Adults with intellectual disabilities: Case studies using everyday technology to support daily living skills

Abstract

Introduction: Adults with intellectual developmental disorders may have difficulties undertaking activities of daily living. This study aimed to identify changes in independence in activities of daily living following learning support using individualized everyday technologies. Method: A double-baseline case study design explored the use of everyday technology applications and devices to support functional performance of three men aged 32, 33, and 55 years, with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. Performance of selected tasks was video-recorded and analysed on four occasions for each participant. Baselines were recorded twice before intervention to ensure the participant's performance of the selected task was consistent. The intervention video was recorded at the midpoint of the participant's engagement in the study. Post-intervention video was recorded approximately 1 month after the intervention ended. Results: All three participants' functional performance of an activity of daily living task improved in accuracy and efficiency as cues from support workers were gradually faded. After the learning support ceased, technology continued to provide environmental support of participants' ongoing independence and efficient performance of the activity. Conclusion: Everyday technology applications and devices can be utilized together with a guided and structured client-centred approach and task-specific training with individuals with disability and learning difficulties.

eHealth in the support of people with mild intellectual disability in daily life: A systematic review

“…First, eHealth is primarily used as a temporary aid to facilitate training or learning a single daily living skill, a practical skill performed in the community, a vocational skill or a combination of these skills, such as purchasing groceries (e.g., Ayres, Maguire, & McClimon, 2009; Sigafoos et al., 2005). Second, eHealth is used as a permanent support aid in a home situation or vocational context for people with mild intellectual disability themselves, for example to support independent task completion (e.g., Golish, Waldman‐Levi, Swierat, & Toglia, 2018; Van Laarhoven, Johnson, Van Laarhoven‐Myers, Grider, & Grider, 2009). Third, eHealth is used as a facilitator for remote professional support to carry out daily activities, such as video calling to ask for help or remote coaching via a Bluetooth earpiece (e.g., Cavkaytar, Tomris, & Acungil, 2017; Taber‐Doughty, Shurr, Brewer, & Kubik, 2010).…”

“…Only one study specifically reported a systematic and methodical approach to determining the needs of participants before starting the intervention with eHealth. That is, Golish et al (2018) used a participant‐centred interview to inventory tasks in which the participants required assistance because they found independent completion difficult. In this study, support staff delivered information on task priorities first, and then, the participant decided which task to target for the intervention.…”

“…In two studies this was done in order to add relevant reinforcers to the device (Burckley et al., 2015; Mechling & Savidge, 2011). In one study, the participant preferred to start with a given task because he perceived it as easy to complete (Golish et al, 2018), and in another study, the content of the applications was personalized (e.g., by adding personal photos and videos) to the preferences of the participants (Fage et al., 2018). Four studies reported the preferences of participants who were asked a simple preference question with respect to the instructional method on a device or the tool in the intervention (Cihak & Schrader, 2008; McMahon, Smith, Cihak, Wright, & Gibbons, 2015; Mechling et al., 2009; Mechling & Savidge, 2011).…”

Scoping review: Interventions that promote functional performance for adolescents and adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…Clinicians serving this population may ask themselves whether there are alternative scaffolding techniques that engage individuals with moderate to severe IDD in selecting tasks that are meaningful to them. For example, Golisz, Waldman‐Levi, Swierat and Toglia () describe a procedure where tasks identified by caregivers were presented to adults with mild‐moderate IDD, one at a time. Clients were asked if the task was easy or hard and if they wanted to ‘get better’ at the task (yes or no).…”

“…100% of the reviewed studies used target task as the outcome measure, but some also included social validity questionnaires that examined family member perspective (Allen et al) or person's perspective of the intervention (Bouck et al, 2012;Mechling & Seid, 2011). It appears that an observationbased assessment and breakdown of a task to its core elements can be an essential and reliable tool in both research and practice to assess individuals with IDD functional performance (Golisz et al, 2018).…”