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.

Group-based cognitive-behavioural anger management for people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities: cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many people with intellectual disabilities find it hard to control their anger and this often leads to aggression which can have serious consequences, such as exclusion from mainstream services and the need for potentially more expensive emergency placements. AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) intervention for anger management in people with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: A cluster-randomised trial of group-based 12-week CBT, which took place in day services for people with intellectual disabilities and was delivered by care staff using a treatment manual. Participants were 179 service users identified as having problems with anger control randomly assigned to either anger management or treatment as usual. Assessments were conducted before the intervention, and at 16 weeks and 10 months after randomisation (trial registration: ISRCTN37509773). RESULTS: The intervention had only a small, and non-significant, effect on participants' reports of anger on the Provocation Index, the primary outcome measure (mean difference 2.8, 95% CI -1.7 to 7.4 at 10 months). However, keyworker Provocation Index ratings were significantly lower in both follow-up assessments, as were service-user ratings on another self-report anger measure based on personally salient triggers. Both service users and their keyworkers reported greater usage of anger coping skills at both follow-up assessments and keyworkers and home carers reported lower levels of challenging behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was effective in improving anger control by people with intellectual disabilities. It provides evidence of the effectiveness of a CBT intervention for this client group and demonstrates that the staff who work with them can be trained and supervised to deliver such an intervention with reasonable fidelity.