Search results

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).

In the field of autism spectrum research, there has been a tendency to examine autistics without intellectual disabilities. This focus has come at the expense of examining their peers with intellectual disabilities, who are generally regarded as needing more assistance due to more complex support needs. This chapter begins by defining intellectual disability, followed by an examination of the literature about the prevalence of intellectual disability in the autistic population. The results from the American Government's Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Autism and Developmental Monitoring (ADDM) Network about the proportion of autistics with intellectual disabilities are then outlined. Following this, the results from studies about the proportion of autistics with intellectual disabilities are presented. The goal of this section is to show that despite there being evidence that about a quarter of the autistic population have an intellectual disability, this cohort is underrepresented within research about the autism spectrum. Two reasons for this discrepancy are then outlined. This chapter concludes with three suggestions for where more research can be conducted into autistics who have an intellectual disability.

The original contribution that this chapter makes to the field of autism research is to highlight the lack of literature about members of the autistic community who have an intellectual disability as well as presenting several reasons for this lack of research and directions for research in the future.

This chapter sought to answer the following questions: (a) what does special education means for students with intellectual disability?, (b) what is being done, and (c) how do we maintain tradition? The answers, while complicated, suggest special education for students with intellectual disability historically and currently involves attention to what, how, and where, with the how being the key elements of special education for students with intellectual disability. This chapter discussed the what, how, and where for students with intellectual disability in a historical and current framework while also providing evidence-based practices for students with intellectual disability to implement to maintain the tradition of high-quality services.

Assistive technology can support and enhance the learning, independence, and daily living skills of students with disabilities, including students with intellectual disability (ID). Assistive technology is not generally disability dependent; however, for students with ID we decided to focus on assistive technology across two areas: instructional aids – with a focus on reading, writing, and mathematics – and transition and independence. Throughout our focus on these two categories of assistive technology, we discuss low-tech, mid-tech, and high-tech options to support students with ID.

This chapter reviews the intervention research literature – particularly interventions deemed evidence-based – for students with intellectual disability across academic and life-skills instruction. Although the focus of this chapter is the spectrum of students covered under the term “intellectual disability,” the majority of research on evidence-based interventions for students with intellectual disability focus on students with more moderate and severe intellectual disability, rather than students with mild intellectual disability. The majority of the interventions determined to be evidence-based within the literature for students with intellectual disability – across both academic and life skills – tend to be those that fall within the purview of systematic instruction.

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.

Research on women’s health has increased substantially in the past decade, but this has not been paralleled in the area of developmental disabilities. In developmental disabilities research, there has been little attempt to disentangle the impact of age, intellectual disabilities, and other developmental disabilities on women’s health. The 1994–1995 Disability Supplement to the National Health Interview Survey, administered to a representative sample of the U.S. population, was used to describe the aging process in the community for women age 30 and older with mental retardation (MR), developmental disabilities (DD) or both (MR/DD). Definitions of MR and DD consistent with professional and legal standards were developed and adapted to the NHIS-D questions. Approximately 77 million civilian, non-institutionalized women in the United States were age 30 and older at the time of the survey. Among these women an estimated 0.56% have mental retardation or developmental disability. Compared with women in general, women with these disabilities were disproportionately absent in the community, had negative perceptions of their health status, and their health indicators tended to support these perceptions. Most women with these disabilities were independent in activities of daily living (ADL), but instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) posed more of a challenge, and limitations in major activities were common. Limitations in mobility were common among women with DD.

The term intellectual disability is broad and encompassing. Regardless of the severity of a child’s intellectual disability, early education is important. This chapter discusses educational considerations of young learners with intellectual disability. Specially, the chapter focuses on academics, life skills, social skills and social development, and behavior. Instructional content and instructional strategies are shared for these areas considering young children, although particular attention in paid to preschool and early elementary age students.

Parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities are frequently given news that is difficult to hear and can be very traumatic. Whether receiving an initial diagnosis for their baby or learning about guardianship options for their adult child, emotional reactions almost always occur, especially because of the interdependent relationship they have with their child. These emotions likely impact the meaning parents give to information and decisions they make for their children throughout their lives. Medical, education, and other support providers sometimes assume parents can objectively receive information that frequently is communicated in a technical and clinical way. They may not give parents the time to emotionally process what they have learned, limiting their ability to care for their child. This chapter presents the results from a series of focus groups with 21 parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities of varying ages. The participants discussed their emotional reactions to information communicated to them about medical, educational and social concerns related to their children. In addition, they discussed how emotions impacted their information processing and sensemaking as they gave meaning to what they learned. Analysis of the results identified eight emotion-based information processing and sensemaking themes that are described in detail. The discussion section provides an enhanced explanation for emotion's role in parental information processing and sensemaking. In addition, recommendations for providers communicating emotional information to parents are provided.