Abuse Prevention
Conditions
Keywords
intellectual disabilities, abuse, abuse prevention
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to help individuals and their caregivers develop a plan on how to recognize, deal with and respond to abusive situations.
Detailed description
The goal of this project is to address the current deficiencies by creating a program that will guide individuals who have intellectual disabilities and a Learning Partner (LP - care provider, relative, group home staff) in developing a comprehensive Individual Response Plan (IRP) that can be used before, during, and after an abusive event. Behavioral skills training and behavioral relaxation training -- two instructional approaches with evidence for effectiveness in this population -- will be included to address the unique learning needs of people who have intellectual disabilities and to maximize opportunities for skill-based learning. Video and workbook activities will train the LP to effectively implement the abuse prevention and response strategies, thus increasing the potential for generalization in the natural environment and long-term maintenance of skills.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALAbuse Prevention Program
The abuse prevention program will be comprised of nine shared learning modules for the individual with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) and a care provider. Each shared module will contain an action step in the Individual Response Plan and will include video, guided practice and workbook activities to equip persons with ID with a range of judgment, decision-making skills and the efficacy needed for identifying, rejecting, and reporting abuse.
BEHAVIORALControl Condition
The control group will receive worksheets from the ESCAPE-NOW curriculum.
Sponsors
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Double S Instructonal Systems
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* has moderate to mild mental retardation based on IQ scores ranging from 40-70 * is over 18 years old. --the participant must be able to do three of the following four skills (1) complete a simple worksheet with assistance, (2) go on simple errands alone, (3) recognize 10 or more words by site, (4) read a digital clock.
Exclusion criteria
* individuals who have experienced traumatic abuse and experiences symptoms suggestive of trauma, such as flashbacks, nightmares, and chronic anxiety and/or depression that is resistant to standard pharmacological and psychotherapy/behavior interventions.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Abuse Protection Concept Questionnaire | Pre, post (9 weeks), and 2 month follow-up | This questionnaire assesses change in knowledge and attitude about various types of abuse in individuals with Intellectual Disability (ID). The questionnaire includes three sub scales. The first sub-scale is comprised of five open ended questions. Score answers range from 0 to 3 with a total score of 15. Higher scores reflect higher knowledge. The second sub-scale presents structured questions about the five types of abuse. The total possible score for the first part of the second sub-scale is 5 -- with higher score reflecting greater knowledge. Participants are then shown five pictures depicting types of abuse. Each correct response was awarded a point for a total of five. The total possible score for sub-sale 2 is 10. Sub-scale 3 is a 20 item forced choice -- yes (1) , no (0), don't know (0) - that assesses knowledge and attitudes. with a total possible sub-score of 20 -- higher score equals higher knowledge. |
| Abuse Protection Decision Making and Task Analysis Check Sheet | Pre, post (9 weeks), and 2 month follow-up | This checklist assesses change in knowledge required by people with ID to recognize and report abuse. It consists of five vignettes of abusive situations and two non-abusive. Each vignette has a a possible score of 10. The total possible score for all seven vignettes is 70 with higher scores reflecting greater knowledge. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Social Vulnerability Questionnaire | Pre, post (9 weeks), and 2 month follow-up | Change in social vulnerability in individuals with ID as measured by 45 items that assess social vulnerability. Care provider rates individual with ID on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not true or never to 4= very true or always). Scores range from 45 to 180. Lower scores reflect improvements in social vulnerability. |
| Test of Interpersonal Competence and Personal Vulnerability | Pre, post (9 weeks), and 2 month follow-up | Change in the 20-item multiple-choice interpersonal competence and vulnerability of individuals with ID. Each question has three answers with only one best answer for each question.Scoring is from 0 to 1 with 1 being the best answer. Scores range from 0 to 20 with higher scores showing improvement in interpersonal competence and personal vulnerability. |
| Glascow Social Self-Efficacy Scale | Pre, post (9 weeks), and 2 month follow-up | Change in social self-efficacy in people with moderate to mild intellectual disabilities as measured by the 17-item self-efficacy scale. A three point response format is used to answer each question: not at all, a little bit, or a lot. Responses are scored 0,1, and 2 respectively giving a range of 0-34. Higher values represent better outcomes. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Adults with ID Consumer Satisfaction | Post (9 weeks) | This consumer satisfaction scale for people with ID consists of 15 items and 1 open-ended question that assesses relevance and clarity of materials and program use barriers. The 15 items are rated on a three point scale -1= not at all; 2= somewhat; and 3= a lot. The total possible score was 45. Higher scores reflect greater satisfaction with the program. |
| Learning Partner Consumer Satisfaction | Post (9 weeks) | This consumer satisfaction scale for the care giver (Learning Partner) consists of 31 items, and 1 open-ended question to assess usability and effectiveness of materials. The five point scale ranged from 1= strongly agree to 5= strongly disagree. The total possible score was 155 with lower scores reflecting greater satisfaction with the program. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed