No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Young adults with intellectual disabilities were placed into high and low learned helplessness groups based on their responses to a self-report questionnaire. Within each group participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions for presentation of vignettes depicting decision-making situations: vignette only; vignette plus two options; and vignette plus the same two options, each with one positive and one negative consequence. Participants were asked to say what they would do in the situation and to give a reason. Responses were judged according to criteria based on theories of rational decision-making. Low learned helplessness participants obtained significantly higher decision-making scores. Additional information about options or options plus consequences was not beneficial for either group. Implications for providing training and experiences in decision-making are discussed.

efinitions of intellectual disability have traditionally depended on psychometric conceptions of intelligenceD and the use, with varying degrees of flexibility, of cut-off scores on intelligence tests. More recently, deficits in adaptive behaviour as well as in intelligence have been incorporated into definitions of intellectual disability in Australia as well as overseas, and identification is directed towards establishing support needs rather than identifying group or category membership. This paper explores some of the difficulties inherent in the use of psychometric concepts and measurements to identify intellectual disability from a needs perspective. Problems of test reliability and the implications of changes over time in intelligence test norms are discussed. The concept of adaptive behaviour, its construct validity, and the utility of a psychometric definition of adaptive behaviour are questioned. It is concluded that a more fruitful definition of intellectual disability might be found in psychological theories about human needs.