Search results

Distinguishing between autism characteristics and trauma-related symptoms may be clinically challenging, particularly in individuals who have experienced early traumatisation. Previous studies have described a risk that trauma-related symptoms are misinterpreted and/or misattributed to autism. This study aims to describe and explore assessment strategies to distinguish autism and early traumatisation in the case of a young woman with mild intellectual disability.

A clinical case study outlining assessment strategies, diagnostic decision-making and initial intervention.

A multi-informant interdisciplinary assessment using multiple assessment tools, together with a comprehensive review of records from previous assessments and contacts with various services, was helpful in distinguishing between autism and trauma. This included specific assessment tools for autism and trauma. Autism characteristics and trauma-related symptoms appeared to interact, not merely co-occur.

The current case demonstrates that diagnostic overshadowing may occur for autism in the context of early trauma. The case further highlights the importance of not ascribing trauma-related symptoms to autism, as service provision and treatment need to take account of both. Overlooking autism in individuals who have experienced early traumatisation may result in a risk that intervention and care are not appropriately adapted, which may involve a risk of exacerbating trauma symptoms.

This study aims to investigate the differences in spatial ability between students with a math learning disability and their normal peers.

To investigate these differences two groups, (60 students with a math learning disability) and (60 normal students) from fifth grade with a mean age (10.6 years) were administered with spatial ability test along with an IQ test. Students with a math learning disability were chosen using measures of the following: math learning disability questionnaire developed from learning disability evaluation scale – renormed second edition (LDES-R²) (McCarney and Arthaud, 2007) and the Quick Neurological Screening Test (Mutti et al., 2012), in addition to their marks in formal math tests in school.

Comparison between the two groups in four aspects of spatial ability resulted in obvious differences in each aspect of spatial ability (spatial relations, mental rotation, spatial visualization and spatial orientation); these differences were clear, especially in mental rotation and spatial visualization.

This paper contributes to gain more insights into the characteristics of pupils with a math learning disability, the nature of spatial abilities and its effect on a math learning disability. Moreover, the results suggest spatial ability to be an important diagnose factor to distinguish and identify students with a math learning disability, and that spatial ability is strongly relevant to math achievement. The results have significant implications for success in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics domain.

Global developmental delay (GDD) is highly prevalent among patients at child psychiatry clinics. However, preschool day treatment centers are currently scarce. As such, this study aimed to evaluate a program that was designed for children with GDD in order to improve their global skills and prepare them to join the school system.

This study utilized an observation retrospective design with a comparative group sample and included all children aged between 3 and 6 years who participated in the program for at least one academic year (experimental group). Their GDD diagnoses were based on the DSM-5 criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Children with similar diagnoses who were on the waiting list constituted the control group. Pre- and post-scoring of the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) were conducted by the children’s teacher and blinded investigator for the experimental group, while the children’s mothers conducted the post-CGAS scoring for the control group.

The pre- and post-CGAS scores for the experimental group were 49.5 ± 12.8 and 58.3 ± 12.7 and 47.3 ± 17.3 and 66.6 ± 17.3 for the control group, respectively (p = 0.001). The children in the experimental group scored significantly better than the control group with respect to securing places in integrated, regular classes in the education system (p = 0.001).

This study had certain limitations. First, the number of children in the control group was relatively small. Second, the baseline skill levels of some of the children in the control group may have been lower than those of the children in the experimental group at the beginning of the evaluation; this may explain why they had been put on the waiting list. Third, the information was gathered retrospectively; this is a method that is known to have its own limitations.

The clinical implications of the study are that the early identification and referral of GDD are key elements in the rehabilitation of these children and that early intervention programs are necessary for cases of moderate and severe GDD. Primary care physicians should follow up with GDD patients to ensure that referrals are being appropriately sought (Choo et al., 2019).

The program was effective in both increasing the general functioning skills of the children in the experimental group and preparing them to attend regular, integrated classes. The program should be expanded and made available to more children with GDD.

This study introduces an ecological framework for disabilities meant to provide a new model of viewing and learning about disabilities and special education. This model projects a multi-systemic view of factors that influence a person's life, where people with disabilities are active actors in the development of the world. The increased awareness about interconnectedness, globalization, inter- and trans-disciplinarity, influences on human experience, greening, sustainability, inequality, inequity and lack of opportunities is shifting how people think about potential and growth.

The methodological approach is qualitative, interpretive research.

In disability studies, the Ecological Model of Disabilities helps reframe this uniqueness as part of the spectrum of human experiences. In special education, the Ecoducation Model helps reframe the learning experience.

This research is conceptual, but it is also all-inclusive, rendering itself to a wide application in educational settings.

The Ecoducation Model for Special Education is specific to the education of children and adults with disabilities, and it is directly compatible with the broader Ecological Model of Disabilities. These ecological models can be applied to all levels of the ecological system, and to different ecodemes of population. Nevertheless, the ecological models need to be locally implemented, with general principles tailored to national traditions, laws and resources.

Advocating for the pursuit of individual well-being within the larger society, both models call for practical changes in a multitude of areas, including legislation and policy, training of professional personnel, sufficient financial input in programs designed for the care of children and adults with disabilities, change in societal mentalities to fight discrimination, disempowerment and isolation. Because the scope of ecological frameworks is incommensurate, being both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, further research possibilities are countless. The ecological perspective opens the fields of disability studies and special education to new theoretical and empirical possibilities.

Two epistemological models are described as new frameworks in disability studies: the Ecological Model of Disabilities and the Ecoducation Model for Special Education. Both are original models that look into the education and inclusion of the person with disabilities.

This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of organizational strategies, attitudes and supports that can help people with intellectual disabilities to access competitive jobs through supported employment.

A multiple case study was carried out based on an intentional sampling involving the coworker mentors of six people with intellectual disabilities currently working in standardized environments. Semi-structured interviews were performed with the participants, and an inductive thematic analysis was used for data analysis.

The study identified five critical factors in the work of people with intellectual disabilities in standardized work environments, which potentially could act as facilitators or as obstacles, depending on how they were managed. The study also identified two key factors that acted mainly as facilitators and one as an obstacle.

The study reveals the existence of factors that sometimes act as facilitators and sometimes as obstacles, depending on how they are managed by the company leaders or the disabled worker himself.