trongly agreed and 1 meaning they strongly disagreed. The final feature on supportive living had to do with the choice- making process. A list, which contained ten items about who typically makes the decisions for them, were read out loud to them. Next, to find out if a person was receiving supported or traditional living, they tallied up the scores. In order for a participant to be considered to be receiving supported living, they had to have at least 6 points in the area that dealt with choice-making options. However, if the support they received did not meet the criteria- they were considered to be receiving traditional support. Using the same interview method, they asked questions regarding social and community activities. They based the findings on how often they did a particular activity within a certain month. The results implied that those participants receiving supported living, did more social and community activities than those who were receiving traditional living. I feel that this study had many problems. For one, the staff members that were interviewed could have been bias in answering the questions regarding the participants. The fact that they knew the participant could have created a problem whether they liked or disliked that particular person. In addition, the staff member may have had a different interpretation of the questions being asked. However, I do agree with the way they did the random selecting of the participants, as well as how they came up with a standard definition of supportive living. In the second study, Stancliffe et al. investigated whether there was any significant importance in having an Individual Habilitation Program (IHP). Out of 190 persons from a longitudinal study, 149 were selected based on the fact that they were in a community placement for 3 consecutive years. They then conducted interviews with the staff members, and evaluated the participants, current IHP objectives. The objectives w...
