Search results

There is an apparent disconnect between the understanding of best practice and service delivery in the support of people with learning disabilities at risk of behaviours that challenge. We suggest, is a problem of implementation. The purpose of this paper is to explore reasons why this might be the case: a failure to recognise the collective works of successive generations of research and practice; and a failure to address the macro-systems involved and systems changes needed to support implementation.

This paper reviews the consensus that exists in respect of best practice. Drawing upon ideas from implementation science the paper highlights the complexities involved in the implementation of all evidence-based practices and uses this as a framework to propose ways in which an infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of services in the learning disabilities field might be built.

This paper highlights core recommended practices that have been consistent over time and across sources and identifies the systems involved in the implementation process. This paper demonstrates that many of the necessary building blocks of implementation already exist and suggests areas that are yet to be addressed. Critically, the paper highlights the importance of, and the part that all systems need to play in the process.

In the absence of any generalised implementation frameworks of evidence-based practice in the learning disabilities field, the paper suggests that the findings may provide the basis for understanding how the gap that exists between best practice and service delivery in the support of people with a learning disability at risk of behaviours that challenge might be closed.

Measuring “impact” is an important aspect of the dissemination of evidence-based practice and relevant to all disciplines. However, it has only recently become a focus of enquiry and is not commonly directly researched within the learning disabilities field. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of developing a logic model for the UK Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) Academy as part of an evaluation and impact study of its work to date.

Logic models are a visual representation of the relationship between a project’s resources, activities and outputs and identified outcomes, in relation to key stakeholder groups. This representation allows for key impact measures to be identified and can be a useful tool for evaluation purposes. The authors used the process outlined by McLaughlin and Jordan (1998) to develop a bespoke logic model for the PBS Academy.

The model was particularly helpful in making clear the distinction between output and impact, identifying impact criteria differentiated by stakeholder group and across time scales, and highlighting areas of activity that are needed to increase the impact of the work of the PBS Academy in the longer term.

In the absence of any generalised impact evaluation frameworks in the learning disabilities field, the authors suggest that logic models may provide a useful framework for evaluating the impact of policy, practice, and research interventions.

Evidence-informed decision-making is considered best practice when choosing interventions in applied settings across health, social care and education. Developing that evidence base, however, is not straightforward. The pupose of this paper is to describe the process implemented by the Sharland Foundation Developmental Disabilities Applied Behavioural Research and Impact Network (SF-DDARIN) that systematically develops an evidence base for behaviorally based interventions.

In this case study, the progressive research steps undertaken by the SF-DDARIN to develop the evidence base for an online reading intervention, the Headsprout® Early Reading programme (HER®), which uses behavioural principles to promote learning to read, are described.

A series of discrete projects targeting gaps in the evidence base for HER^® led to funding two randomised controlled trials in England, one in education and one in health and social care.

This case study illustrates an original, creative and effective way of collaborating across academic research departments and applied settings to extend the evidence base for a chosen intervention systematically.

With a historic lack of attention to synthesis methods such as systematic review and meta-analysis and a lack of randomised controlled trials, the evidence base for behavioural interventions for children and adults who are autistic or are diagnosed with developmental disabilities is patchy. The Sharland Foundation Developmental Disabilities Applied Behavioural Research and Impact Network (SF-DDARIN), a network of like-minded researchers and practitioners across the UK, aims to address this. The purpose of this paper is to describe the network’s work and provide the context for the remaining articles in the special issue that exemplify network projects.

In this case study paper, the authors describe how the SF-DDARIN works and is resourced, detailing the process used to maximise research opportunities by facilitating network members working together. The authors outline the progressive research steps that the SF-DDARIN has identified are needed to develop and improve the evidence base for behavioural interventions systematically and, with examples, describe how the network delivers these steps.

Since its establishment in 2016, the SF-DDARIN network members have collectively worked on more than 53 projects involving over 50 researchers, had over 120 special schools contribute to projects and have recruited over 500 participants. This has been achieved through funding from the Sharland Foundation, primarily to cover the staffing costs of a small support team and internship partnerships with external organisations. Some projects have attracted external funding.

SF-DDARIN may provide an innovative, effective and resource-efficient model for other groups seeking to develop and extend their evidence base in developmental disability research.

ANOTHER Annual Meeting has come and gone. It was scarcely to be expected that the meeting at Bradford would be a record in the number of members attending, seeing that it is only three years ago since the Association met in the neighbouring city of Leeds, and that Bradford cannot boast either the historical associations or the architectural and scenic setting of many other towns. For the most part therefore the members who did attend, attended because they were interested in the serious rather than the entertainment or excursion side of the gathering, which was so far perhaps to the advantage of the meetings and discussions. Nevertheless, the actual number of those present—about two hundred—was quite satisfactory, and none, we are assured, even if the local functions were the main or an equal element of attraction, could possibly have regretted their visit to the metropolis of the worsted trade. Fortunately the weather was all that could be desired, and under the bright sunshine Bradford looked its best, many members, who expected doubtless to find a grey, depressing city of factories, being pleasingly disappointed with the fine views and width of open and green country quite close at hand.