People with intellectual disability and severe visual impairment or blindness tend to have low levels of functional activity engagement and low levels of mobility/ambulation.
Objective
The study assessed a new technology-aided program to support four adults with intellectual disability and blindness in their activity and mobility engagement.
Methods
The program was implemented following single-case research methodology. The activity consisted of completing object kits. The objects needed for the kits were distributed over a relatively large space and the participants moved around that space to collect them and distribute them in the kits. The program (a) was based on the use of a smartphone, tags with radio frequency identification codes, and a tag reader linked to the smartphone, and (b) ensured that the participants would receive physical support, verbal instructions, and preferred stimulation.
Results
During the baseline phase (without the program), the participants were unable to engage in activity and mobility. During the intervention (using the program), all participants managed to engage in activity and mobility correctly completing the object kits available during the sessions.
Conclusions
The results suggest that the program might be useful to support activity and mobility in people like the participants of this study.
ChannonA. Intellectual disability and activity engagement: exploring the literature from an occupational perspective. J Occup Sci2013; 21(4): 443–458. DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2013.829398.
2.
DijkhuizenAHilgenkampTIKrijnenWP, et al.The impact of visual impairment on the ability to perform activities of daily living for persons with severe/profound intellectual disability. Res Dev Disabil2016; 48: 35–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.001.
3.
FellingerJ. Intellectual disability and sensory impairment. In: BertelliMODebSMunirK, et al. (eds) Textbook of psychiatry for intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. New York, NY: Springer, 2022, pp. 849–867. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_33.
4.
ChangY-JWangT-Y. Indoor wayfinding based on wireless sensor networks for individuals with multiple special needs. Cybern Syst2010; 41(4): 317–333. DOI: 10.1080/01969721003778584.
5.
EnkelaarLOosterom-CaloRZhouD, et al.The LEDs move pilot study: the Light Curtain and physical activity and well-being among people with visual and intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res2021; 65(11): 971–988. DOI: 10.1111/jir.12882.
6.
TaylorMJTaylorDGamboaP, et al.Using motion-sensor games to encourage physical activity for adults with intellectual disability. Stud Health Technol Inf2016; 220: 417–423.
7.
JarjouraW. Disorientation and loss of wayfinding in individuals with congenital blindness and other affecting comorbidities. Br J Vis Impair2019; 37(3): 240–247. DOI: 10.1177/0264619619861653.
8.
LindsayRKDi GennaroFAllenPM, et al.Correlates of physical activity among adults with sight loss in high-income-countries: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2021; 18(22): 11763. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182211763.
9.
MelvilleCAOppewalAElinderLS, et al.Definitions, measurement and prevalence of sedentary behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Prev Med2017; 97: 62–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.052.
10.
ParkerAT. Orientation and mobility with persons who are deaf-blind: an initial examination of single-subject design research. J Vis Impair Blind (JVIB)2009; 103(6): 372–377. DOI: 10.1177/0145482X091030.
11.
KuriakoseBShresthaRSandnesFE. Tools and technologies for blind and visually impaired navigation support: a review. IETE Tech Rev2022; 39(1): 3–18. DOI: 10.1080/02564602.2020.1819893.
12.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMF, et al.Fostering functional occupation and mobility in people with intellectual disability and visual impairment through technology-aided support. Adv Neurodev Disord2023; 7(3): 392–402. DOI: 10.1007/s41252-022-00250-0.
13.
MarmeleiraJLaranjoLMarquesO, et al.Criterion-related validity of the short form of the international physical activity questionnaire in adults who are blind. J Vis Impair Blind (JVIB)2013; 107(5): 375–381. DOI: 10.1177/0145482X1310700506.
14.
SenjamSSMannaSBascaranC. Smartphones-based assistive technology: accessibility features and apps for people with visual impairment, and its usage, challenges, and usability testing. Clin Optom2021; 13: 311–322. DOI: 10.2147/OPTO.S336361.
15.
HanzenGWaningeAVlaskampC, et al.Participation of adults with visual and severe or profound intellectual disabilities: analysis of individual support plans. Res Dev Disabil2018; 83: 132–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.08.012.
16.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMF, et al.Helping people with multiple disabilities manage an assembly task and mobility via technology-regulated sequence cues and contingent stimulation. Life Span Disabil2018; 21(2): 143–163.
17.
ParkerA. Considering a practical orientation and mobility framework to design communication interventions for people with visual impairments, deafblindness, and multiple disabilities. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups2017; 2(12): 89–97. DOI: 10.1044/persp2.SIG12.89.
18.
SzaboJPanikkarRK. Bridging the gap between physical therapy and orientation and mobility in schools: using a collaborative team approach for students with visual impairments. J Vis Impair Blind (JVIB)2017; 111(6): 495–510. DOI: 10.1177/0145482X1711100602.
19.
PeytonDJAcostaKHarveyA, et al.Special education teacher shortage: differences between high and low shortage states. Teach Educ Spec Educ2021; 44(1): 5–23. DOI: 10.1177/0888406420906618.
20.
HanzenGvan NispenRMVlaskampC, et al.Improving the participation of adults with visual and severe or profound intellectual disabilities: a process evaluation of a new intervention. BMC Health Serv Res2020; 20(1): 319. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05161-1.
21.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMF, et al.Orientation technology to help persons with blindness and multiple disabilities manage indoor travel and travel-related anxiety. J Intellect Dev Disabil2014; 39(2): 198–205. DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2014.902429.
22.
TorradoJCMontoroGGomezJ. Easing the integration: a feasible indoor wayfinding system for cognitive impaired people. Pervasive Mob Comput2016; 31: 137–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2016.02.03.
23.
DesideriLLancioniGMalavasiM, et al.Step-instruction technology to help people with intellectual and other disabilities perform multistep tasks: a literature review. J Dev Phys Disabil2021; 33(3): 857–886. DOI: 10.1007/s10882-020-09781-7.
24.
HeiderAECannella-MaloneHIAndzikNR. Effects of self-directed video prompting on vocational task acquisition. Career Dev Transit Except Individ2019; 42(2): 87–98. DOI: 10.1177/2165143417752901.
25.
JohnsonKRBlaskowitzMGMahoneyWJ. Technology for adults with intellectual disability: secondary analysis of a scoping review. Can J Occup Ther2023; 90(4): 395–404. DOI: 10.1177/00084174231160975.
26.
CuturiLFAggius-VellaECampusC, et al.From science to technology: orientation and mobility in blind children and adults. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2016; 71: 240–251. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.019.
27.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMF, et al.A technology-aided program to support occupational engagement and mobility in persons with multiple disabilities. Front Public Health2017; 5: 338. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00338.
28.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMF, et al.Use of everyday technology to promote ambulation in people with intellectual and multiple disabilities. Technol Disabil2021; 33(3): 229–236. DOI: 10.3233/TAD-210336.
29.
NairVOlmschenkGSeipleWH, et al.ASSIST: evaluating the usability and performance of an indoor navigation assistant for blind and visually impaired people. Assist Technol2022; 34(3): 289–299. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2020.1809553.
30.
LancioniGEO’ReillyMFSigafoosJ, et al.Smartphone-based technology to support functional occupation and mobility in people with intellectual disability and visual impairment. Adv Neurodev Disord2019; 3(4): 334–342. DOI: 10.1007/s41252-019-00120-2.
PezzuoliFCoronaDCorradiniML. Improvements in a wearable device for sign language translation. In: AhramT (ed). Advances in Human Factors in wearable technologies and game design. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, vol 973, pp. 70–81. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20476-1_9.
34.
FilippiniCLancioniGEAlbertiG, et al.A Technology aid to help people with blindness and moderate intellectual disability retrieve common objects from storage units: a Proof-of-concept study. Sensors2024; 24(14): 4453. DOI: 10.3390/s24144453.
35.
LancioniGEDesideriLSinghNN, et al.A commentary on standards for single-case experimental studies. Int J Dev Disabil2022; 68: 781–783. DOI: 10.1080/20473869.2020.1870420.
36.
LedfordJRGastDL (eds) Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. 3rd ed.New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.
37.
St PeterCC. On the importance of fidelity, integrity, and adherence in behavior-analytic publications: an introduction to the special issue on procedural fidelity. Educ Treat Child2023; 46: 195–199. DOI: 10.1007/s43494-023-00105-w.
38.
ParkerRIVannestKJDavisJL. Effect size in single-case research: a review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behav Modif2011; 35(4): 303–322. DOI: 10.1177/0145445511399147.
39.
Beadle-BrownJLeighJWheltonB, et al.Quality of life and quality of support for people with severe intellectual disability and complex needs. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil2016; 29(5): 409–421. DOI: 10.1111/jar.12200.
40.
HobeikaLGhilainMSchiaraturaL, et al.Socio-emotional and motor engagement during musical activities in older adults with major neurocognitive impairment. Sci Rep2021; 11(1): 15291. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94686-4.
41.
KocmanAWeberG. Job satisfaction, quality of work life and work motivation in employees with intellectual disability: a systematic review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil2018; 31(1): 1–22. DOI: 10.1111/jar.12319.
42.
AbdiSKitsaraIHawleyMS, et al.Emerging technologies and their potential for generating new assistive technologies. Assist Technol2021; 33(Sup 1): 17–26. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2021.1945704.
43.
GooMMaurerALWehmeyerML. Systematic review of using portable smart devices to teach functional skills to students with intellectual disability. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil2019; 54(1): 57–68.
44.
HowardJFisherZKempAH, et al.Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2022; 17(4): 390–408. DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2020.1788181.
45.
MishraSLaplante-LévesqueABarbareschiG, et al.Assistive technology needs, access and coverage, and related barriers and facilitators in the WHO European region: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2024; 19(2): 474–485. DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2022.2099021.
46.
CoieraETongHL. Replication studies in the clinical decision support literature–frequency, fidelity, and impact. J Am Med Inf Assoc2021; 28(9): 1815–1825. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocab049.
47.
LoceyML. The evolution of behavior analysis: toward a replication crisis?Perspect Behav Sci2020; 43(4): 655–675. DOI: 10.1007/s40614-020-00264-w.
48.
PluckerJAMakelMC. Replication is important for educational psychology: recent developments and key issues. Educ Psychol2021; 56(2): 90–100. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796.
49.
CooperJOHeronTEHewardWL. Applied behavior analysis. 3rd ed.New York, NY: Pearson, 2019.
50.
PierceWDCheneyCD. Behavior analysis and learning. 6th ed.New York, NY: Routledge, 2017.
51.
KåhlinIKjellbergAHagbergJE. Choice and control for people ageing with intellectual disability in group homes. Scand J Occup Ther2016; 23(2): 127–137. DOI: 10.3109/11038128.2015.1095235.
52.
KhemkaIHicksonL (eds) Decision making by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. New York, NY: Springer, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-74675-9_23.
53.
LewisJR. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Int J Hum-Comp Inter2018; 34(7): 577–590. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307.
54.
ShlesingerABirdFHarperJM, et al.Computer-assisted well-body assessment of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: program description, implementation integrity, and social validation. J Dev Phys Disabil2022; 34(3): 693–704. DOI: 10.1007/s10882-021-09821-w.
55.
StasollaFCaffòAOPerilliV, et al.Experimental examination and social validation of a microswitch intervention to improve choice-making and activity engagement for six girls with Rett Syndrome. Dev Neurorehabilit2019; 22(8): 527–541. DOI: 10.1080/17518423.2019.1624655.
