Application of a Lifestyle Development Process for Persons with Severe Intellectual Disabilities: A Case Study Report

This report summarizes the results of four data-based case studies that examined the efficacy of the Lifestyle Development Process (LDP) for persons with severe disabilities. The process involves five steps, described in detail in the paper. The planning process was implemented by means of a consultant model, and involved planning meetings, on-site visits, in-service training, problem solving, written program planning, and demonstrations of instructional techniques. The consulting teams were composed of educational and behavioral consultants. Four persons with severe disabilities and challenging behaviors were participants. These individuals resided in four communities in the Province of British Columbia, and received consultative services from 1989 through 1991. All four individuals engaged in a greater number of preferred, integrated activities during the mid- and posttests than at baseline. Their social networks and program quality scores also showed various degrees of improvement. The behavior problems that were reported at the referral stage were substantially reduced at the posttest for all individuals. These results are discussed in relation to previous research in the areas of lifestyle planning and behavior management. Problems in implementing the process by means of a consultant model are also discussed, and areas for future research are identified.

[1]  T. Vandercook,et al.  The McGill Action Planning System (MAPS): A Strategy for Building the Vision , 1989 .

[2]  W. Sailor,et al.  Crossmodal Transfer of Stimulus Control: Preparing Students with Severe Multiple Disabilities for Audiological Assessment , 1983 .

[3]  Manuel Barrera,et al.  Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models , 1986 .

[4]  J. Gallessich.  Toward a Meta-Theory of Consultation , 1985 .

[5]  Robert E. Williams,et al.  Communication Options for Persons with Severe and Profound Disabilities: State of the Art and Future Directions , 1990 .

[6]  D. Guess,et al.  Concepts and Issues Related to Choice-Making and Autonomy among Persons with Severe Disabilities , 1985 .

[7]  J. Eichinger,et al.  A Validation of Program Quality Indicators in Educational Services for Students with Severe Disabilities , 1987 .

[8]  F. Billingsley,et al.  Response Prompting and the Transfer of Stimulus Control: Methods, Research, and a Conceptual Framework , 1983 .

[9]  P. Hunt,et al.  Acquisition of Conversation Skills and the Reduction of Inappropriate Social Interaction Behaviors , 1988 .

[10]  J. S. Newton,et al.  Measuring the Activity Patterns of Adults with Severe Disabilities Using the Resident Lifestyle Inventory , 1990 .

[11]  Alice Udvari-Solner,et al.  How Much Time Should Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities Spend in Regular Education Classrooms and Elsewhere? , 1991 .

[12]  J. S. Newton,et al.  The Social Networks and Activity Patterns of Adults with Severe Disabilities: A Correlational Analysis , 1990 .

[13]  P. Hunt,et al.  The Quality of IEP Objectives Associated with Placement on Integrated versus Segregated School Sites , 1986 .

[14]  J. Nisbet,et al.  The Critical Need for Nonschool Instruction in Educational Programs for Severely Handicapped Students , 1983 .