Kyra Frederiks1,2, Paula Sterkenburg2,3, Emilia Barakova1, Loe Feijs1. 1. Industrial Design Department, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Clinical Child and Family Studies Department, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Bartiméus, Doorn, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The subtle communicative behaviour of individuals with visual and severe/profound intellectual disabilities hinders the success of their interaction with professional caregivers. The bioresponse system, a tool to raise caregivers' awareness of the client's communicative behaviour, may improve the client's joint attention behaviour and the dyad's affective mutuality. METHOD: Four client-caregiver dyads participated in a randomized multiple baseline study with repeated baseline, intervention and follow-up observations. The bioresponse system's effect was evaluated with measures of joint attention and affective mutuality. RESULTS: Two clients showed a significant difference on one or two joint attention subscales (including one significant decrease), and for all clients, at least one joint attention subscale revealed a positive trend. Positive trends in affective mutuality scores were observed in two dyads. CONCLUSIONS: The results stress the importance of further research to the effects of using the bioresponse system's in daily care for persons with severe/profound intellectual disabilities.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The subtle communicative behaviour of individuals with visual and severe/profound intellectual disabilities hinders the success of their interaction with professional caregivers. The bioresponse system, a tool to raise caregivers' awareness of the client's communicative behaviour, may improve the client's joint attention behaviour and the dyad's affective mutuality. METHOD: Four client-caregiver dyads participated in a randomized multiple baseline study with repeated baseline, intervention and follow-up observations. The bioresponse system's effect was evaluated with measures of joint attention and affective mutuality. RESULTS: Two clients showed a significant difference on one or two joint attention subscales (including one significant decrease), and for all clients, at least one joint attention subscale revealed a positive trend. Positive trends in affective mutuality scores were observed in two dyads. CONCLUSIONS: The results stress the importance of further research to the effects of using the bioresponse system's in daily care for persons with severe/profound intellectual disabilities.