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).

People with developmental disabilities have persistent levels of low employment and employment rates among the working-aged disabled are declining (see Bound & Waidmann, 2002). For example, the average employment rate of those graduating with a four-year degree is just under 90% while employment rates for those graduates with a disability hover around 50% (The Center for an Accessible Society, n.d.). Subsequently, people with disabilities often have a difficult time becoming economically self-sufficient (see National Council on Disability, 2000; Sowers, McLean, & Owens, 2002). The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) is one notable attempt to help provide those with a disability to employment access. While the ADA has been a champion of the cause, people with developmental disabilities still face a host of employment-related barriers (e.g., biases associated with the disability) (see DiLeo, 2007; Luecking & Mooney, 2002). Furthermore, while most people have concerns over retirement (e.g., social isolation) those concerns are exacerbated for people with developmental disabilities (see Hodges & Luken, 2006).

The study aims to qualitatively analyze how faculty can mobilize the intellectual capital of higher education institutions (HEIs), comprising human, structural and relational capital to enable the education and learning of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Drawing upon the extant literature, the researcher conducted a qualitative study through written, in-depth interviews with a sample of 40 academic staff/faculty members having prior experience in teaching individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The data was collected through a set of questions formulated as key questions, to be asked to all participants for their responses.

Results of the analysis demonstrated that intellectual capital’s contribution to higher education of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities can be best understood in terms of its three components/dimensions. Accordingly, three main themes, with each comprising two sub-themes were uncovered. The first theme, leveraging human capital comprised: faculty acumen and faculty training as sub-themes; the second theme, resourcing structural capital comprised: tangible and intangible structural capital as sub-themes; and the third theme, nurturing relational capital comprised: in-class engagement and the second is ex-class connection as sub-themes.

The paper collects data from 40 faculty having prior experience in teaching individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to explore and reveal a completely new perspective of looking at intellectual capital as a means of providing accessible and inclusive higher education to differently-abled students, making them a part of the mainstream.

The transition from school to work or to post-secondary training is a critical period for all students (Gilmore, Bose, & Hart, 2001; Zaft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004). Thus, a challenge for educators is to develop educational programs and services that embrace the characteristics that is prevalent in highly successful adults with and without disabilities. For years, adolescents and adults with development disabilities did not receive much attention from general or special educators. Fortunately, special educators now are reorganizing the complex needs of these older individuals and are making progress in designing interventions to meet their diverse needs. However, they alone cannot ensure the success of these students in secondary and post-secondary situations (see Hart, Mele-McCarthy, Pasternack, Zimbrich, & Parker, 2004). Legislators and policymakers must consider the special needs of this population in reforming secondary education; and general and special educators must share the responsibility of preparing them for graduation and post-secondary planning (see Bailey, Hughes, & Karp, 2004). In addition, community services must join forces with educators and employers to provide individuals with developmental disabilities with a continuum of services throughout their life span. Many students with developmental disabilities find themselves unprepared at college entry in a number of areas including inadequate knowledge of subject content, underachieving in academic skills, poor organizational skills (e.g., time management and study skills), poor test taking skills, lack of assertiveness, and low self-esteem (Dalke & Schmitt, 1987; Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001; Stodden & Whelley, 2004).

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.

This paper examines how developmental risk factors associated with depression in typically developing adolescents may interact with the particular life experience of adolescents with intellectual disabilities and influence vulnerability to depression. We suggest that a consideration of developmental factors and their interaction with the person's social environment may offer a possible framework for prevention and early intervention with adolescents with intellectual disabilities.

Library programs for developmentally disabled adults are essential for community enrichment. When the author created a program for her local library in 2014, she was a little alarmed by how few programs existed. Over the past few years, the author has seen a greater interest in programming for adults with developmental disabilities, but librarians have questions about where to get started. There are programs currently that are already available for those who want to engage developmentally disabled adults; however, librarians may also opt to create a program from scratch. For librarians who have never worked with developmentally disabled adults, there is some training available although it may not be what librarians really desire or need. The best opportunity to create beneficial programs is to collaborate with community partners such as local day training centers and schools.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the key themes highlighted by Collins et al., in light of the wider research evidence base on informal sources of support for families of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

This commentary reflects on the provision of informal support services for families of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The wider literature highlights the key role of family support in shifting negative narratives concerning parenting a child with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the impact of austerity and COVID-19 on support provision and the importance of services working effectively in collaboration to promote self-determination for families and individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Continued efforts to explore how services and informal social supports might work together in an effective manner are key to improving the quality of life of parents caring for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities.