Development of a scale to measure fidelity to manualized group-based cognitive behavioural interventions for people with intellectual disabilities.

The context for the present study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a group-based anger-management intervention, delivered by day-service staff. We aimed to develop a scale to measure the fidelity of manualized cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered to adults with intellectual disabilities in group-based settings. A 30-item monitoring instrument (the MAnualized Group Intervention Check: MAGIC) was adapted from an existing fidelity-monitor instrument for individual CBT. Two sessions for 27 groups were observed by pairs of monitors who had no other contact with the intervention. 16 observers participated, in 15 unique pairings. Observers recorded high levels of inter-rater reliability and the scale had good internal consistency. Fidelity ratings predicted two key outcomes of the intervention, and were themselves predicted by the therapists' clinical supervisors.

Different factors influence self-reports and third-party reports of anger by adults with intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Many people with intellectual disabilities display high levels of anger, and cognitive-behavioural anger management interventions are used routinely. However, for these methods to be used optimally, a better understanding is needed of different forms of anger assessment. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of a range of measures to self- and carer reports of anger expression, including instruments used to assess mental health and challenging behaviour. METHOD: Adults with intellectual disabilities, who had been identified as having problems with anger control, their key-workers and home carers all rated the service users' trait anger, using parallel versions of the same instrument (the Provocation Inventory). In addition, service users completed a battery of mental health assessments (the Glasgow Depression Scale, Glasgow Anxiety Scale and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), and both groups of carers completed a battery of challenging behaviour measures (the Hyperactivity and Irritability domains of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the Modified Overt Anger Scale). RESULTS: Participants had high levels of mental health problems (depression: 34%; anxiety: 73%) and severe challenging behaviour (26%). Hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to explore the extent to which anger ratings by the three groups of respondents were predicted by demographic factors, mental health measures and challenging behaviour measures. Older service users rated themselves as less angry and were also rated as less angry by home carers, but not by key-workers. More intellectually able service users were rated as more angry by both sets of carers, but not by the service users themselves. Significantly, mental health status (but not challenging behaviour) predicted service users' self-ratings of anger, whereas challenging behaviour (but not mental health status) predicted carers' ratings of service users' anger. CONCLUSIONS: Service users and their carers appear to use different information when rating the service users' anger. Service users' self-ratings reflect their internal emotional state and mental health, as reflected by their ratings of anxiety and depression, whereas staff rate service users' anger on the basis of overt behaviours, as measured by challenging behaviour scales.