Technology-aided programs have typically been used to support either leisure or functional activity engagement. Yet, supporting both types of engagement would be highly relevant within applied contexts.
OBJECTIVE:
This study was aimed at assessing two versions of a technology-aided program designed to support combinations of leisure and functional activity engagement with seven participants with intellectual disability and sensory or sensory-motor impairment.
METHODS:
The first version was assessed with four participants and included a computer system presenting leisure categories (e.g., music and family slides), a microswitch whereby the participants could choose among those categories and related stimuli, and a tablet device with pictorial activity instructions. The second version was assessed with three participants, who possessed only basic choice and activity skills, and presented the leisure stimuli individually and did not include the tablet.
RESULTS:
Participants learned to use the respective program versions and their independent leisure and activity engagement times increased from zero during baseline to means of 9-13 min and 8-15 min per session, respectively, with the program. Mean session lengths varied between 24 and 31 min.
CONCLUSIONS:
The program versions seem suited to support combinations of leisure and functional activity engagement in persons with multiple disabilities.
AxelssonAKGranlundM. Engagement in family activities: A quantitative, comparative study of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities and children with typical development. Child Care Health Dev.2013; 39: 523-534.
2.
BadiaMOrgazBMVerdugoMAUllánAMMartínezMM. Personal factors and perceived barriers to participation in leisure activities for young and adults with developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil.2011; 32: 2055-2063.
3.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMFGreenVOlivaDBuonocuntoF, et al. Technology-based programs to support forms of leisure engagement and communication for persons with multiple disabilities: Two single-case studies. Dev Neurorehabil.2012; 15: 209-218.
4.
ShihCHChangML. A wireless object location detector enabling people with developmental disabilities to control environmental stimulation through simple occupational activities with Nintendo Wii Balance Boards. Res Dev Disabil.2012; 33: 983-989.
5.
ShihCTShihCHLuo,CH. Assisting people with disabilities in actively performing physical activities by controlling the preferred environmental stimulation with a gyration air mouse. Res Dev Disabil.2013; 34: 4328-4333.
6.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMFSigafoosJ. Assistive technology for behavioral interventions for persons with severe/profound multiple disabilities: A selective overview. Eur J Behav Anal.2011; 12: 7-26.
7.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMFSigafoosJBoccasiniAPerilliV, et al. Persons with multiple disabilities manage positive leisure and communication engagement through a technology-aided program. Int J Dev Disabil.2017; 63: 148-157.
8.
NäslundRGardelliÅ. ‘I know, I can, I will try’: Youths and adults with intellectual disabilities in Sweden using information and communication technology in their everyday life. Disabil Soc.2013; 28: 28-40.
9.
SutherlandDvan der MeerLSigafoosJMirfin-VeitchBMilnerPO’ReillyMF, et al. Survey of AAC needs for adults with intellectual disability in New Zealand. J of Dev Phys Disabil.2014; 26: 115-122.
10.
TaylorJLHodappRM. Doing nothing: Adults with disabilities with no daily activities and their siblings. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil.2012; 117: 67-79.
11.
BadiaMOrgazMBVerdugoMAUllánAMMartínezM. Relationships between leisure participation and quality of life of people with developmental disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil.2013; 26: 533-545.
12.
BrownIHattonCEmersonE. Quality of life indicators for individuals with intellectual disabilities: extending current practice. Intellect Dev Disabil.2013; 51: 316-332.
13.
ChannonA. Intellectual disability and activity engagement: exploring the literature from an occupational perspective. J Occup Sci.2014; 21: 443-458.
14.
DusseljeeJCERijkenPMCardolMCurfsLMGGroenewegenPP. Participation in daytime activities among people with mild or moderate intellectual disability. J of Intellect Disabil Res.2011; 55: 4-18.
15.
FoleyAFerriBA. Technology for people, not disabilities: Ensuring access and inclusion. J Res in Spec Educ Needs.2012; 12: 192-200.
16.
PetersonJJPetersonNALoweJBNothwehrFK. Promoting leisure physical activity participation among adults with intellectual disabilities: Validation of self-efficacy and social support scales. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil.2009; 22: 487-497.
17.
ColemanMBCramerESParkYBellSM. Art educators’ use of adaptations, assistive technology, and special education support for students with physical, visual, severe and multiple disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil.2015; 27: 637-660.
18.
DesideriLBizzarriMBitelliCRoentgenUGelderblomGJ, de WitteL. Implementing a routine outcome assessment procedure to evaluate the quality of assistive technology service delivery for children with physical or multiple disabilities: Perceived effectiveness, social cost, and user satisfaction. Assist Technol.2016; 28: 30-40.
19.
DesideriLStefanelliBBitelliCRoentgenUGelderblomGJ, de WitteL. Satisfaction of users with assistive technology service delivery: An exploratory analysis of experiences of parents of children with physical and multiple disabilities. Dev Neurorehabil.2016; 19: 255-266.
20.
LancioniGEO’ReillyMFSinghNNSigafoosJBoccasiniA, MartireML, et al. Technology to support positive occupational engagement and communication in persons with multiple disabilities. Int J Disabil Hum Dev.2016; 15: 111-116.
21.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMFSigafoosJAlbertiGBoccasiniA, et al. Assistive technology to support occupational engagement and mobility in persons with multiple disabilities. Life Span Disabil.2015; 18: 119-139.
22.
MihalidisAMelonisMKeyfitzRLanningM, VuurenSBodineC. A nonlinear contextually aware prompting system (N-CAPS) to assist workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities to perform factory assembly tasks: System overview and pilot testing. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol.2016; 11: 604-612.
23.
LancioniGESinghNNO’ReillyMFSigafoosJBoccasiniA, MartireML, et al. People with multiple disabilities use assistive technology to perform complex activities at the appropriate time. Int J Disabil Hum Dev.2016; 15: 261-266.
24.
CataniaAC. Learning. 5th ed. New York: Sloan;2012.
25.
PierceWDCheneyCD. Behavior analysis and learning. 4th ed., New York: Psychology Press; 2008.
26.
PedhazurESchmelkinL. Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 1991.
BarlowDHNockMHersenM. Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. 3rd ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon; 2009.
29.
SiegelSCastellanNJ. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1988.
30.
Cannella-MaloneHIBrooksDGTullisCA. Using self-directed video prompting to teach students with intellectual disabilities. J Behav Educ.2013; 22: 169-189.
31.
KagoharaDM. Three students with developmental disabilities learn to operate an iPod to access age-appropriate entertainment videos. J Behav Educ.2011; 20: 33-43.
32.
KagoharaDMvan der MeerLRamdossSO’RellyMFLancioniGEDavisTN, et al. Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Res Dev Disabil.2013; 34: 147-156.
33.
SchreuerNKeterASachsD. Accessibility to information and communication technology for the social participation of youths with disabilities: A two-way street. Behav Sci Law.2014; 32: 76-93.
34.
AndersonWLWienerJM. The impact of assistive technologies on formal and informal home care. Gerontologist.2015; 55: 422-433.
35.
BorgestigMSandqvistJAhlstenGFalkmerTHemmingssonH. Gaze-based assistive technology in daily activities in children with severe physical impairments – An intervention study. Dev Neurorehabil.2017; 20: 129-141.
36.
LeopoldALourieAPetrasHEliasE. The use of assistive technology for cognition to support the performance of daily activities for individuals with cognitive disabilities due to traumatic brain injury: The current state of the research. Neuro Rehabilitation.2015; 37: 359-378.
37.
LancioniGESigafoosJO’ReillyMFSinghNN. Assistive technology: Interventions for individuals with severe/profound and multiple disabilities. New York: Springer; 2013.
38.
EricksonGHellersteinDJ. Behavioral activation therapy for remediating persistent social deficits in medication-responsive chronic depression. J Psychiatr Pract.2011; 17: 161-169.
39.
HopkoDRArmentoMEACantuMSChambersLLLejuezCW. The use of daily dairies to assess the relations among mood state, overt behavior, and reward value of activities. Behav Res Ther.2003; 41: 1137-1148.
40.
TullisCACannella-MaloneHIBasbigillARYeagerAFlemingCVPayneD, et al. Review of the choice and preference assessment literature for individuals with severe to profound disabilities. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil.2011; 46: 576-595.
41.
KazdinAE. Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. 2th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.
42.
MakelMCPluckerJA. Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educ Res.2014; 43: 304-316.
43.
DillonCMCarrJE. Assessing indices of happiness and unhappiness in individuals with developmental disabilities: A review. Behav Interv.2007; 22: 229-244.
44.
Virués-OrtegaJPritchardKGrantRLNorthSHurtado-ParradoCLeeMSH, et al. Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. American J Intellect Dev Disabil.2014; 119: 151-170.
45.
HallJMorganRLSalzbergCL. Job-preference and job-matching assessment results and their association with job performance and satisfaction among young adults with developmental disabilities. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil.2014; 49: 301-312.
46.
LamontagneMERouthierFAugerC. Team consensus concerning important outcomes for augmentative and alternative communication assistive technologies: A pilot study. Augment Altern Commun.2013; 29: 182-189.
47.
LuiselliJKBassJDWhitcombSA. Teaching applied behavior analysis knowledge competencies to direct-care service providers: Outcome assessment and social validation. Behav Modif.2010; 34: 403-414.
LimaMSilvaKAmaralIMagalhãesAde SousaL. Beyond behavioural observations: A deeper view through the sensory reactions of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Child Care Health Dev.2013; 39: 422-431.
50.
SchererMJCraddockGMackeoghT. The relationship of personal factors and subjective well-being to the use of assistive technology devices. Disabil Rehabil.2011; 33: 811-817.
SanettiLMHCollier-MeekMA. Increasing the rigor of procedural fidelity assessment: An empirical comparison of direct observation and permanent product review methods. J Behav Educ.2014; 23: 60-88.
53.
DarciSTaylorTGreenJ. ‘But I can do the job’: Examining disability employment practice through human rights complaint cases. Disabil Soc.2016; 31: 1242-1274.
54.
HoppenbrouwersGStewartHKernotI. Determining the content validity, inter-rater reliability and usability of the Novita Switch Record Form. Technol Disabil.2016; 28: 1-11.
55.
O’RourkePEkinsRTimminsBTimminsFLongSCoyleE. Crucial design issues for special access technology: A Delphi study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assist Technol.2014; 9: 48-59.
56.
RytterströmPBorgestigMHemmingssonH. Teachers’ experiences of using eye gaze-controlled computers for pupils with severe motor impairments and without speech. Eur J Spec Needs Educ.2016; 31: 506-519.
57.
WuPFWheatonJECannella-MaloneHI. Effects of video prompting and activity schedules on the acquisition of independent living skills of students who are deaf and have developmental disabilities. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil.2016; 51: 366-378.
