Research in active support

The active support model (AS) was developed and refined by researchers and practitioners in the UK during the 1980s and 1990s in the context of community group homes for people with intellectual disability. More recently, there has been considerable interest in this approach around the world, with research and/or applied work under way in the UK, the Netherlands, the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. This Special Issue on active support is a reflection of the growing international interest in AS. In their review article, Stancliffe, Jones, Mansell, and Lowe (pp. 196–214) draw attention to questions which have received limited research attention to date: issues related to AS training, service management and practice leadership, staff and client views of AS, outcomes (e.g., choice), and research methods. A number of these issues are also addressed by other papers in the Special Issue. A common thread running through these studies is how AS works and how it can work more effectively. One important question relates to the components of AS training and whether they are each necessary or sufficient to yield positive outcomes such as increased staff assistance and greater client participation in activities. Two studies in this Special Issue examine a central component of AS training: onsite (interactive) training. This training is provided individually to staff in situ (i.e., in the group home), and involves coaching using real activities with real clients in real situations. A focus on interactive training is of particular interest because previous studies by Smith, Felce, Jones, and Lowe (2002) and Jones et al. (2001) have shown that partial AS training – that is, classroom training alone without onsite interactive training – does not result in desired staff or client outcomes. Toogood (pp. 215–224) evaluates the impact of providing onsite interactive training independently of other AS training (e.g., classroom training), and shows that interactive training is followed by increases in both day-to-day staff assistance and client participation in activities. Importantly, staff views about their experience of onsite interactive training are generally positive, and indicate that staff perceive such training to be both acceptable and beneficial. Totsika, Toogood, Hastings, and Nash (pp. 225– 238) examine staff views about their experience of participating in interactive training and AS implementation. They show that interactive training is positively perceived by staff, and that most staff report learning new skills and using them in their everyday work. Importantly, lack of managerial support is identified by staff as the most significant barrier to AS implementation. Fyffe, McCubbery, and Reid (pp. 239–246) examine management and organisational factors that contribute to the effective delivery of AS at the group home level. They focus on activities such as training, teamwork, meetings and paperwork, and the contribution of each to AS implementation and changed staff practice. In addition, Fyffe et al. take