Practice leadership and active support in residential services for people with intellectual disabilities: an exploratory study

Abstract

A number of limitations are acknowledged and further research is required. Practice leadership appears to be an important factor in enabling staff to provide active support but as part of generally good management. Given the rather low levels found, attention needs to be given to the training, career development and support of practice leaders and also to how to protect their time from their many other responsibilities.

Motor activation in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in daily practice

“…This curriculum was, however, developed for children with PIMD and its effects are limited to changes in the acquisition of motor skills (van der Putten et al, 2005). Another wellknown intervention for people with severe and profound intellectual disability is active support (Beadle-Brown, Hutchinson, & Whelton, 2012;Beadle-Brown et al, 2014;Jones et al, 1999), but its applicability and effectiveness in people with PIMD has not yet been studied (Maes, Lambrechts, Hostyn, & Petry, 2007). Further work on the role of professionals, fundamental knowledge about the course of motor development, and the development of movement-oriented interventions is required to reduce inactivity in the daily lives and care of people with PIMD.…”

Measuring practice leadership in supported accommodation services for people with intellectual disability: Comparing staff-rated and observational measures

“…A percentage score was calculated overall and for each of the four domains. The Cronbach's alpha at the staff level for the four domains was 0.725 (at service level it was 0.826), which is higher than the Cronbach's alpha we obtained with the original practice leadership index at staff level of 0.682, and the 0.641 obtained by Beadle-Brown et al (2014). As was the case for the original staff-rated index, the only individual domain with reasonable reliability was coaching (Cronbach's alpha 0.744 at staff level and 0.788 at service level).…”

“…It was not possible to assess test-retest agreement for this measure during this study, but Cronbach's alpha at the staff level indicated that internal consistency was acceptable at 0.682, and comparable to that obtained by BeadleBrown et al (2014;0.641). Beadle-Brown et al (2014) did not report internal consistency for each of the three domains because the measure had been designed to provide an overall index of reported practice leadership, with a limited number of items overall, making reliability in any one domain difficult to establish.…”

“…A staff-rated practice leadership index (staff-rated index) score was calculated using the methods described by Beadle-Brown et al (2014). In brief, the score is calculated from a series of questions shown in Table 1, with either 5-or 6-point Likert scales (of frequency, usefulness, or satisfaction) or binary yes/no responses.…”

“…An issue faced in researching practice leadership is how best to measure its strength. Beadle-Brown et al (2014) developed a 12-item measure of staff perceptions of practice leadership in order to determine the extent to which it was provided in supported accommodation services. They found that practice leadership accounted for improved quality of active support over time, and it was more effective in the context of good general management.…”