Journal of Intellectual Disability Research     / pp ‒ /   ©  Blackwell Publishing Ltd 367 Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKJIDRJournal of Intellectual Disability Research -Blackwell Science Ltd, Original ArticleFamily quality of lifeJ. Park et al. Correspondence: Jiyeon Park PhD, Department of Special Education, Ewha University, DaeHyun Dong -, Seoul, Korea - (e-mail: jpark@ewha.ac.kr). Toward assessing family outcomes of service delivery: validation of a family quality of life survey J. Park, 1 L. Hoffman, 2 J. Marquis, 2 A. P. Turnbull, 2 D. Poston, 2 H. Mannan, 2 M. Wang 2 & L. L. Nelson 2 1 Department of Special Education, Ewha University, Seoul, Korea 2 Beach Center on Disability, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA Abstract Background The concept of family quality of life (QoL) has emerged as an important outcome of ser- vice delivery for individuals with disabilities and their families. The present study describes the process of developing a tool to measure family QoL. Methods and Results A total of  respondents participated in a national field test. Through factor analysis, the survey was refined in several ways: () the preliminary -domain structure was reduced to a five-domain structure; () a total of  items were selected for the revised survey; and () wordings were clarified. Conclusions The implications for future research and practice are discussed. Keywords assessment, family outcomes, family quality of life survey, service delivery, validation Introduction Defining outcomes intended for consumers and spec- ifying the services to be provided in order to achieve those outcomes is the foremost purpose of any service delivery system (Bailey et al. ; Gardner & Nudler ). As agencies have come to serve families in addition to children with disabilities, and as interven- tion has come to embrace more than remedial efforts on children’s deficits, the prime consumers have come to include not only children with disabilities, but also their families (Dunst et al. ; Allen & Petr ; Turnbull et al. ). Therefore, emerging principles are that: () families’ priorities and deci- sions should be respected; () services and supports should be provided to assist families in achieving their identified goals; and () service systems should be designed to improve the capacity of children with disabilities and their families to function in the natu- ral environments of their communities (Duwa et al. ; Osher ). As an outcome measure for services which meets these principles, researchers have proposed the con- cept of quality of life (QoL) (Murrell & Norris ; Fewell & Vadasy ; Schalock et al. ; Turnbull & Brunk ; Bailey et al. ; BCFD ; Scha- lock ; Gardner ; Wehmeyer & Schalock ). Several authors have emphasized that the QoL of individuals is related to that of those around them and have asserted that efforts to address the individ- ual’s QoL must also include consideration of the QoL