Search results

The education of students with intellectual disability, like all students, is influenced by assessments. For students with intellectual disability, assessment is used to evaluate individuals as having an intellectual disability (e.g., intellectual functioning assessments and adaptive behavior assessments), as well as to guide instruction and making decisions about what to teach. Throughout this chapter, the authors present assessments related to the determination of individuals having intellectual disability as well as ones that inform, guide, or evaluate instruction for students. In addition to presenting traditional assessment options for students with intellectual disability, the chapter also presents some innovative options for determining what to teach students with intellectual disability.

This chapter traces the history of intellectual disabilities by exploring significant historical periods and personalities who impacted the disability field and specifically the area of intellectual disability. Like other documented histories, the purpose of this chapter is to instruct and inform readers about the historical underpinnings of the labels, practices, and programs related to intellectual disability that are in effect today. While this chapter is not intended to be prescriptive in how the information presented here is to be interpreted, we are acutely aware that historical accounts are often interpreted based upon contemporary ideologies, knowledge, and practices. As such, as a historical account, this chapter is no exception. Current belief and practices about intellectual disabilities indeed influence the choices that, we as the chapter authors, made about the relative importance of the events that we select to highlight in this chapter. Nonetheless, this account reflects the events and personalities who, in our estimation, transformed and/or advanced the field of intellectual disability. We open with a brief prologue of the representations of the intellectual disability in popular culture and its potential impact on perceptions of persons with intellectual disability.

This article describes the use of the National Health Interview Survey-Disability Supplement (NHIS-D) to estimate the prevalence and general characteristics of persons with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in the non-institutionalized U.S. population. It provides estimates of the populations of non-institutionalized persons with intellectual disability (defined categorically), with developmental disabilities (defined functionally) and with both. It describes how the prevalence of intellectual and/or developmental disabilities varies by age, poverty status and other demographic variables. It describes how intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities are operationally different, and how the people identified in those groups differ substantially both in number and in demographic characteristics. An analysis of poverty status among adults reveals that poverty is significantly more common for women, people who were not white, people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, adults with less than 12 years of education, and people living with a spouse or alone (as compared to people living with relatives such as parents or siblings).

Students with an intellectual disability historically faced exclusion in both schools and in their communities. Through court cases, legislation, and parental advocacy, students with an intellectual disability were awarded the right to an education, and under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, an education in the least restrictive environment. This chapter explores the historical and current state of inclusion for students with an intellectual disability as well as the current and historical research base regarding inclusive educational placements for students with an intellectual disability. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the future of inclusive education for students with an intellectual disability.

Historically, the condition we now refer to as intellectual disability has been conceptualized using models that were extension of the medical model. Recent advances, however, have emphasized person-environment fit models of disability that view disability, intellectual, and other cognitive disabilities, as the lack of fit between a person’s capacities and the demands of the context. This chapter examines these shifts in conceptualization and the ways in which this changes how interventions are designed to provide support to enable people with intellectual disability to live, learn, work, and play in their communities. Such interventions and supports include issues pertaining to Universal Design for Learning, multi-tiered systems of supports, and the primacy of promoting the self-determination of people with disabilities. The importance of efforts to promote social inclusion is also discussed, as well as strategies to promote transition to adulthood. Authors from several countries provide examples of how these new intervention paradigms are being implemented across the world.

People with intellectual disabilities experience poorer health outcomes than the general population, and a significantly increased risk of mental health comorbidity. Their access to healthcare has been consistently shown as inadequate, and their access to mental health support is still largely wanting. Adequate training and education should improve these shortcomings but there is limited evidence available as to the best way to achieve this. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper reports on the co-production and co-delivery of a simulation training course to support healthcare professionals to provide care for people with intellectual disabilities, with a particular focus on their mental health needs. This training was designed with actors with intellectual disabilities, who participated as simulated patients in scenarios during the course and subsequently provided feedback on their experience.

This paper focusses on the positive experiences of the simulated patients, reporting on and interpreting their direct feedback on their experience of contributing to the development and delivery of the course and being involved as co-educators.

It is highlighted that the co-production and delivery of this simulation training with people with intellectual disabilities has the potential to realise some of the key principles called upon when attempting to improve how they are treated, by illustrating concrete participation, independence, and access to fulfilling lives. The value and benefits of interprofessional education to achieve these educational aims is further highlighted, particularly for the potential to generate a sense of shared responsibility within mainstream services in caring for people with intellectual disabilities.

Services for people with intellectual disabilities would be barely recognisable to clinicians working half a century ago. Two forces in particular stand out as driving the changes that we see today. The first accompanied the closure of the once popular institution‐like hospitals as part of a general reorientation within psychiatry as a whole from the asylum to the community. The second is the push towards incorporating people with intellectual disabilities in ‘mainstream’ services, the principle of ‘normalisation’ that sits at the heart of health and social policy in the UK for this group of people. This article is a reflection on the current status of mental health services for people with intellectual disabilities against this historical and philosophical backdrop and the arguments for their continued existence as a separate specialist entity within the field of psychiatry.

The purpose of this paper is to describe key policy and practice issues regarding a significant subgroup of people with intellectual disability – those with offending behaviour being treated in forensic hospitals.

The reasons why psychiatrists continue to be involved in the treatment of people with intellectual disability and mental health or behavioural problems and the factors that may lead to patients needing hospital admission are examined. Using two illustrative examples, three key questions – containment vs treatment, hospital care vs conditional discharge and hospital treatment vs using deprivation of liberty safeguards usage in the community are explored.

Patients with intellectual disability, mental health problems and offending behaviours who are treated within forensic inpatient units tend to have long lengths of stay. The key variable that mediates this length of stay is the risk that they pose to themselves or others. Clinicians work within the framework of mental health law and have to be mindful that pragmatic solutions to hasten discharge into the community may not fall within the law.

This paper makes practical suggestions for the future on how to best integrate hospital and community care for people with intellectual disability, mental health and offending behaviours.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and evaluate treatment for adult fire setters with an intellectual disability, given the specific risks they present, the complexities of criminal proceedings associated with their behaviour, and subsequent rehabilitation. However, the review also took into account programmes for fire setters in the wider population, including those for children and adolescents, given that such research might also inform the development of programmes for offenders with an intellectual disability.

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken.

Only four studies which evaluated treatment programmes specifically for arsonists with an intellectual disability were identified. Although each of these studies reported a reduction in fire‐setting behaviour following programme completion, all employed relatively weak research designs. An additional 12 studies investigating programmes for arsonists without intellectual disability were also identified. It is concluded that there is a lack of evidence regarding treatment programme outcomes for arsonists with an intellectual disability. The extent to which such programmes can be adapted to suit adult offenders with an intellectual disability is discussed, with recommendations made for the design and evaluation of arson treatment programmes for offenders with intellectual disabilities.

Currently, minimal treatments programs exist for fire setting in offenders with intellectual disability. This review highlights the importance of further research into treatment programs for this specialised population.

While individuals with an intellectual disability form a significant minority in the worldwide prison population, their healthcare needs require specialist attention. In Ireland, services for prisoners with intellectual disabilities need development. However, there is little substantive data estimating the prevalence of intellectual disabilities within the Irish prison system. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors systematically review published data relating to the prevalence of intellectual disabilities in prisons in the Republic of Ireland. The authors searched four databases, governmental websites and corresponded with experts.

Little published data were elicited from searches except for one nationwide cross-sectional survey which reflected a higher prevalence than reported in international studies. Studies from forensic mental health populations are narrated to contextualise findings.

This study found that there is little data to accurately estimate the prevalence of intellectual disabilities in the Irish prison system and the limited data available suggests that this is likely to be higher than international estimates. The authors highlight the need for further research to accurately estimate prevalence in this jurisdiction, alongside the need to develop screening and care pathways for prisoners with an intellectual disability.