Self-Determination and Leisure Experiences of Women Living in Two Group Homes

Abstract

This phenomenological case study examined the leisure experiences of five women with intellectual disabilities (ages 44–60) in two group homes. Using participant observation, artifacts, and semistructured interviews, the nature of the women’s leisure experiences were understood within the conceptual framework of self-determination. Five staff members were also interviewed to further contextualize the women’s leisure experiences. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes: leisure at home, leisure in the community, and leisure with family and friends. Leisure was experienced differently in each group home, largely due to staff-created input into leisure choices. In one group home, leisure was supervised; in the other, independent leisure was encouraged. The study highlights the importance of promoting self-determined leisure for those approaching retirement age.

Providing support for decision making to adults with intellectual disability: Perspectives of family members and workers in disability support services

“…The influence exerted in the processes of decision support was very evident by the way supporters framed particular decisions, presented options and managed risk. In many instances, their actions reflected examples found in the literature of support based on paternalism, best interest, or values and self-interest of the supporter (Dunn et al, 2010;Ferguson et al, 2011;Rossow-Kimball & Goodwin, 2009). Workers appeared more concerned than family members about influencing decisions and their aspirations to be neutral and reflective were similar to the way social workers talk about suspending their own judgments and adopting a neutral and non-judgmental stance to supporting decision making (Ellem, O'Connor, Wilson, & Williams, 2013).…”

“…For example, positive attitudes of others towards risk, and creation of opportunities for choice enable increased involvement in decision making (Kjellberg, 2002;Mill, Mayes, & McConnell, 2010;Timmons, Hall, Bose, Wolfe, & Winsor, 2011). The relationship between the supporter and the person being supported has been highlighted as an important factor in the process of providing decision support (Burgen, 2010;Kjellberg, 2002), as has tailoring of support and communication to the needs and skills of the individual in the context of formal meetings as well as more individualised interactions (Antaki, Finlay, Walton, & Pate, 2008;Conder, Mirfin-Veitch, Sanders, & Munford, 2011;Espiner & Hartnett, 2012;Rossow-Kimball & Goodwin, 2009). Specific strategies such as staff practice based on active support have also been found to play a role in shaping participation in choice and decision making (Beadle-Brown, Hutchinson, & Whelton, 2012).…”

“…Several studies have identified the restrictive impact that staff or family expectations can have on decision-making opportunities (Antaki, Finlay, & Walton, 2009;Healy, McGuire, Evans, & Carley, 2009;Rossow-Kimball &Goodwin, 2009). Ferguson, Jarrett, andTerras (2011) and Pilnick, Clegg, Murphy, and Almack (2010) reported how supporters actively shaped decisions to reduce risk or ensure an outcome they perceived to be in the best interests of the person with intellectual disability.…”

Research Trends in Adapted Physical Activity on the Base of Apao Journal (2006-2010)

“…With respect to the psychosocial issues, a variety of studies examined e.g. the psychosocial determinants of sports (Dunn & Dunn, 2006;Perreault & Vallerand, 2007;Harada & Siperstein, 2009;Shapiro & Martin, 2010), leisure experience (Rossow-Kimball & Goodwin, 2009), quality of life (Giacobbi et al, 2008), parental expectations (Goodwin et al, 2006;An & Goodwin, 2007;Columna et al, 2008), etc. The measurement/ assessment /classification area included topics relative to validity (Van Waelvelde et al, 2007;Loh et al, 2009) and reliability (Driver, 2007;Motl et al, 2007) testing, sport classification issues for individuals with disabilities (Beets et al, 2007;Molik et al, 2008), etc.…”

Development of an evidence-based practice framework to guide decision making support for people with cognitive impairment due to acquired brain injury or intellectual disability

“…Across the body of research a number of supporter characteristics and skills were identified as enabling people with cognitive disability to participate in decision making. Examples of enabling characteristics included supporters having a positive attitude towards people with cognitive disability exercising choice, control, and creating decision making opportunities [30,33,[38][39][40][41][42][43]; being self-aware; able to suspend one's own judgments and able to adopt a neutral and non-judgmental stance in providing support for decision making [37]; having a positive relationship with the individual based on trust and understanding [31,[33][34][35]; knowing about a person's cognitive impairment and being able to adjust support and communication to the strengths and weaknesses of the individual [33,[44][45][46].…”