Search results

The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form (BPI-S) is a shorter version of the Behavior Problems Inventory-01. In this paper, BPI-S population norms are reported from a total administrative population of adults with intellectual disability (ID). To facilitate the use of the BPI-S in clinical services to assess behavior change, the purpose of this paper is to describe how to use BPI-S clinically significant and reliable change (RC) scores.

Data were gathered on 265 adults with ID known to services. Proxy informants completed the BPI-S on challenging behaviors over the previous six months. Clinically significant cut-off values and RC scores were calculated using the Jacobson and Truax’s (1991) method.

BPI-S clinical reference data are presented to provide benchmarks for individual and group comparisons regarding challenging behavior. Examples demonstrate how to use clinical norms to determine change.

Behavior change is a major goal of researchers and practitioners. Data from the present study can make the BPI-S a valuable tool for determining change in challenging behavior following service input or intervention.

Whilst well used in research, the BPI-S may be less extensively used in practice. This present study provides data to enable researchers and practitioners to use the BPI-S more widely in assessing clinical outcomes, such as intervention research and service evaluation.

Having paid work, relationships and a choice of where to live are common policy priorities for adults with intellectual disabilities. The purpose of this paper is to compare outcomes with respect to these three priorities between adults with intellectual disability and the general population in Jersey.

Data were collected from 217 adults with intellectual disability known to services, and 2,350 adults without intellectual disability using a stratified random sample. Data on employment, marital status and accommodation profiles were compared.

In sum, 87 per cent of adults with intellectual disability were currently single vs 16 per cent of adults without intellectual disability; 23 per cent of working-age adults with intellectual disability were in paid employment vs 92 per cent of working-age adults without intellectual disability; and 57 per cent of adults with intellectual disability lived-in sheltered housing vs 2 per cent of adults without intellectual disability.

Very few adults with intellectual disability are in paid employment or intimate relationships, and the majority live in sheltered, supported housing, with very few owning their own home. There is a significant disconnect between policy and reality. Considerable work is required to make an ordinary life the reality for adults with intellectual disability.

This study adds to the body of evidence that suggests people with intellectual disabilities are less likely to experience an ordinary life. Furthermore, it illustrates that despite Jersey being an affluent society, the same difficulties and barriers exist there for persons with an intellectual disability as in other jurisdictions.

Bowring et al. describe ways of using the Behavior Problems Inventory – Short Form, illustrating how to use clinical norms to evaluate change. This commentary focuses on the importance of considering information gained directly from people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) during assessment. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A pilot project involved interviews with four children with IDD. A Talking Mats® (TM) framework was used to gather children’s views regarding challenging behaviours (CBs) and variables relevant to a functional behavioural assessment, such as things they found to be reinforcing, things that set the occasion for CB and things that helped prevent this.

The children were able to provide information and insight into several areas that are influential in the maintenance of behaviour that challenges. Some of this information may not have been obtainable from other sources or informants using traditional assessment methods alone.

Gathering the views of people with IDD is important. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2009) states that people have the right to be heard. Many people with IDD have difficulties communicating. A TM framework is one method by which people may be able to express their views. Taking the views of the individual into account during the process of gathering information about behaviours that challenge should lead to greater understanding of the functions of any behaviours and therefore to more targeted, acceptable and effective forms of support.