b ain
sciences
A icle
Quali y o Li e: Changes in Sel -Pe cep ion in People wi h
down Synd ome as a Resul o Being Pa o a Foo ball/Socce
Team. Sel -Repo s and Ex e nal Repo s
Rocío Camacho 1, C is ina Cas ejón-Ribe 2, F ancisco Requena 1,* , Julio Camacho 1, Begoña M. Esc ibano 1,
A u o Gallego 3, Robe o Espejo 3, Ama an a De Miguel-Rubio 4and Es ella I. Agüe a 1
Ci a ion: Camacho, R.;
Cas ejón-Ribe , C.; Requena, F.;
Camacho, J.; Esc ibano, B.M.; Gallego,
A.; Espejo, R.; De Miguel-Rubio, A.;
Agüe a, E.I. Quali y o Li e: Changes
in Sel -Pe cep ion in People wi h
down Synd ome as a Resul o Being
Pa o a Foo ball/Socce Team.
Sel -Repo s and Ex e nal Repo s.
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226. h ps://
doi.o g/10.3390/b ainsci11020226
Academic Edi o : Anke Sambe h
Recei ed: 16 Decembe 2020
Accep ed: 8 Feb ua y 2021
Published: 12 Feb ua y 2021
Publishe ’s No e: MDPI s ays neu al
wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in
published maps and ins i u ional a il-
ia ions.
Copy igh : © 2021 by he au ho s.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1
Depa men o Cellula Biology, Physiology and Immunology, Uni e si y o Co doba, 14071 Co doba, Spain;
[email p o ec ed] (R.C.); [email p o ec ed] (J.C.); [email p o ec ed] (B.M.E.); [email p o ec ed] (E.I.A.)
2
Depa men A is ic and Co po al Educa ion, Uni e si y o Co doba, 14004 Co doba, Spain; [email p o ec ed]
3Depa men o S a is ics, Uni e si y o Co doba, 14071 Co doba, Spain; [email p o ec ed] (A.G.);
[email p o ec ed] (R.E.)
4Depa men o Nu sing, Pha macology and Physio he apy, Uni e si y o Co doba, 14004 Co doba, Spain;
[email p o ec ed]
*Co espondence: 02 [email p o ec ed]; Tel.: +34-(66)-9588756
Abs ac :
The hypo hesis posed was whe he being pa o a oo ball/socce eam in luenced he
quali y o li e (QL) o he people who pa icipa ed in i since hei pe cep ion o hemsel es is
enhanced by ac o s, such as sel -de e mina ion, social inclusion, emo ional well-being, physical well-
being, ma e ial well-being, igh s, pe sonal de elopmen , and in e nal ela ionships. The objec i e
was o e alua e he QL o people wi h Down Synd ome (DS) using hei sel -pe cep ion (n= 39) and
he pe cep ion o he in o man s ( amily membe s, eache s) (n= 39). The KidsLi e-Down Scale, wi h a
ew modi ica ions, was used. In gene al, di e ences o opinion be ween he subg oups o pa icipan s
wi h DS and in o man s showed ha esul s we e highe in e ms o pe cep ion o pa icipan s in he
DS subg oup. Sco es o all a iables we e highe o hose pa icipan s wi h DS who said hey did
engage in p ac icing compe i i e oo ball/socce . Al hough he pe cep ion o in o man s p o ides
a g ea deal o in o ma ion ega ding he QL o pa icipan s wi h DS, pa icipan s wi h DS should
also be in ol ed in he e alua ion p ocess and hei sel -pe cep ions aken in o accoun . I is no
pa icipa ing in a oo ball eam ha causes he conclusions o he s udy, bu aining (which includes
he iendly ma ches ha a e played), he cause co ela ed wi h he imp o emen s de ec ed in he
a hle e’s DS.
Keywo ds: Down Synd ome; pe cep ion; quali y o li e; spo ; age; gende ; scale
1. In oduc ion
The Co doba Down Cen e (CDC) is an NGO conce ned wi h inc easing he quali y o
li e (QL) o people wi h Down Synd ome (DS) by p omo ing a heal hy, au onomous, and
independen li es yle.
QL occupies an impo an place in socie y because i is conside ed a way o measu -
ing pe sonal well-being. The need o assess quali y o li e has become a ma e o g ea
impo ance and p ac ical u ili y o he de elopmen o good p ac ices ha , in acco dance
wi h he p o isions o Spain’s Law 39/2006 da ed 14 Decembe 2006 on he P omo ion o
Pe sonal Au onomy and A en ion o Dependen Pe sons, has been included as an essen ial
c i e ion in he acc edi a ion p ocess o gua an ee he quali y o cen e s, se ices, and he
Sys em o Au onomy and A en ion o Dependen Pe sons (Resolu ion da ed 2 Decembe
2008 in Spain’s O icial S a e Bulle in (BOE) published 17 Decembe 2008). In he a o emen-
ioned esolu ion, hese cen e s, se ices, and en i ies a e equi ed o p esen , among o he
hings, documen a ion ela ed o he use , including objec i es, in e disciplina y wo k
plan, in e en ions, and e alua ion o esul s in e ms o imp o emen in hei quali y o
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/b ainsci11020226 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/b ainsci
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 2 o 16
li e. Cu en ly, in Spain, acco ding o he abo emen ioned law, ins umen s ha allow he
assessmen o QL wi h su icien gua an ee o alidi y and eliabili y a e indispensable.
QL has been de ined as a se ies o objec i e biological, psychological, and social
indica o s ha exp ess a subjec i e e alua ion o he deg ee o which li e sa is ac ion
has been achie ed o he pe cei ed le el o pe sonal well-being [
1
–
4
]. Schalock and
Ve dugo [
5
] p oposed a model o QL de ined as “ he desi ed s a e o pe sonal well-being
om a mul idimensional iewpoin , gi en ha i includes bo h objec i e and subjec i e
componen s and is also in luenced by en i onmen al ac o s and pe sonal cha ac e is ics”.
This model dis inguishes eigh essen ial aspec s o quali y o li e and hei co esponding
indica o s which a e impo an o all people: social inclusion (pa icipa ion, inclusion,
and suppo ), sel -de e mina ion (goals, p e e ences, choice, and au onomy), emo ional
well-eing (sa is ac ion, absence o s ess, mo i a ion), physical well-being (nu i ion, heal h,
spo ), ma e ial well-being (economic independence, echnology, ma e ial suppo ) igh s
(digni y, espec ), pe sonal de elopmen (adap i e beha iou , communica ion s a egies,
social skills), and in e pe sonal ela ions ( iendship ne wo ks, au onomy). Acco ding
o Claes e al. [
6
], he a eas o emo ional, physical, and ma e ial well-being, e lec he
gene al well-being o he pe son; in e pe sonal ela ionships, social inclusion, and igh s
e e o social pa icipa ion; pe sonal de elopmen and sel -de e mina ion exp ess pe sonal
independence. Ins umen s o e alua e quali y o li e wi h a su icien gua an ee o alidi y
and eliabili y a e indispensable o dependen pe sons [
7
]. Gi en ha in e en ions aimed
a imp o ing quali y o li e mus be based on e idence, in Spain, he KidsLi e Scale [
8
] was
de eloped and alida ed o he e alua ion o child en and young adul s wi h DS, using
he model p oposed by Schalok and Ve dugo in 2003 [5].
The KidsLi e Scale is in ended o iden i y he pe son’s QL p o ile and p o ide e idence
o alidi y and eliabili y o he implemen a ion o e idence-based p ac ices and he design
o indi idual suppo plans. I p o ides s anda dized sco es and pe cen iles o he eigh
co e aspec s o QL (emo ional well-being, physical well-being, ma e ial well-being, pe sonal
de elopmen , in e pe sonal ela ionships, social inclusion, sel -de e mina ion, and igh s).
I also allows he in o ma ion ob ained o be illus a ed in a QL p o ile. This scale is aimed
a childhood, adolescence, and you h.
The CDC includes a g oup o ede a ed a hle es who belong o he Co doba Foo ball
Club o LaLiga Genuine San ande , Spain. Cu en ly, in Spain, pa allel o he P o essional
Foo ball League, LaLiga Genuine San ande consis s o a compe i i e na ional oo ball league
made up o people wi h in ellec ual disabili ies. This league plays eigh -a-side oo ball in a
single mixed ca ego y.
The objec i e o he p esen s udy was o e alua e he QL o people wi h DS a CDC
using hei sel -pe cep ions and he pe cep ions o in o man s. To his end, we ocused on:
(1) Analysing he co ela ion o age in pa icipan s wi h DS and he in o man s wi h espec
o aspec s o QL; (2) Analysing di e ences in e ms o gende in pa icipan s wi h DS and
in o man s wi h espec o aspec s o QL; (3) Ve i ying i he e a e di e ences in aspec s
o QL be ween hose who p ac ice compe i i e spo and hose who do no , acco ding o
he sel -pe cep ions o pa icipan s wi h DS and he opinions o he in o man s, and inally
(4) E alua ing di e ences o opinion wi h ega d o he aspec s o QL be ween g oups
(people wi h DS and in o man s).
Wi h his s udy, we wan ed o emphasize ha , in spi e o he ac ha he pe cep ion
o in o man s p o ides a g ea deal o in o ma ion ega ding he QL o pa icipan s wi h
DS, pa icipan s wi h DS should also be in ol ed in he e alua ion p ocess and hei
sel -pe cep ions aken in o accoun .
Scale hypo heses o people wi h Down synd ome was:
Gende , age and being pa o a oo ball/socce eam imp o e he quali y o li e o
people wi h DS. The pe cep ion o you QL should coincide wi h he pe cep ion he eo on
he pa o in o man s.
Scale hypo hesis o in o man s was:
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 3 o 16
Gende , age and being pa o a oo ball/socce eam con ibu e o imp o e he quali y
o li e o people wi h DS. The pe cep ion o QL should coincide wi h he pe cep ion on he
pa o people wi h DS.
2. Ma e ials and Me hods
2.1. Pa icipan s
A o al o 78 people pa icipa ed in he s udy, 39 wi h DS who we e use s o CDC, wi h
an age be ween 21–40 yea s (29
±
3) (men n= 24; women n= 15; a hle es n= 9, non-a hle es
n= 30) and 39 in o man s. He e, “a hle es” e e s o he ede a ed oo balle s belonging
o a oo ball/socce eam ( he Co doba Foo ball Club o LaLiga Genuine San ande , Spain);
“non-a hle es” we e non- ede a ed and did no pa icipa e in ha eam.
The in o man s ( amily membe s, eache s) needed o know he pa icipan well o
a leas six mon hs and ha e he oppo uni y o obse e hem in di e en en i onmen s
o p olonged pe iods. The ela ionship o he in o man s wi h he pe son e alua ed was
34 pa en s and 5 eache s (87.17% pa en s and 12.82% eache s). The in o man s o a hle es
we e 8 pa en s and 1 eache (88.89% pa en s and 11.11% eache s); in o man s o he
g oup o non-a hle es we e 26 pa en s and 4 eache s.
The sociodemog aphic da a used in o ming he wo k g oups we e collec ed by each
in o man be o e p oceeding wi h e alua ion: age, gende , place o bi h, pe cen age o
ecognized disabili y, in ellec ual disabili y in e ms o adap i e beha io (concep ual,
social and p ac ical skills), ecognized le el o dependence (mode a e, se e e, high depen-
dence), o he assessed condi ions (physical, audi o y o isual disabili y, obesi y, e c.). All
pa icipan s wi h DS we e Spanish, Caucasian, wi h a medium-high socioeconomic le el.
The pe cen age o ecognized disabili y anged om 73–75%.
Bo h a hle es and non-a hle es wi h DS pa icipa ed in wo egula sessions o Physical
Educa ion a CDC in which basic mo emen pa e ns we e p ac iced o esol e mo o
di icul ies in daily li e using a ious ci cui s and pos s (jumping, h owing, coo dina ion,
and balance) as well as imp o ing basic physical quali ies: s eng h, speed, s amina, and
ange o mo emen . Finally, a ious spo s we e p ac iced (baske ball, oo ball, e c.), which
included he use o balls in games modi ied and adap ed o he pa icipan s’ di e en le els
o abili y.
Ou side CDC, a hle es also ook pa in wo 90 min aining sessions a week unde he
supe ision o a coach. Each session consis ed o a wa m-up pe iod, he main session, and
a cool-down pe iod:
(a) Wa m-ups we e di ided in o gene al wa m-ups, in which he pa icipan s ac i a ed
he neu omuscula sys em wi h g oup games, ollowed by speci ic wa m-ups o which
he goalkeepe s we e sepa a ed om he ield playe s and speci ic mo o ac i i ies we e
p ac iced.
(b) Du ing he main session, balls we e used, and he speci ic echnical and ac ical
mo es o oo ball we e p ac iced (con ol, passing, shoo ing, e c.) S a egic oles we e
dis ibu ed o each side (o ense playe wi h ball, o ense playe wi hou ball, de ensi e
playe , goalkeepe ). La e , eal play si ua ions we e p ac iced in sho games, changing he
ules o mee he objec i e es ablished o each session.
(c) Du ing cool-down, he pa icipan s did s e ches.
This ype o aining is mo e demanding o mo o skills han he ou ine sessions
a CDC.
All pa icipan s wi h DS li ed wi h hei amilies.
2.2. Me hod
P e ious o he s udy, he objec i e was p esen ed o he di ec o s o CDC o ob ain
hei e hical app o al and he consen o hose in ol ed o hei amily membe s. The
au ho s o his s udy decla e ha , based on he Helsinki Decla a ion, hey ha e aken in o
accoun he basic p inciple o espec o he indi idual, his/he igh o sel -de e mina ion,
and o make decisions once clea ly in o med o he p os and cons, isks and bene i s o
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 4 o 16
pa icipa ing in his esea ch s udy [
9
]. The s udy was ca ied ou espec ing he e hical
s anda ds o he CDC commi ee. Once w i en consen was ob ained, a mee ing was held
wi h he pa icipan s wi h DS and in o man s o discuss ules o applica ion and p ope
use, as well as o wa n in o man s no o in luence he esponses o pa icipan s wi h DS,
hough hey could cla i y poin s as needed. Pa icipan s wi h DS we e old hey could
eques cla i ica ion o any hing hey did no unde s and.
The i s au ho o his s udy hen sen he QL scale o CDC, who dis ibu ed i o pa -
en s, eache s, and coo dina o s (a p in ed e sion and ia email). The scales we e ga he ed
by a CDC liaison. Once illed ou , he esea che s compiled he answe s in a da abase and
ca ied ou he pe inen s a is ical analyses. Du ing he p ocess o adminis e ing he scale,
no pe sonal da a we e compiled ha migh iden i y he pe son unde e alua ion. Ins ead,
iden i ica ion codes we e used (such as pseudonyms) ha we e unknown o he esea che s
o p o ec con iden iali y, in acco dance wi h Spain’s O ganic Law 3/2018 on he p o ec ion
o pe sonal da a and gua an ee o digi al igh s. These iden i ica ion codes allowed he
esul s o he e alua ions o be e u ned o CDC o be used in la e in e en ions wi h he
pa icipan s [10].
Once e hical app o al and accep ance o pa icipa ion in he s udy we e ob ained,
he esea che s did no selec he pa icipan s; a he , hey olun a ily ag eed o pa icipa e.
They we e no gi en any incen i es.
2.3. Ins umen
A modi ied e sion o The KidsLi e-Down scale [
8
] was used o e alua e QL. Pa ic-
ipan s wi h DS esponded wi h one o wo op ions (dicho omy) and in o man s wi h a
Like scale. All 78 pa icipan s (DS and in o man s) answe ed he scale.
The scale consis ed o i ems di ided in o eigh aspec s o QL (sel -de e mina ion,
igh s, emo ional well-being, ma e ial well-being, physical well-being, social inclusion,
in e pe sonal ela ionships, and pe sonal de elopmen ) [
11
]. This scale p o ides s anda d-
ized sco es and pe cen iles o he eigh aspec s, as well as a QL p o ile epo .
The e we e wo e sions o he scale used: (a) a sel - epo illed ou by pa icipan s
wi h DS, wi h wo op ions (yes/no) and (b) an ex e nal epo illed ou by in o man s
using a Like scale wi h ou equency op ions (ne e , some imes, o en, always) [
12
]. The
ques ions asked o in o man s we e he same as hose answe ed by pa icipan s wi h DS,
bu in he hi d pe son.
Di ec sco es o each aspec o QL we e he sum o he sco es o he i ems in each
sec ion. The di ec sco es we e hen con e ed o s anda d sco es (M = 10; SD = 3) ollowing
he 15- o-21-yea age ange p o ided by he scale. The o al s anda d sco e was ob ained
by adding up he s anda d sco es o he eigh aspec s, which was hen con e ed o he
s anda d composi e sco e o Quali y o Li e Index (QLI) (M = 100; SD = 15) [
8
], aking in o
accoun he a o emen ioned ange.
High sco es o he a ious aspec s o QL and QLI indica e a high le el o unc ioning
o he pe son in a gi en a ea, g ea e QL, and pe sonal well-being. All sco es can be shown
in a g aph o he QL p o ile [5].
A he ime o w i ing he su ey ques ions, we a emp ed o a oid any cogni i e bias
in he wo g oups o esponden s so as o ob ain hones in o ma ion. Fo people wi h DS,
he ques ions we e w i en using pe sonal, di ec language (Table 1). To acili a e hei
esponses, he dicho omous (Y/N) ype o esponse was chosen. Ques ions ha we e
conside ed mo e complex we e s a ed in a simple way o using colloquial language. I
was ound ha he o mula ion o he ques ions did no in luence he answe s, no did i
induce inaccu acies in ela ion o he in o ma ion collec ed [
13
]. In addi ion, he sample
bias was aken in o accoun o ul ima ely ob ain eliable in o ma ion o good quali y
(The equi emen s o he esponden s o ul ill he objec i es o he wo k we e clea ly
de ined [
13
]. The e we e wo di e en esponses (dicho omy and Like scale), and hese
we e sco ed so as o ob ain (M = 10) o all o hem.
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 5 o 16
Table 1. Examples o ques ions o he in o man s and people wi h Down Synd ome (DS) iew.
In o man s People wi h DS
Take he ecommended amoun o ood and
luids o main ain good heal h.
Do you ea e e y hing you pa en s o he
Associa ion gi e o you?
Has he/she adequa e hygiene (e.g., ee h, hai ,
nails, body) and pe sonal image (e.g., clo hing
and accesso ies app op ia e o hei age and
o he occasion).
Do you wash you ee h, hai , nails, and body?
Do you wea he clo hes you like?
Pe o ms ac i i ies and physical exe cises
app op ia e o hei cha ac e is ics and needs.
Do you p ac ice physical ac i i y in any spo
ou side o he Associa ion: oo ball/socce ,
swimming, baske ball . . . ?
Does he/she ha e a p e en i e heal h plan
(e.g., egula es s, specialis e iews)
Do you go o he doc o e en i you a e no sick
o a check-up (e.g., blood es )?
2.4. Me hod o Scale Valida ion
The scale used was alida ed by Gómez e al. [
8
]. To alida e he modi ica ions
in oduced, he alida ion p ocess was ca ied ou by a eam o p o essional expe s
belonging o he CDC’s boa d o di ec o s. This commi ee did no pa icipa e as in o man s.
The ea lies e sion o he ques ionnai e was sen o CDC, who e iewed he possible e o s
in o mula ing he ques ions. They p o ided eedback ha se ed o e o mula e he
ques ions in an app op ia e way o a oid con usion among he people su eyed.
Feedback ocused mainly on he ollowing issues: wo ding o ques ions, ocabula y
ela ed o he con ex o CDC, elimina ion o ambiguous ques ions in a o o mo e speci ic
ones, emo al o e minology ha could be in e p e ed as being pa onizing o o ensi e,
and bene i s o some ques ions ega ding he logic o he ques ionnai e.
The e ision o he ques ionnai e was ca ied ou wi h an in-dep h analysis o all
con ibu ions so ha i included hose ha could be conside ed adequa e o allow o he
d a ing o a de ini i e model. The imp o ed e sion was again o wa ded o CDC. The
ques ionnai e was conside ed non-o ensi e, comp ehensible, and sui able o pa icipan s.
To alida e he eliabili y o he ques ionnai e, e i y and con i m he ma e unde
in es iga ion, C onbach’s alpha consis ency coe icien was used [14–16].
2.5. S a is ical Analysis
No mali y compliance was es ed o each g oup using he a iables o gende , age,
and oo ball ( o p ac ice compe i i e oo ball/socce o no ) ia he Kolmogo o –Smi no
es . The a o esaid hypo hesis was no me o all a iables s udied (p< 0.001 in all cases);
he e o e, non-pa ame ic o ee dis ibu ion es s we e applied, speci ically Spea man’s
Rho ( ank-o de co ela ions) and Mann–Whi ney’s U- es s. The SPSS p og am ( 25; IBM,
A monk, NY, USA) was used o all s a is ical analyses o da a.
3. Resul s
The psychome ic p ope ies o he scale we e sa is ac o y. The ques ionnai e an-
swe ed by pa icipan s wi h DS ob ained a Ch onbach alpha coe icien o 0.6, and ha
answe ed by he in o man s ob ained a coe icien o 0.87.
The andomness o he sample was e i ied wi h he Runs es (Wald–Wol owi z),
ob aining Z< 0.001, p> 0.05, which showed ha i was andom.
3.1. In ellec ual Disabili y and O he Condi ions
Pa icipan s wi h DS p esen ed a p edominan mode a ely high le el o in ellec ual
disabili y (in e ms o adap i e beha io ) o 50%: in de ail, 56% in concep ual skills, 51.3% in
social skills, and 54% in p ac ical skills. The pe cen age o ecognized disabili y anged
om 73–75%. O he condi ions e alua ed showed ha 25.5% had physical disabili ies,
44% obesi y, 18.3% senso ial disabili y, 6.3% had se ious heal h p oblems, and 4.9% had
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 6 o 16
sleep diso de s. Table 2cla i ies he desc ip i e s a is ics (%) o he le el o in ellec ual
disabili y (in e ms o adap i e beha io ) and he le el o ecognized dependence. An
analysis o a iance (ANOVA) was used o es he hypo hesis ha he means o a hle es and
non-a hle es we e equal. The p- alue ob ained o all a iables was g ea e han he le el o
signi icance; he e o e, he e we e no signi ican di e ences in he esul s ob ained, and he
g oups did no show a p io i di e ences in in ellec ual disabili y and le el o dependence.
Table 2.
Desc ip i e s a is ics (%) o he le el o in ellec ual disabili y and le el o dependency
ecognized o pa icipan s wi h DS (n= 39).
Ca ego y
To al A hle es No A hle es
Va iables Le el % % % F p
Concep ual skills Mi 28.2 55.6 20
Mo 56.4 44.4 60 5.55 >0.01
Se 15.4 0 20
Social skills Mi 38.5 66,7 30
Mo 51.3 33,3 56.7 4.52 >0.01
Se 10.3 0 13.3
P ac ical skills Mi 35.9 55.6 30
Mo 56.4 33.3 63.3 0.84 >0.01
Se 7.7 11.1 6.7
Recognized le el
o dependency
Mo 20.5 22.2 20
Se 12.8 22.2 10 0.87 >0.01
Hd 10.3 22.2 6.7
No e: Mi: Mild; Mo: Mode a e; Se: Se e e; Hd: High dependency.
3.2. Age
In he analysis o age co ela ion o bo h pa icipan s wi h DS and in o man s wi h
espec o quali y o li e, he Kolmogo o –Smi no es showed ha no mali y compliance
was no achie ed. The e o e, Spea man’s Rho ( ank–o de co ela ions) was used o he
subsample o pa icipan s wi h DS (n= 39) as well as he subsample o in o man s (n= 39),
using he age scale and all aspec s o QL implied in he s udy (Table 3).
Table 3.
Spea man’s Rho co ela ions be ween age o pa icipan s wi h DS (n= 39) and sel -pe cep ion
wi h espec o he aspec s o he s udy, and he co ela ion o hese ages wi h in o man pe cep ions
(n= 39).
Age
DS In o man s
Dependen a iables p p
Social inclusion −0.44 −0.792 −0.057 −0.728
Au o-de e mina ion −0.212 −0.196 −0.081 −0.622
Emo ional well-being −0.246 −0.131 −0.093 −0.572
Physical well-being −0.353 −0.027 −0.012 −0.942
Ma e ial well-being −0.062 −0.708 −0.120 −0.474
Righ s −0.083 −0.614 −0.114 −0.490
In e pe sonal ela ionship −0.135 −0.411 −0.011 −0.946
Pesonal de elopmen −0.219 −0.181 −0.074 −0.656
Quali y li e index −0.194 −0.237 −0.204 −0.212
Resul s o he subsample o pa icipan s wi h DS indica ed a single s a is ically signi -
ican co ela ion ( =
−
0.353; p= 0.027) wi h mode a e magni ude and nega i e meaning
wi h espec o he physical well-being a iable. No o he signi ican ela ionship was
de ec ed o he emaining a iables, including QLI. Howe e , no s a is ically signi ican
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 7 o 16
ela ionship was de ec ed be ween he age o pa icipan s wi h DS and he opinions o
in o man s in e ms o any aspec o he s udy.
3.3. Di e ences in Te ms o Gende
In he analysis o di e ences in e ms o gende , wi h espec o he aspec s s udied
and QLI o pa icipan s wi h DS and in o man s, he Kolmogo o –Smi no es showed
ha no mali y compliance was no achie ed. The e o e, o con as he di e ences be ween
bo h g oups (pa icipan s wi h DS and in o man s), non-pa ame ic es ing was applied,
equi alen o S uden - es o independen g oups, Mann–Whi ney U- es s (Table 4).
Resul s o sel -pe cep ion o pa icipan s wi h DS indica ed signi ican di e ences o
he emo ional well-being a iables (Z =
−
2.29;
p= 0.022
), ma e ial well-being (Z =
−
2.29;
p= 0.022
), and pe sonal de elopmen (Z =
−
2.20; p= 0.028). Fo hese h ee a iables,
esul s we e highe o men. No s a is ically signi ican di e ence was de ec ed o he
emaining a iables no o QLI (Table 4).
In he second place, wi h ega d o in o man s, s a is ically signi ican di e ences
we e de ec ed be ween gende s o pa icipan s wi h DS o he a iables social inclusion
(
Z = −2.49
;p= 0.013), emo ional well-being (Z =
−
2.29; p= 0.022), physical well-being
(
Z = −2.45
;p= 0.014), ma e ial well-being (Z =
−
3.88; p< 0.001), and QLI (Z =
−
2.84;
p= 0.004
). Fo all i e a iables, esul s we e highe o men. No s a is ically signi ican
di e ence was de ec ed o he emaining a iables (Table 4).
The e o e, he opinions o pa icipan s wi h DS and in o man s coincided wi h espec
o emo ional well-being and ma e ial well-being.
3.4. Di e ences be ween Va iables in he S udy and QLI be ween A hle es and No A hle es
To e i y i he e we e di e ences be ween a iables in he s udy and QLI be ween
a hle es and no a hle es, acco ding o he sel -pe cep ions o pa icipan s wi h DS and in
he opinion o in o man s, he non-pa ame ic Mann–Whi ney U- es was again applied.
Resul s a e shown in Table 5.
The opinion o pa icipan s wi h DS showed s a is ically signi ican di e ences be-
ween he g oup wi h DS who p ac iced compe i i e oo ball/socce and hose who did
no . These esul s o all a iables, including QLI, we e highe o hose pa icipan s who
said hey p ac iced compe i i e oo ball/socce (in all cases, p< 0.001; Table 5).
In he second place, wi h e e ence o in o man opinion, no s a is ically signi ican
di e ence was de ec ed o any o he a iables as ega ds he p ac ice o no o compe i i e
oo ball/socce on he pa o pa icipan s wi h DS.
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 8 o 16
Table 4.
Mann–Whi ney U es s o independen a iables o he s udy wi h espec o gende o he subg oup o pa icipan s wi h DS (men n= 24; women n= 15) conce ning
sel -pe cep ion and pe cep ion o in o man s (n= 39).
DS Pa icipan s In o man s
Dependen
Va iable
Gende
(DS) Mean SD Min Max A e age
Range UMW ZpMean SD Min Max A e age
Range UMW Zp
SI M 5.58 1.586 4 8 21.85 135.50 −1.350 0.177 4.83 1.239 3 7 23.23 102.50 −2.488 0.013
F 4.73 0.704 4 6 17.03 3.93 0.961 3 6 14.83
AU M 5.71 1.517 3 8 22.69 115.50 −1.899 0.058 4.13 0.900 3 5 22.50 120.00 −1.841 0.066
F 4.73 1.387 3 8 15.70 3.60 0.632 3 5 16.00
EW M 5.00 1.142 4 7 23.06 106.50 −2.294 0.022 5.08 1.412 3 7 23.21 103.00 −2.289 0.022
F 4.13 0.834 3 6 15.10 4.07 0.884 3 6 14.87
PW M 9.08 0.717 8 10 21.98 132.50 −1.463 0.143 8.88 0.947 8 10 23.25 102.00 −2.446 0.014
F 8.53 1.125 7 10 16.83 8.00 0.845 6 9 14.80
MW M 6.96 1.197 5 9 23.15 104.50 −2.294 0.022 6.43 1.273 4 8 24.98 46.50 −3.875 <0.001
F 6.07 1.033 5 8 14.97 4.73 0.704 4 6 11.10
RM 4.79 1.817 3 8 20.50 168.00 −0.357 0.721 4.88 1.676 3 8 20.42 170.00 −.304 0.761
F 4.27 0.961 3 6 19.20 4.40 0.986 3 7 19.33
IR M 5.46 1.285 4 7 20.77 161.50 −0.567 0.571 5.21 1.141 4 7 21.60 141.50 −1.184 0.236
F 5.20 1.207 4 7 18.77 4.73 0.799 4 7 17.43
PD M 5.42 1.248 4 7 23.06 106.50 −2.203 0.028 4.46 0.658 3 5 21.60 141.50 −1.229 0.219
F 4.47 0.915 3 6 15.10 4.20 0.676 3 5 17.43
QLI M 72.71 8.800 63 86 21.75 138.00 −1.238 0.216 68.96 7.369 62 80 23.44 97.50 −2.841 0.004
F 67.53 3.701 63 73 17.20 63.00 0.000 63 63 14.50
NOTE: M: Male; F: Female; DS: People wi h Down synd ome; SI: Social inclusion; AU: Au o-de e mina ion; EW Emo ional well-being; PW: Physical well-being; MW: Ma e ial well-being; R: Righ s;
IR: In e pe sonal ela ionship; PD: Pe sonal de elopmen ; QLI: Quali y li e index.
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 9 o 16
Table 5.
Mann–Whi ney U- es s o dependen a iables wi h espec o p ac icing compe i i e oo ball on he pa o pa icipan s wi h DS (Yes, n= 9; No, n= 30) acco ding o he opinions
o he subg oup wi h DS and in o man pe cep ions (n= 39).
DS Pa icipan s In o man s
Dependen
Va iable
Foo ball
(SD) Mean SD Min Max A e age
Range UMW ZpMean SD Min Max A e age
Range UMW Zp
SI Y 7.44 0.726 6 8 34.89 1.00 −4.695 <0.001 4.56 1.130 3 6 20.94 126.50 −0.315 0.781
N 4.60 0.621 4 6 15.53 4.47 1.252 3 7 19.72
AU Y 7.33 0.707 6 8 33.89 10.00 −4.249 <0.001 4.22 0.833 3 5 23.83 100.50 −1.222 0.255
N 4.73 1.143 3 8 15.83 3.83 0.834 3 5 18.85
EW Y 6.33 0.500 6 7 34.67 3.00 −4.757 <0.001 4.78 1.481 3 7 20.56 130.00 −0.172 0.883
N 4.17 0.648 3 6 15.60 4.67 1.295 3 7 19.83
PW Y 9.78 0.441 9 10 31.39 32.50 −3.645 <0.001 8.67 1.000 8 10 20.67 129.00 −0.217 0.857
N 8.60 0.855 7 10 16.58 8.50 1.009 6 10 19.80
MW Y 8.33 0.500 8 9 34.33 6.00 −4.525 <0.001 6.25 1.389 4 8 23.69 86.50 −1.235 0.235
N 6.10 0.803 5 8 15.70 5.63 1.351 4 8 18.38
RY 6.89 1.054 5 8 34.44 5.00 −4.465 <0.001 4.67 1.581 3 7 19.17 127.50 −0.263 0.806
N 3.90 0.845 3 6 15.67 4.70 1.442 3 8 20.25
IR Y 7.00 0.000 7 7 33.00 18.00 −4.138 <0.001 5.33 1.323 4 7 22.17 115.50 −0.692 0.522
N 4.87 0.973 4 7 16.10 4.93 0.944 4 7 19.35
PD Y 6.67 0.500 6 7 33.83 10.50 −4.308 <0.001 4.33 0.866 3 5 20.39 131.50 −0.129 0.909
N 4.57 0.898 3 7 15.85 4.37 0.615 3 5 19.88
QLI Y 83.33 1.500 81 86 35.00 0.00 −4.594 <0.001 67.78 7.225 62 79 20.83 127.50 −0.298 0.806
N 66.93 3.423 63 73 15.50 66.33 6.283 63 80 19.75
NOTE: Y: P ac icing compe i i e oo ball/socce (Yes); N: No P ac icing compe i i e oo ball/socce (No); DS: People wi h Down synd ome; SI: social inclusion; AU: au o-de e mina ion; EW Emo ional
well-being; PW: Physical well-being; MW: Ma e ial well-being; R: Righ s; IR: In e pe sonal ela ionship; PD: Pe sonal de elopmen ; QLI: Quali y li e index.
B ain Sci. 2021,11, 226 16 o 16
43. Ga ía, B. A ances y e os en el Sínd ome de Down. Pe spec i as desde la calidad de ida. Re . Psicol. Gen. Apl. 2019,32, 1–2.
44.
Abella, B. La Discapacidad Tiene Ros o de Muje . Re is a CeRmi.es. 2013. A ailable online: h p://semanal.ce mi.es/no icia/
Igualdad-gene o-en idades-discapacidad- epo aje.aspx (accessed on 13 No embe 2020).
45.
Sabo, D. Comp ende la Salud de los Homb es. Un En oque Relacional y Sensible al Géne o. O ganización Ibe oame icana de la Salud;
Ha a d Cen e o Popula ion and De elopmen S udies: Camb idge, MA, USA, 2000.
46.
Cou enay, W.H. Cons uc ions o masculini y and hei in luence on men well-being: A heo y o gende and heal h. Soc. Sci.
Med. 2000,50, 1385–1401. [C ossRe ]
47. A ia, M.D.; Vázquez, C. Op imismo In eligen e; Alianza: Mad id, Spain, 1998.
48.
Reindl, M.S.; Wal z, M.; Schippe s, A. Pe sonaliza ion, sel -ad ocacy and inclusion: An e alua ion o pa en -ini ia ed suppo ed
li ing schemes o people wi h in ellec ual and de elopmen al disabili ies in he Ne he lands. J. In ellec . Disabil.
2016
,20, 121–136.
[C ossRe ] [PubMed]
49.
Ga cía-Mol ó, A.; O eje o-B una, M. Sa is acción i al, au ode e minación, y p ác ica depo i a en las pe sonas con discapacidad
in elec ual. RPD 2017,26, 13–19.
50. Que o, A. Depo e y Sínd ome de Down. Mas e ’s Thesis, Uni e sidad de Alme ía, Alme ía, Spain, 2016.
51. Ca l, J. Social capi al and spo pa icipa ion. HSS 2003,63, 4097-A.
52.
Ja ie, G. Communi a ianism, spo and social capi al: Neighbou ly insigh s in o Sco ish spo . In . Re . Spo
2003
,38, 139–153.
[C ossRe ]
53.
Spaaij, R. The glue ha holds he communi y oge he . Spo and sus ainabili y in u al Aus alia. Spo Soc.
2009
,12, 1132–1146.
[C ossRe ]
54. S empel, C. Gende , social class, and he spo ing capi al-economic capi al nexus. Sociol. Spo J. 2006,23, 273–292. [C ossRe ]
55.
Walse h, K. B idging and bonding social capi al in spo -expe iences o young women wi h an immig an backg oun. Spo Educ.
Soc. 2008,13, 1–17. [C ossRe ]
56. Pino, J. Análisis Funcional del Fú bol como Depo e de Equipo; Wanceulen Edi o ial Depo i a, S.L.: Se illa, Spain, 2002.
57.
Haigh, A.; Lee, D.; Shaw, C.; Haw ho ne, M.; Chambe lain, S.; Newman, D.W.; Cla ke, Z.; Beail, N. Wha Things Make People
wi h a Lea ning Disabili y Happy and Sa is ied wi h Thei Li es: An Inclusi e Resea ch P ojec . J. Appl. Res. In ellec . Disabil.
2013,26, 26–33. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
58. Smi h, R.E.; Smoll, F.L. Beha io al esea ch and in e en ion in you h spo s. Beha . The . 1991,22, 329–344. [C ossRe ]
59.
Ramí ez, W.; Vinaccia, S.; Suá ez, G.R. El impac o de la ac i idad ísica y el depo e sob e la salud, la cognición, la socialización y
el endimien o académico: Una e isión eó ica. Re . Es ud. Soc. 2004,18, 2–8. [C ossRe ]
60.
S ancli e, R.J. P oxy esponden s and he eliabili y o he Quali y-o -Li e Ques ionnai e Empowe men Fac o . JIDR
1999
,43,
185–193. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
61.
Fló ez, J. Sínd ome de Down. Comunica la No icia: P ime Ac o Te apéu ico; Fundación Ibe oame icana Down21: Mad id, Spain, 2017.
62.
Wehmeye , M.; Ag an, M.; Hughes, C.; Ma in, J.; Mi haug, D.; Palme , S. P omo ing sel -de e mina ion in s uden s wi h
in ellec ual and de elopmen al disabili ies. In Discapacidad e Inclusión Manual pa a la Docencia; Ama u: Salamanca, Spain, 2007.
63.
San ama ía, M.; Ve dugo, M.; O gaz, B.; Gómez, L.; de U íes, F.J. Calidad de ida pe cibida po abajado es con discapacidad
in elec ual en empleo o dina io. Siglo Ce o 2012,43, 46–61.
64.
Ha on, C.; Age , A. Quali y o li e measu emen and people wi h in ellec ual disabili ies: A eply o Cummins. J. Appl. Res.
In ellec . Disabil. 2002,15, 254–260. [C ossRe ]
65.
Co al, S. La Ven aja del Sínd ome de Down en la Calidad de Vida Indi idual y Familia . Mas e ’s Thesis, Uni e sidad Pon i icia
ICAI ICADE Comillas, Mad id, Spain, 2016.
66.
Cummins, R.A. Assessing quali y o li e o people wi h disabili ies. In Quali y o Li e o People wi h Disabili ies: Models, Resea chs
and P ac ice, 2nd ed.; B own, R.I., Ed.; S anley Tho nes: Chel enham, UK, 1997; pp. 116–150.
67.
Cummins, R.A. The alidi y and u ili y o subjec i e quali y o li e: A eply o Ha on & Age . J. Appl. Res. In ellec . Disabil.
2002
,
15, 261–268.
68.
Claes, C.; Vande elde, S.; an Ho e, G.; an Loon, J.; Ve schelden, G.; Schalock, R.L. Rela ionship be ween sel - epo and p oxy
a ings on assessed pe sonal quali y o li e- ela ed ou comes. J. Policy P ac . In ellec . Disabil. 2012,9, 159–165. [C ossRe ]
69.
No a, L.; Fe a i, L.; So esi, S.; Wehmeye , M. Sel -de e mina ion, social abili ies, and he quali y o li e o people wi h in ellec ual
disabili y. J. In ellec . Disabil. Res. 2007,51, 850–865. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
70.
Wehmeye , M.L.; Game , W. The impac o pe sonal cha ac e is ics o people wi h in ellec ual and de elopmen al disabili y on
sel -de e mina ion and au onomous unc ioning. J. Appl. Res. In ellec . Disabil. 2003,16, 255–265. [C ossRe ]
