factors increasing the daily lives of the mentally challenged, Psychology, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Psychology

factors increasing the daily lives of the mentally challenged

factors increasing the daily lives of the mentally challenged I used three studies that suggest different approaches, which will help increase the daily lives of the mentally challenged. The first study, Howe, Horner, Newton (1995) examined two environments, a supportive and a traditional environment. This study was done to determine, which environment offers a higher quality of life. They found that people living in a supportive setting showed a higher quality of life in terms of social and community activities. The second study, Stancliffe, Hayden, Lakin (1998) analyzed the effectiveness and quality of Individual Habilitation Plan (IHP) objectives. They found that there was no considerable change in outcomes when using IHPs. The last study, Stancliffe (1995) investigated the significance of living- unit size and staff presence, in terms of residents’ choice making. They found that unit- size and staff presence are crucial predictors of choice- making. These three studies illustrate important factors that will help increase the daily lives of the mentally challenged. There are many factors that can help increase the daily lives of the mentally challenged. I will first examine the role in which the environment plays in enhancing their daily lives. I will then look at the effectiveness of having an Individual Habilitation Plan. Finally, I will discuss factors that will facilitate the choice- making process. The first study was done to compare supported living and traditional residential services. Howe et al., (1990) randomly selected 40 adults with mental retardation that were receiving state funded residential support. They then divided them into two groups based on a certain criteria- supported and traditional living. Next, they sent a letter out describing the study, and requesting the participation of staff members. The staff members were then interviewed, to help determine 12 features that will represent supportive living. For 11 of the statements they used a scale of 1to 5, 5 meaning they strongly 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 were put into three categories: (a) intended to increase participation; (b) to reduce or challenge behavior; (c) related to physical or sensory special needs. Next, they were scored, to determine the quality and effectiveness of the objectives or goals. Results indicated that there is no significant difference in using an Individual Habilitation program. I feel that this study could have been conducted in clearer way. For one, the participants were all selected from one particular state and longitudinal study, which may have something to do with the outcome. They should have been randomly selected to get a clear and accurate sample. Another problem is the way the IHP objectives were assessed. Someone may look at a particular goal and say there was no real change, when in regards to the participant it may have a big step. Therefore, in my opinion if the participant shows any sign of improvement in that area, the IHP can be deemed effective. The last study was conducted to see how staff presence and unit- size could influence choice- making. Stancliffe (1995) asked staff members to nominate residents that will be able to discuss choice- making. There were 74 residents that were chosen to participate in this study. They were then given a choice- questionnaire to fill out, to determine their level of choice making. Results, suggests that a high staff presence and a large unit- size, decreases their choice- making. I feel that the study was conducted very well. However, when looking at the results one must realize that there are differences in residential services. It should also be taken into consideration that some people might require more staff presence in certain areas, than others might. Through my own experience, I can tell what programs are effective and which one’s are not. First, let’s examine the supportive setting versus the traditional setting. I can tell you working in a traditional setting (group home) does not benefit the individual the way a supportive setting would. In a traditional setting they are just grouped together regardless of their abilities. Whereas, in a supportive setting they are grouped together, depending on their needs and preferences. In my opinion, a supportive setting will give them a higher quality of life, because they are able to do things on their own. Therefore, I completely agree with the results of the study. However, when it comes to the Individual Habilitation Program, my opinions differ to the results of the study. I feel that these objectives are very effective. In the group home I work in we use IHP’s and once a month there are evaluated to see their effectiveness. In my opinion, these goals are there to help them improve a certain area in their life. Therefore, having these objectives increases their quality of life. I completely agree with the results of the last study. If the staff is constantly there, overlooking their every move, they are limited in the choice making process. This is why I feel that each staff member should let the residents do as much on their own as possible. After, reading these articles and doing much research on the mentally challenged- I realized that most of them would not be able to function in life on their own. However, I do feel as a staff member, in a residential setting, that it is our responsibility to ensure that they get the most out of life. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1191