A Tint1, K Thomson2, J A Weiss1. 1. Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Centre for Applied Disability Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Special Olympics (SO) is commonly cited to play an important role in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). The purpose of the current review was to (a) synthesise key findings regarding the physical, psychological/emotional, social and/or intellectual/cognitive correlates of SO participation for individuals with ID and (b) highlight limitations in the extant research as well as directions for future research. METHOD: A systematic review of electronic databases was undertaken. A total of 46 articles were confirmed to meet study criteria. Quality assessments of included studies were conducted using checklists from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology checklists (SIGN 50; SIGN 2008). RESULTS: There was a larger amount of support for physical, psychological/emotional and social outcomes as compared with cognitive/intellectual outcomes; however, many studies were confounded by measurement difficulties, sampling procedures and a lack of replicable methods, which hinder generalisation of results. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for a continued critical focus on SO programme evaluation research with more rigorous and replicable methods.
BACKGROUND: Special Olympics (SO) is commonly cited to play an important role in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). The purpose of the current review was to (a) synthesise key findings regarding the physical, psychological/emotional, social and/or intellectual/cognitive correlates of SO participation for individuals with ID and (b) highlight limitations in the extant research as well as directions for future research. METHOD: A systematic review of electronic databases was undertaken. A total of 46 articles were confirmed to meet study criteria. Quality assessments of included studies were conducted using checklists from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology checklists (SIGN 50; SIGN 2008). RESULTS: There was a larger amount of support for physical, psychological/emotional and social outcomes as compared with cognitive/intellectual outcomes; however, many studies were confounded by measurement difficulties, sampling procedures and a lack of replicable methods, which hinder generalisation of results. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for a continued critical focus on SO programme evaluation research with more rigorous and replicable methods.
Authors: Félix Zurita-Ortega; José Luis Ubago-Jiménez; Pilar Puertas-Molero; Irwin Andrés Ramírez-Granizo; José Joaquín Muros; Gabriel González-Valero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jason Rodriquez; Anika Lanser; Holly E Jacobs; Ashlyn Smith; Sharbari Ganguly Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: María-Jesús Lirola; Gerardo Ruiz-Rico; Antonia-Irene Hernández-Rodríguez; María-Esther Prados-Megías Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Piritta Asunta; Pauli Rintala; Florian Pochstein; Nelli Lyyra; Roy McConkey Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.390