Creating academic-community partnerships to jointly enhance advocacy and research on violence and disability: Two case examples.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) to foster bidirectional and equitable academic-community partnerships in two studies related to interpersonal violence and disability. METHOD: We analyzed our methods and experiences in conducting these studies to focus on the ways in which CBPR methodology was used to jointly promote and enhance research and advocacy surrounding violence and disability in the research processes themselves and the resulting assessment and intervention products. RESULTS: Our use of CBPR methodology allowed us to identify and address critical issues related to violence in the disability community, such as disability-related forms and experiences of violence, concerns and barriers linked to mandated reporting laws, and inaccessible measures and interventions, and to address them in research products. Additionally, our bidirectional academic-community partnerships led us to address overall accessibility of the research process itself as a means by which to amplify advocate voices in science. CONCLUSIONS: Full, meaningful, and equitable participation of people with disabilities at every stage of the research process allows for the creation of partnerships that jointly advance research and advocacy around violence and disability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The imaginative failure of normal: Considerations for a post-pandemic future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has struck a forceful blow to an already faltering economic and political system. Decades of neoliberal capitalism have left us with extreme domestic and global inequality, a climate disaster, and the death of democracy. Now, in the midst of a global pandemic, any solace found in the toxic status quo has all but vanished. We are faced with an event of major historical significance, the effects of which are sure to be vast and enduring. As we emerge from this crisis and rebuild, we have a tremendous opportunity to (re)consider and (re)formulate the kind of world we want to live in. This essay reflects on the limitations of an uncritical desire for a return to "normalcy." Further, it asks social workers to engage in a process of imaginative and speculative thinking to envision possibilities for our inevitably changed world.

Creating Accessible Survey Instruments for Use with Autistic Adults and People with Intellectual Disability: Lessons Learned and Recommendations.

Despite growing appreciation of the need for research on autism in adulthood, few survey instruments have been validated for use with autistic adults. We conducted an institutional ethnography of two related partnerships that used participatory approaches to conduct research in collaboration with autistic people and people with intellectual disability. In this article, we focus on lessons learned from adapting survey instruments for use in six separate studies. Community partners identified several common problems that made original instruments inaccessible. Examples included: (1) the use of difficult vocabulary, confusing terms, or figures of speech; (2) complex sentence structure, confusing grammar, or incomplete phrases; (3) imprecise response options; (4) variation in item response based on different contexts; (5) anxiety related to not being able to answer with full accuracy; (6) lack of items to fully capture the autism-specific aspects of a construct; and (7) ableist language or concepts. Common adaptations included: (1) adding prefaces to increase precision or explain context; (2) modifying items to simplify sentence structure; (3) substituting difficult vocabulary words, confusing terms, or figures of speech with more straightforward terms; (4) adding hotlinks that define problematic terms or offer examples or clarifications; (5) adding graphics to increase clarity of response options; and (6) adding new items related to autism-specific aspects of the construct. We caution against using instruments developed for other populations unless instruments are carefully tested with autistic adults, and we describe one possible approach to ensure that instruments are accessible to a wide range of autistic participants. LAY SUMMARY: Why is this topic important?: To understand what can improve the lives of autistic adults, researchers need to collect survey data directly from autistic adults. However, most survey instruments were made for the general population and may or may not work well for autistic adults.What is the purpose of this article?: To use lessons learned from our experience adapting surveys-in partnership with autistic adults-to create a set of recommendations for how researchers may adapt instruments to be accessible to autistic adults.What did the authors do?: Between 2006 and 2019, the Academic Autism Spectrum Partnership in Research and Education (AASPIRE) and the Partnering with People with Developmental Disabilities to Address Violence Consortium used a participatory research approach to adapt many survey instruments for use in six separate studies. We reviewed records from these partnerships and identified important lessons.What is this recommended adaptation process like?: The adaptation process includes the following: (1) Co-creating collaboration guidelines and providing community partners with necessary background about terminology and processes used in survey research; (2) Collaboratively selecting which constructs to measure; (3) Discussing each construct so that we can have a shared understanding of what it means; (4) Identifying existing instruments for each construct; (5) Selecting among available instruments (or deciding that none are acceptable and that we need to create a new measure); (6) Assessing the necessary adaptations for each instrument; (7) Collaboratively modifying prefaces, items, or response options, as needed; (8) Adding "hotlink" definitions where necessary to clarify or provide examples of terms and constructs; (9) Creating new measures, when needed, in partnership with autistic adults;(10)Considering the appropriateness of creating proxy report versions of each adapted measure; and(11)Assessing the adapted instruments' psychometric properties.What were common concerns about existing instruments?: Partners often said that, if taking a survey that used the original instruments, they would experience confusion, frustration, anxiety, or anger. They repeatedly stated that, faced with such measures, they would offer unreliable answers, leave items blank, or just stop participating in the study. Common concerns included the use of difficult vocabulary, confusing terms, complex sentence structure, convoluted phrasings, figures of speech, or imprecise language. Partners struggled with response options that used vague terms. They also felt anxious if their answer might not be completely accurate or if their responses could vary in different situations. Often the surveys did not completely capture the intended idea. Sometimes, instruments used offensive language or ideas. And in some cases, there just were not any instruments to measure what they thought was important.What were common adaptations?: Common adaptations included: (1) adding prefaces to increase precision or explain context; (2) modifying items to simplify sentence structure; (3) substituting difficult vocabulary words, confusing terms, or figures of speech with more straightforward terms; (4) adding hotlinks that define problematic terms or offer examples or clarifications; (5) adding graphics to increase clarity of response options; and (6) adding new items related to autism-specific aspects of the construct.How will this article help autistic adults now or in the future?: We hope that this article encourages researchers to collaborate with autistic adults to create better survey instruments. That way, when researchers evaluate interventions and services, they can have the right tools to see if they are effective.

The Role of Gender in Violence Experienced by Adults With Developmental Disabilities.

Violence against people with developmental disabilities is a highly prevalent yet understudied phenomenon. In particular, there is a paucity of literature surrounding the role of gender and the experiences of men. Using a cross-sectional study design, we surveyed 350 people with diverse developmental disabilities about experiences of abuse, perpetrators of abuse, and their physical and mental health status. These data were analyzed to determine whether gender influenced these domains. Statistical methods included chi-square, independent t tests, logistic regression, and hierarchical multiple regressions. Male and female participants reported abuse at high rates, with 61.9% of men and 58.2% of women reporting abuse as children and 63.7% of men and 68.2% of women reporting abuse as adults. More women than men reported adult sexual abuse, but there was no gender difference in the prevalence of any other form of abuse. Women were more likely than men to identify an intimate partner as their abuser, although intimate partners represented the minority of abusers for both men and women. Violence was associated with worse health status regardless of participant gender. These findings confirm that violence is an important issue for both men and women with developmental disabilities. Although some expected gender differences arose, such as higher rates of adult sexual abuse and intimate partner violence against women, these differences were less pronounced than they are in the general population, and the overall picture of abuse was one of gender similarities rather than differences.

Community-Based Participatory Research to Adapt Health Measures for Use by People With Developmental Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: People with developmental disabilities (DD) are often not included as participants in research owing to a variety of ethical and practical challenges. One major challenge is that traditional measurement instruments may not be accessible to people with DD. Participatory research approaches promise to increase the participation of marginalized communities in research, but few partnerships have successfully used such approaches to conduct quantitative studies people with DD. OBJECTIVE: To use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to create an accessible, computer-assisted survey about violence and health in people with DD, and to psychometrically test adapted health instruments. METHODS: Our academic-community partnership, composed of academic researchers, people with DD, and supporters, collaboratively selected and modified data collection instruments, conducted cognitive interviews and pilot tests, and then administered the full survey to 350 people with DD. RESULTS: Although team members sometimes had opposing accommodation needs and adaptation recommendations, academic and community partners were able to work together successfully to adapt instruments to be accessible to participants with a wide range of DD. Results suggest the adapted health instruments had strong content validity and all but one had good to excellent internal consistency reliability (alpha, 0.81-0.94). The majority of participants (75%) responded that all or most of the questions were easy to understand. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should consider using participatory approaches to adapting instruments so people with DD can be validly included in research.