The quality, number and content of residential IHP objectives were evaluated for 155 adult institution and community residents. Quality was assessed against 23 quality indicators drawn from 5 quality domains. Over 90% of objectives were functional and age appropriate. Most satisfied the three classic elements of technical adequacy — behavior observable (83%), conditions specified (90%), and performance criteria (73%). However, few objectives satisfied quality indicators in the teaching methods and data collection domains. Community residents had significantly more IHP objectives than institution dwellers and also had objectives from a wider variety of content areas. More community residents had IHP objectives concerning meal planning, self-care, community participation, money management, and household chores. Community and institution residents did not differ on three quality domains - functionality, teaching methods, and data collection. Institutional IHPs scored higher on technical adequacy, while community IHPs did better on community focus. Content and quantity of objectives appeared to reflect environmental opportunities and constraints. The validity of quality indicators was discussed as well as the need to focus on outcomes rather than on process variables when evaluating IHPs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsleyF. F., & KelleyB. (1994). An examination of the acceptability of instructional practices for students with severe disabilities in general education settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 75–83.
2.
BruininksR. H., HillB. K., WeathermanR. F., & WoodcockR. W. (1986). Examiner's manual. ICAP Inventory for Client and Agency Planning. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
3.
CumminsR. A., BaxterC., HudsonA., & JauernigR. (1996). A model system for the evaluation of individual program plans. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 21, 59–70.
4.
DagnanD. J., & SturmeyP. (1994). Validation of technical criteria for setting IPP goals for persons with developmental disabilities in residential settings. Behavioral Interventions, 9, 67–73.
5.
DePaepeP., ReichleJ., DossS., ShrinerC. L., & CameronJ. (1994). A preliminary evaluation of written individualized habilitation objectives and their correspondence with direct implementation. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 94–104.
6.
Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration. (1988, June 3). Medicaid program: Conditions for Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded. Federal Register, 53 (107), 20,448–20,505.
7.
DowningJ. (1988). Active versus passive programming: A critique of IEP objectives for students with the most severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 197–201.
8.
FelceD., de KockU., MansellJ., & JenkinsJ. (1984). Providing systematic individual teaching for severely disturbed and profoundly mentally handicapped adults in residential care. Behaviour, Research and Therapy, 22, 229–309.
9.
HaydenM. F., DePaepeP., SoulenT., & PolisterB. (1995). Deinstitutionalization and community integration of adults with mental retardation: Summary and comparison of the baseline and one-year follow-up residential data for the Minnesota Longitudinal Study. Project report 1. Minneapolis, MN: Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living, University of Minnesota.
10.
HaydenM. F., SoulenT., SchleienS. J., & TabourneC. E. S. (1996). A matched, comparative study of the recreation integration of adults with mental retardation who moved into the community and those who remained at the institution. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30, 41–63.
11.
HornerR. H., ThompsenL. S., & StoreyK. (1990). Effects of case manager feedback on the quality of individual habilitation plan objectives. Mental Retardation, 28, 227–231.
12.
LarsonS., & LakinK. C. (1989). Deinstitutionalization of persons with mental retardation: Behavioral outcomes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 324–332.
13.
Legal Advocacy for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. (1989). Individual habilitation plan review. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
14.
MaletteP., MirendaP., KandborgT., JonesP., BunzT., & RogowS. (1992). Application of a lifestyle development process for persons with severe intellectual disabilities: A case study report. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 179–191.
15.
MountB. (1987). Personal futures planning: Finding directions for change (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Information Service.
16.
MeyerL. H., EichingerJ., & Park-LeeS. (1987). A validation of program quality indicators in educational services for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 251–263.
17.
NewtonJ. S., HornerR. H., & LundL. (1991). Honoring activity preferences in individualized plan development: A descriptive analysis. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 207–212.
18.
NewtonJ. S., StonerS. K., BellamyG. T., BolesS. M., HornerR. H., LeBaronN. M., MoskowitzD., RomerL., & SchlesingerD. (1988). Valued outcomes information system (VOIS) operations manual. Eugene: University of Oregon, Center on Human Development.
19.
RodgerS. (1995). Individual education plans revisited: A review of the literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 42, 221–239.
20.
ShaddockA. J., & BramstonP. (1991). Individual service plans: The policy-practice gap. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17, 73–80.
21.
SigafoosJ., KignerJ., HoltK., DossS., & MustonenT. (1991). Improving the quality of written developmental policies for adults with intellectual disabilities. The British Journal of Mental Subnormality, 37, 35–46.
22.
SmithS. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education - From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 56, 6–14.
23.
StancliffeR. J., & AberyB. H. (1997). Longitudinal study of deinstitutionalization and the exercise of choice. Mental Retardation, 35, 159–169.
24.
StancliffeR. J., HaydenM. F., & LakinK. C. (in press). Effectiveness and quality of individual planning in residential settings: An analysis of outcomes. Mental Retardation.
25.
StancliffeR. J., & LakinK. C. (1998). Analysis of expenditures and outcomes of residential alternatives for persons with developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102, 552–568.
26.
StancliffeR. J., & LakinK. C. (in press). A longitudinal comparison of day program services and outcomes of people who left institutions and those who stayed. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
27.
WeisenfeldR. B. (1987). Functionality of the IEPs of children with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 25, 281–286.
