Assessing the effects of stimulation versus microswitch‐based programmes on indices of happiness of students with multiple disabilities

Abstract

Microswitch-based programmes might be deemed preferable to stimulation programmes because they can promote higher or comparable indices of happiness while promoting the acquisition of adaptive responses and self-determination.

A microswitch‐based program for promoting initial ambulation responses: An evaluation with two girls with multiple disabilities

“…The literature on the use of microswitches and contingent stimuli for promoting ambulation responses among pediatric populations is substantial (Lancioni et al, , 2013; Lancioni, Singh, O'Reilly, Sigafoos, Alberti,et al ). Previous studies have shown the effectiveness of microswitch use among individuals with multiple disabilities (Lancioni & Singh, ; Perilli, Lancioni, Laporta, et al, ).…”

Psychological eHealth interventions for people with intellectual disabilities: A scoping review

“…Most of the studies were published in the last decade ( n = 24); the remaining studies were published between 1997 and 2010. In 29 studies, a single case design was used (Dunphy & Hens, 2018 ; Gaskin et al, 2012 ; Hetzroni & Banin, 2017 ; Hronis et al, 2019 ; Kim et al, 2014 ; ; Lancioni, O’Reilly, et al, , 2006 , 2013 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Green, et al, 2014 ; Lancioni, Singh, et al, 2006 , 2013 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Sigafoos, et al, 2014 ; Lancioni, Smaldone, et al, 2006 ; Perilli et al, 2019 ; Simacek et al, 2017 ; Singh et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Damiani, et al, 2014 ; Stasolla & O’Caffò, 2013 ; Stasolla et al, 2013 , 2015 , 2017a ; Stasolla, Perilli, Caffò, et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Perilli, et al, 2014 ). In addition, two studies used a pre‐experimental design (Hoffman et al, 2017 ; Jonker et al, 2015 ) and one study used a randomized control trial (Cooney et al, 2017 ), while one study did not report about the study design (Monlux et al, 2019 ).…”

“…The vast majority of the studies ( n = 29) reported on interventions that were delivered at the individual level (Cooney et al, 2017 ; Dunphy & Hens, 2018 ; Gaskin et al, 2012 ; Hoffman et al, 2017 ; Jonker et al, 2015 ; Kim et al, 2014 ; ; Lancioni, O’Reilly, et al, 2013 , 2006 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Green, et al, 2014 ; Lancioni, Singh, et al, 2006 , 2013 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Sigafoos, et al, 2014 ; Lancioni, Smaldone, et al, 2006 ; Perilli et al, 2019 ; Singh et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Damiani, et al, 2014 ; Stasolla, Perilli, Caffò, et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Perilli, Damiani, et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Perilli, et al, 2014 ; Stasolla et al, 2015 ). In addition, two interventions were delivered to a dyad comprising a child with an intellectual disability and his/her parent (Monlux et al, 2019 ; Simacek et al, 2017 ), while two studies reported on a combination of a group intervention with individual elements, such as a group discussion combined with playing video games individually (Hetzroni & Banin, 2017 ; Hronis et al, 2019 ).…”

“…The types of interventions used within the studies varied. The majority of the studies ( n = 24) included applied behaviour analysis or behaviour therapeutic principles as the basis for the intervention (Lancioni et al, 1998 , 1999 , 2011 , 2007 , 1997 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Sigafoos, Didden, Oliva, et al, 2008 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Sigafoos, Didden, Smaldone, et al, 2008 ; Lancioni, O’Reilly, et al, 2013 , 2006 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Green, et al, 2014 ; Lancioni, Singh, et al, 2006 , 2013 ; Lancioni, Singh, O’Reilly, Sigafoos, et al, 2014 ; Lancioni, Smaldone, et al, 2006 ; Monlux et al, 2019 ; Perilli et al, 2019 ; Simacek et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Damiani, et al, 2014 ; Stasolla & O’Caffò, 2013 ; Stasolla et al, 2013 , 2015 ; Stasolla, Perilli, Caffò, et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Perilli, Damiani, et al, 2017 ; Stasolla, Perilli, et al, 2014 ), for example prompt fading, extinction and differential reinforcement. In addition, two studies used a practice‐based programme, which was originally developed for a specific centre or target group and subsequently adapted for the participants within the study (Gaskin et al, 2012 ; Kim et al, 2014 ).…”

“…In addition, a day or activity centre served as the intervention context for five studies (Dunphy & Hens, 2018 ; Lancioni et al, , 1998 , 1999 , 1997 ; Lancioni, O’Reilly, et al, 2013 ), and a school context for four studies (Hetzroni & Banin, 2017 ; Kim et al, 2014 ; Lancioni et al, 2007 ; Singh et al, 2017 ). Furthermore, one study combined a school context with the use of online information and practicing of elements of CBT at home (Hronis et al, 2019 ), while one study delivered the intervention in an educational context for some of the participants and at home for others (Lancioni, Singh, et al, 2006 ). A clinical mental health setting served as the context for one study, with a specialist team delivering secondary care service (Cooney et al, 2017 ), while another study was carried out in the context of a care and rehabilitation centre (Lancioni et al, 2011 ).…”