TY - JOUR
T1 - How to support peer resistance in adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability? Intervention development and feasibility
AU - Wagemaker, Eline
AU - Salemink, Elske
AU - Huizenga, Hilde M.
AU - Bart, Han F.
AU - Dekkers, Tycho J.
AU - Bexkens, Anika
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2024/5
Y1 - 2024/5
N2 - Background: Adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability face peer resistance challenges, risking harmful or dangerous situations. Method: We designed a peer resistance group intervention at school for adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability, tested its feasibility (N = 4, Mage = 14.1, MIQ = 78.8), adapted it, and tested it again (N = 6, Mage = 15.0, MIQ = 72.8). Results: Study 1 demonstrated feasibility in recruitment, resources, and potential benefits on the distal outcome risk taking. However, attendance, obtained knowledge, and potential benefits on peer resistance, peer problems, and prosocial behaviour were suboptimal. Consequently, study 2 contained more learning by doing and individual lessons, resulting in higher attendance and greater personalization. While potential benefits on improved peer resistance measures were not observed, risk taking improved. Conclusions: Despite finding no potential benefits on peer resistance, running a peer resistance intervention for adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability at school is considered feasible.
AB - Background: Adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability face peer resistance challenges, risking harmful or dangerous situations. Method: We designed a peer resistance group intervention at school for adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability, tested its feasibility (N = 4, Mage = 14.1, MIQ = 78.8), adapted it, and tested it again (N = 6, Mage = 15.0, MIQ = 72.8). Results: Study 1 demonstrated feasibility in recruitment, resources, and potential benefits on the distal outcome risk taking. However, attendance, obtained knowledge, and potential benefits on peer resistance, peer problems, and prosocial behaviour were suboptimal. Consequently, study 2 contained more learning by doing and individual lessons, resulting in higher attendance and greater personalization. While potential benefits on improved peer resistance measures were not observed, risk taking improved. Conclusions: Despite finding no potential benefits on peer resistance, running a peer resistance intervention for adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability at school is considered feasible.
KW - adolescence
KW - feasibility
KW - intervention development
KW - mild-to-borderline intellectual disability
KW - peer resistance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185914706&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jar.13216
DO - 10.1111/jar.13216
M3 - Article
C2 - 38403300
AN - SCOPUS:85185914706
SN - 1360-2322
VL - 37
JO - Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
JF - Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
IS - 3
M1 - e13216
ER -