The role of experience-expectation discrepancy and depressive symptomatology in quality of life

Abstract

The cognitive processes involved when an individual is asked to determine a rating of their own quality of life has received little attention. This study sought to take the initial steps in developing and validating a measure of experience-expectation discrepancy and utilize the measure to evaluate the construct's relationship with quality of life. Experience-expectation discrepancy is defined as the gap between what a person is experiencing ("how things are going right now") versus what they are expecting ("how things ought to be"). The Experience-Expectation Questionnaire (EEQ) was evaluated with two samples of undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses (validation sample, N = 950; primary study sample, N = 206). The psychometric properties, from both a classical test theory perspective and item response theory perspective, indicated that the EEQ demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. The role of experience-expectation discrepancy and depression in predicting quality of life was evaluated using hierarchical regression analysis. Participants completed the EEQ, the Beck Depression Inventory-II, and World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL-100). Correlations indicate that greater levels of experience-expectation discrepancy (r = -.63, p < .001) and greater levels of depressive symptomatology (r = -.69, p < .001) were related to lower quality of life. Hierarchical analyses suggest that experience-expectation discrepancy (β = -.40, p < .001) is an important predictor of quality of life after the variance attributable to depression (β = -.51, p < .001) is accounted for. This model explains 61% of the variance in quality of life. Results indicate that the EEQ is a viable measure and that experience-expectation discrepancy may be an important predictor of quality of life. Primary implications for quality of life research include improving the understanding of how an individual selects a rating of quality of life and providing an explanation for the "disease paradox" (when a person reports higher quality of life than would be expected based on their impairments). Clinical implications of the results suggest that clinical interventions to improve quality of life may focus on altering a client's experiences to meet expectations, altering a client's expectations to meet experience, or a combination of these two strategies.