A model for fostering community capacity to support adults with intellectual disabilities who engage in challenging behaviour: A scoping review

Abstract

Developmental support agencies support many adults with intellectual disabilities in the community. Unfortunately, these adults often exhibit high rates of challenging behaviour, which present significant pressures on these service providers. Agencies need to develop effective means of increasing their capacity to provide quality support. Previous systematic reviews found that training staff in positive behaviour supports can improve outcomes; however, the factors facilitating training’s effects, long-term effectiveness, and outcomes for service users have yet to be determined. We conducted a scoping review of 98 journal articles and book chapters to develop a model for fostering capacity development drawing from Organizational Behaviour Management and Knowledge Translation theories. Some relevant factors include features of the inner and outer organizational contexts, training approaches (e.g., behavioural skills training & in-situ coaching), ongoing support and feedback. This model may lead to more effective and enduring treatment programs and improved support for adults with intellectual disabilities.

A New Screening Tool for Rapid Diagnosis of Functional and Environmental Factors Influencing Adults with Intellectual Disabilities

“…The diagnosis includes IQ levels lower than 70 [ 1 ]. This population is usually divided into four functional levels: 69–55 (mild), 54–40 (moderate), 39–25 (severe), and <25 (profound) [ 2 , 3 , 4 ].…”

“…Functional abilities include three main domains according to the accepted definitions: conceptual (communication and academic skills), practical (independent and everyday life skills), and social (social and interpersonal abilities) [ 2 , 9 , 10 ]. Individuals with ID, especially those diagnosed at the severe/profound (S/P) levels, who lack appropriate assessment tools tailored to their unique and numerous communicational, physical, and social accessibility needs [ 4 , 11 ], are generally at a high risk for functional and health-related problems.…”

“…Individuals with ID, especially those diagnosed at the severe/profound (S/P) levels, who lack appropriate assessment tools tailored to their unique and numerous communicational, physical, and social accessibility needs [ 4 , 11 ], are generally at a high risk for functional and health-related problems. Although this population presents excess healthcare needs compared to the general population, they have limited access to regular healthcare services [ 2 , 10 , 12 , 13 ]. These predicaments lead to inequality in healthcare, impact the quality of life of the individual with ID, and burden direct service providers (DSP) [ 14 ].…”

“…These predicaments lead to inequality in healthcare, impact the quality of life of the individual with ID, and burden direct service providers (DSP) [ 14 ]. When considering the assessment of the functional abilities of individuals, DSPs can recognize even small changes in their service recipients due to their daily and consistent interaction with these individuals [ 2 , 10 , 12 , 15 ]. Therefore, the need to consult with DSP when assessing and introducing therapeutic changes [ 10 , 16 ] by using appropriate data collecting tools is recognized.…”

“…The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System—Second Edition (ABAS-II) [ 27 ] was translated into Hebrew and found to be valid and reliable to use with individuals with IDs [ 28 ]. However, the shortcoming of this instrument lies in its large number of items [ 2 , 10 ]. The ABAS-II is also the official diagnostic tool of the Disabilities Administration at the Ministry of Welfare and Social Services [ 29 ].…”