People with intellectual disability and blindness tend to be withdrawn and sedentary and fail to engage in activity.
Objective
This study assessed a technology system to support five of these people in gathering boxes with objects from a storage room and bringing them to different destination rooms.
Methods
The technology system involved barcodes, barcode readers, a smartphone, and mini speakers. At the start of a session, the system provided the participants with instructions to take a box from the storage room. Fifteen boxes marked with specific barcodes were available. The system (a) identified the box taken through barcode readers, (b) provided instructions (spatial cues) to guide the participants to the right destination room, and finally (c) delivered preferred stimulation. The same process was repeated for the following boxes.
Results
During baseline sessions without the system, the mean frequency of boxes managed successfully (collected, transported, and deposited independently) was zero or virtually zero. During the intervention sessions with the system, the participants’ mean frequency of boxes managed successfully increased to between nearly 12.5 and over 14 per session.
Conclusions
These findings suggest that the technology system might be a valid support for people like the participants of this study.
BossinkLWMvan der PuttenAAJVlaskampC. Understanding low levels of physical activity in people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators. Res Dev Disabil2017; 68: 95–110.
2.
ChannonA. Intellectual disability and activity engagement: exploring the literature from an occupational perspective. J Occup Sci2013; 21(4): 443–458.
3.
DairoYMCollettJDawesH, et al.Physical activity levels in adults with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Prev Med Rep2016; 4: 209–219.
4.
DairoYMCollettJDawesH. A feasibility study into the measurement of physical activity levels of adults with intellectual disabilities using accelerometers and the international physical activity questionnaire. Br J Learn Disabil2017; 45(2): 129–137.
5.
HeiderAECannella-MaloneHIAndzikNR. Effects of self-directed video prompting on vocational task acquisition. Career Dev Transit Except Individ2019; 42(2): 87–98.
6.
MelvilleCAOppewalAElinderLS, et al.Definitions, measurement and prevalence of sedentary behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Prev Med2017; 97: 62–71.
7.
WoutersMEvenhuisHMHilgenkampTIM. Physical activity levels of children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe intellectual disability. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil2019; 32(1): 131–142.
8.
BlaskowitzMGJohnsonKRBergfeltT, et al.Evidence to inform occupational therapy intervention with adults with intellectual disability: a scoping review. Am J Occup Ther2021; 75(3): 7503180010.
9.
DesideriLLancioniGMalavasiM, et al.Step-instruction technology to help people with intellec-tual and other disabilities perform multistep tasks: a literature review. J Dev Phys Disabil2021; 33(3): 857–886.
10.
KarhulaMEHeiskanenTSalminenAL. Systematic review: need for high-quality research on occupational therapy for children with intellectual disability. Scand J Occup Ther2021; 30(3): 261–277.
11.
MajnemerA. Importance of motivation to children’s participation: a motivation to change. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr2010; 31(1): 1–3.
12.
MahoneyWJRobertsEBryzeK, et al.Occupational engagement and adults with intellectual disabilities. Am J Occup Ther2016; 70(1): 7001350030p1–7001350030p6.
13.
HsuPJChouHSPanYH, et al.Sedentary time, physical activity levels and physical fitness in adults with intellectual disabilities. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2021; 18(9): 5033.
14.
HansenENordénHOhlssonML. Adolescents with intellectual disability (ID) and their perceptions of, and motivation for, physical activity and organised sports. Sport Educ Soc2021; 28(1): 59–72.
15.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMF, et al.Promoting physical activity in people with intellectual and multiple disabilities through a basic technology-aided program. J Intellect Disabil2018; 22(2): 113–124.
16.
LancioniGEAlbertiGFilippiniC, et al.Using simple interactive technology to help people with intellectual and visual disabilities exercise functional physical responses: a case series study. Technologies2023; 11(5): 120.
17.
SavageMNClarkTABaffoeE, et al.Technology-based physical health interventions for adults with intellectual disability: a scoping review. J Dev Phys Disabil2024; 36(6): 757–792.
18.
JacobUSPillayJJohnsonE, et al.A systematic review of physical activity: benefits and needs for maintenance of quality of life among adults with intellectual disability. Front Sports Act Living2023; 5: 1184946.
19.
DijkhuizenAHilgenkampTIMKrijnenWP, 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.
20.
DijkhuizenAWaningeAHermansS, et al.Progressive resistance training for persons with intellectual disabilities and visual impairment. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil2019; 32(5): 1194–1202.
21.
FellingerJ. Intellectual disability and sensory impairment. In: BertelliMODebSMunirK, et al. (eds). Textbook of psychiatry for intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. Springer, 2022, pp. 849–867.
22.
JarjouraW. Disorientation and loss of wayfinding in individuals with congenital blindness and other affecting comorbidities. Br J Vis Impair2019; 37(3): 240–247.
23.
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.
24.
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.
25.
LancioniGESinghNNO'ReillyMF, et al.Technology-aided spatial cues, instructions, and preferred stimulation for supporting people with intellectual and visual disabilities in their occupational engagement and mobility: usability study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol2021; 8(4): e33481.
26.
LancioniGEAlbertiGFilippiniC, et al.A technology system to help people with intellectual disability and blindness find room destinations during indoor traveling: case series study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol2024; 11: e65680.
27.
LancioniGEAlbertiGPezzuoliF, et al.Technology to enable people with intellectual disabilities and blindness to collect boxes with objects and transport them to different rooms of their daily context: a single-case research series. Technologies2025; 13(4): 131.
28.
ProfettoLGherardelliMIadanzaE. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in health care: where are we? A scoping review. Health Technol2022; 12(5): 879–891.
29.
BalboniGBelacchiCBonichiniS, et al.Vineland II. Vineland adaptive behavior scales. 2nd ed.Giunti, 2016. Standardizzazione Italiana.
30.
SparrowSSCicchettiDVBallaDA. Vineland adaptive behavior scales. 2nd ed.Pearson, 2005. Vineland II.
31.
EtikanIMusaSAAlkassimRS. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat2016; 5(1): 1–4.
32.
LedfordJRGastDL (eds). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. 3rd ed.Routledge, 2018.
33.
SlocumTAJoslynPRNicholsB, et al.Revisiting an analysis of threats to internal validity in multiple baseline designs. Perspect Behav Sci2022; 45(3): 681–694.
34.
StrainPFoxLBartonEE. On expanding the definition and use of procedural fidelity. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil2021; 46(2): 173–183.
35.
ManolovRTaniousR. Assessing nonoverlap in single-case data: strengths, challenges, and recommendations. J Behav Educ. 2024. doi:10.1007/s10864-024-09552-w.
36.
ParkerRIVannestKJDavisJL. Effect size in single-case research: a review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behav Modif2011; 35(4): 303–322.
37.
AshleyDFosseyEBigbyC. The home environments and occupational engagement of people with intellectual disabilities in supported living. Br J Occup Ther2019; 82(11): 698–709.
38.
Cannella-MaloneHISchaeferJM. A review of research on teaching people with significant disabilities vocational skills. Career Dev Transit Except Individ2017; 40(2): 67–78.
39.
LuthraR. Young adults with intellectual disability who are not in employment, education, or daily activities: family situation and its relation to occupational status. Cogent Soc Sci2019; 5(1): 1622484.
40.
BurnsJCarterADraperS, et al.Engaging and sustaining people with intellectual disabilities in physical activity: a narrative review of existing evidence. Int J Dev Disabil2022; 70(5): 803–813.
41.
HassanNMLandorfKBShieldsN, et al.Effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity in individuals with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. J Intellect Disabil Res2019; 63(2): 168–191.
42.
EvmenovaASGraffHJGenaroMV, et al.Designing a wearable technology intervention to support young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in inclusive postsecondary academic environments. J Spec Educ Technol2019; 34(2): 92–105.
43.
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: 4453.
44.
KapsalakisPNteropoulou-NterouE. Perspectives of adults with intellectual disabilities on quality of life: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2024; 21: 1186.
45.
Mumbard-AdamCVicenteEBalboniG. Self-determination and quality of life of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: past, present, and future of close research paths. J Pol Pract Intellect Disabil2024; 21(1): e12460.
46.
WehmeyerML. The importance of self-determination to the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: a perspective. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2020; 17(19): 7121.
PenningtonBSimacekJMcComasJ, et al.Maintenance and generalization in functional behavior assessment/behavior intervention plan literature. J Behav Educ2019; 28(1): 27–53.
49.
PierceWDCheneyCD. Behavior analysis and learning. 6th ed.Routledge, 2017.
50.
RameyDHealyOMcEnaneyE. Defining and measuring indices of happiness and unhappiness in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Behav Analyst Pract2023; 16(1): 194–209.
51.
FrounfelkerSABartoneA. The importance of dignity and choice for people assessed as having intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil2021; 25(4): 490–506.
52.
StancliffeRJWehmeyerMLShogrenKA, et al. (eds). Choice, preference, and disability. : Springer, 2020. Cham.
53.
StasollaFCaffòAOPerilliV, et al.Assistive technology for promoting adaptive skills of children with cerebral palsy: ten cases evaluation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2019; 14(5): 489–502.
54.
KazdinAE. Single-case research designs: methods for clinical and applied settings. 3rd ed.Oxford University Press, 2020.
55.
SlocumTAPinkelmanSEJoslynPR, et al.Threats to internal validity in multiple-baseline design variations. Perspect Behav Sci2022; 45(3): 619–638.
56.
WalkerSGCarrJE. Generality of findings from single-case designs: it’s not all about the “N.”. Behav Analyst Pract2021; 14(4): 991–995.
57.
CoieraETongHL. Replication studies in the clinical decision support literature–frequency, fidelity, and impact. J Am Med Inf Assoc2021; 28(9): 1815–1825.
58.
TaniousRManolovROnghenaP, et al.Single-case experimental designs: the importance of randomization and replication. Nat Rev Methods Primers2024; 34(4): 100511.
59.
StasollaFCaffòAOPerilliV, et al.Supporting locomotion fluency of six children with Cornelia de Lange syndrome: awareness of microswitch responding and social validation. Technol Disabil2019; 30(4): 209–220.
60.
WorthenDLuiselliJK. Comparative effects and social validation of support strategies to promote mindfulness practices among high school students. Child Fam Behav Ther2019; 41(4): 221–236.
