conceptualization, measurement, and application of this increasingly important and widely used concept in the field of intellectual disabilities and sets the stage for its continuing development.

cross-cultural measurement, personal wellbeing index, quality of life, satisfaction, subjective wellbeing,

No abstract