See Look OK? Go

A Brief Overview of the Literature and Research
on Training in Decision-Making
for People with Developmental Disabilities
with Recommendations for Curriculum Development



Developed for
COLE Vocational Services

Under a PDF Contract with
Developmental Disabilities Center of Orange County
and
Area XI Board on Developmental Disabilities

by
William T. Allen, Ph.D.
Allen, Shea & Associates



January, 1996



Introduction

COLE Vocational Services was recently awarded a PDF (Program Development Fund) grant from Orange County Regional Center and Area Board XI to develop and field test a Consumer Decision Making Curriculum. The purpose of this project is to develop a curriculum which teaches basic choice making skills to adults with developmental disabilities. A component of that grant is a review of the literature regarding choice making for people with and without disabilities from the perspectives of research in the cognitive, behavioral, problem-solving, anger management and recreation domains.


Methodology

In order to develop a list of potential references, project staff used the online askERIC database to search for abstracts containing the greatest number of the following descriptors: behavior pattern; cognitive processes; decision making; mental retardation; developmental disabilities; problem solving; personal autonomy; self management; anger management; adult learning; self control; locus of control, self determination; and, recreation. Once a list of abstracts was obtained, full copies of articles that appeared to be 'on the topic' were purchased from ERIC and reviewed. The following report is an overview of the materials reviewed along with recommendations for the development of the curriculum, pre/post and follow-along evaluation and references.


The Bigger Picture:
Theories of Personality Development

Most articles about decision-making and choice begin with one view or another of general personality development. One of the most common characteristics cited in a discussion of individual development is autonomy or self-determination.

Autonomy. The term 'autonomy' comes from the Greek words 'autos' (self) and 'nomos' (rule or law) and is typically defined as 'self-rule.' A person is said to be autonomous if he or she views him or herself or is viewed by others as 'self-governing' or someone who makes decisions without being constrained by others. The degree to which we are autonomous is said to be based our perceptions and life experiences of individual freedom, responsibility, personal identity and control. (Apostoleris, 1995) It does not, however, imply individual isolation or antisocial behavior. In medical and health services, the concept of autonomy underlies the practice of informed consent. That is, when people have the legal capacity to give consent, they . . . should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice...and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. (Cavalier, 1995)

Self-determination. A net search for World Wide Web (WWW) documents containing the text self-determination will bring over 6,000 'hits' or documents. Those links will lead you to articles on everything from the struggles in Ireland for independent rule to the care of patients with terminal diagnoses. There are, in fact, two major and similar definitions offered in Thorndike and Barnhart (1953). First, [individual] direction from within only, without influence or force from without. Second, the deciding by the people of a nation what kind of government they shall have, without reference to the wishes of any other nation. The common thread of these two definitions is, of course, making a choice or a decision (either as an individual or a group) on one's own. For the purposes of this overview, the following definition will serve us even better:

Self-determination refers to "acting as the primary causal agent
in one's life and making choices and decisions regarding one's
quality of life free from undue external influence or interference."


Wehmeyer (1992)

Autonomy or self-determination is considered to be an 'intrinsic motivator' for all of us. The strength of this individual attribute is said to be based on a number of factors (e.g., cultural, societal). Wehmeyer (1992) states that while none of us experience unconstrained choice, unlimited options, and total independence from others, the more experience we have with making decisions about meaningful things in our lives, the better we will get at it and the more motivating it will be.

Decision Theory

Decision-making 'behavior' is said to be one aspect of a set of the individual attitudes and abilities described in the previous section as autonomy or self-determination. There are, of course, many different variables which affect decision-making behavior. The process of an individual making a decision is going to differ markedly from a decision made by a group of people with differing life experiences and interests. In addition, the degree of risk (e.g., physical, emotional, financial) that is perceived in any decision can significantly affect the way we approach it and the weight that we give to the various options we identify as available to us. The study of how decisions are made and how they ought to be made is known as decision theory. In fact, there are two branches of study within this field, one is known as descriptive and the other as normative. (Grolier, 1996)

Descriptive studies of decision theory focus on how people make choices among options in a variety of environments (e.g., family, business, political). Normative studies of decision theory are concerned with courses of action that will result in certain goals or outcomes not with the actual choices that people make. Field-based researchers have suggested a third school of inquiry in decision theory known as prescriptive study which concentrates on defining ways that individuals can improve their decision-making abilities.

While normative models of decision-making are of interest to mathematicians and statisticians and are particularly useful when looking at situations where relationships and outcomes are relatively certain, they do not lend themselves to the situations that most of us find ourselves in everyday. That is, situations where outcomes are often uncertain and risks are not always known. In this overview, we have focused our attention on both descriptive and prescriptive information about how people with and without developmental disabilities make decisions and how they can sharpen those skills.

Three 'Typical' Ways to Reach a Decision

Jenkinson and Nelms (1994) have summarized the work of several Australian researchers who have identified three major ways that we respond when confronted with a decision:

Defensive avoidance. Individuals using this strategy either put off making a decision or try to get someone else to make it.

Hypervigilance. Individuals sometimes panic when faced with a decision that must be made quickly and/or appears to be risky in some way. This strategy entails making a quick decision that will minimize risk and reduce stress.

Vigilance. This strategy includes a systematic way of defining the issue or problem, researching the options, making a choice and evaluating the consequences of that choice for future reference.

These researchers further state that we all use all of these strategies and that, as previously stated, our choice of strategies has a lot to do with the relative risk, threat or stress that we associate with the decision that must be made.

Jenkinson and Nelms applied this model of decision-making to the responses of both adults with developmental disabilities and university students of similar range in age. They provided both groups with scenarios of minor (e.g., You are offered a piece of cheesecake and you are on a diet and trying to lose weight.) and major decisions (e.g., You have a chance to move to a new home that you like and it is a long ways from where you work.) and asked all participants What would you do? and Why would you do that? The answers of all participants were then categorized as defense avoidance, hypervigilant or vigilant.

The results were analyzed statistically and several interesting differences were noted. First, university students tended to make more vigilant or systematic decisions and fewer defensive avoidance decisions than adults with developmental disabilities. Also, individuals with developmental disabilities tended to make more hypervigilant or quick decisions than university students. In addition, while individuals with developmental disabilities tended to make fewer vigilant or systematic decisions in general, they made more vigilant decisions in minor than in major decision vignettes. While a number of possible explanations for these differences were offered (e.g., language abilities, perceived risk), one of particular relevance here is the assertion that individuals with developmental disabilities are exposed to a fewer decision-making experiences than their peers without disabilities. Of equal importance, the authors conclude that there is a need for specific training in developing decision-making strategies which stresses ways to gather information about possible options and to think ahead about potential consequences.

The Four (or Five) Step Solution

There are and have been for some time a number of well-articulated approaches to decision-making or problem-solving available in research and self-help literature. It's likely that some work better than others, but in the absence of a strategy we would be immobilized when confronted with the dozens of minor and major choice alternatives presented to us in everyday life. It's difficult to trace the origin of the basic process, but the 'typical' approach (some four and others five steps) is as follows:

This general template offers an individual a systematic way to look at a variety of situations, gather information about possible solutions, weigh their positive and negative aspects, pick a course of action, and to evaluate the outcome for use in future decisions.

Application to a Variety of Life Choice Experiences

The above problem-solving/decision strategy has been applied to a number of major and minor life choice experiences. In the field of developmental disabilities, training in recreation and leisure choice-making has provided an abundance of 'successful' studies (e.g., Bambara & Ager, 1992, and Mahon & Bullock 1992)). Benson (1995) summarized the following research and training applications involving individuals with developmental disabilities:

She also states that this approach to problem-solving is often a component of cognitive-behavioral interventions for individuals with and without disabilities. Finally, that it has proven a successful way to manage anger responses to everyday situations as anger is a signal that there is a problem to solve.

Other Curricula

A number of problem-solving/decision-making training 'packages' have been developed for use with individuals with developmental disabilities and include:
Quality of Life Training Curriculum: Choice, Integration, Advocacy
Illinois Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities, 1991

Self-Advocacy Curriculum
Osborne, J.
Kansas University, 1987

Teaching Anger Management to Persons with Mental Retardation
Benson
IDS Publishing, 1992

Teaching Choices
Illinois Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities, 1992

The Dating Skills Program
Valenti-Hein & Mueser
IDS Publishing, 1990

Think it Through: Teaching Problem Solving Strategy for Community Living
Foxx and Bittle
Research Press, 1989

Some are for use by direct care staff (e.g., activities which will facilitate choice-making) and others provide a direct instruction format (e.g., lesson plans). While the approaches are varied, they all have several 'themes' in common: (1) a value base that considers choice an important part of everyday life for people with developmental disabilities and that decision-making is a skill that can be taught; (2) a general four or five step strategy to reaching a decision; and, (3) scenarios for practice.

Other Considerations


Process and Performance. There are generally two methods of training used in teaching problem-solving. One emphasizes the general four or five step template approach (process) and the other focuses on the behavioral (e.g., eye contact, tone of voice) aspects (performance). Benson (1995) suggests that both process and performance methods should be included in training efforts with individuals who are developmentally disabled.

Adult Learners. One of the most useful (and well established) links between adult development and education is the theory of andragogy. Naylor (1985) describes this theory as follows:
Andragogy is based on the assumption that, by and large, adults are self-directed beings who are the products of an accumulation of unique and personal experiences and whose desires to learn grow out of a need to face the tasks they encounter during the course of their development.
It's safe to say that adults with developmental disabilities are people first and that their desire to figure out ways to get through everyday life is motivating.

Varied Curriculum. While motivation makes the task of adult educators somewhat easier, it is not enough to guarantee a beneficial learning experience. One of the characteristics of successful adult education of importance here is variability in approach to curriculum. That is, adult educators work hard to vary their teaching with presentation, media (e.g., pictures, slides, video) and practice. This strategy is based on some commonly accepted ideas about retention:
Hearing, Seeing, Doing

When we hear information, we retain 20%.
When we hear it and see it, we retain 50%.
When we hear it, see it, and do it, retention goes to 90%.

or

I hear and I forget.
I see and I remember.

I do and I understand.

Self-Image. Most of us would agree on a general correlation between an individual's perception of self-determination and choice and their view of themselves in regards self-image or self-esteem. Brown and Goldenberg (1993) found what they described as 'major' improvement in the self-image of individuals with developmental disabilities who were provided with greater opportunities for choice in their rehabilitation program than those who did not receive those opportunities.

Where You Live and Work Makes a Difference. The bottom line with teaching any new skill is that individuals who have opportunities to practice, get better at it. Individuals who do not live and work in environments with opportunities to practice making minor and major choices and solving problems will not likely get better at that skill. Standcliffe and Wehmeyer (1995) found that living arrangement has a significant effect on the variability and availability of choice for adults with developmental disabilities. Also, that choices about major life matters are significantly less available than choices regarding day-to-day matters when looking at both living and working environments.

Care Giver Support and Training. Wherever individuals live and work, the support and assistance of those who work alongside can make a real difference. Staff who are skillful in facilitating opportunities for choice and reinforcing decision-making are critical. In fact, Wehmeyer (1992) states that in order to promote self-direction and decision-making we must ". . . focus on changes external to the individual as much and perhaps more than changes in individual behavior and skills."

Recommendations for a Training Curriculum


The following recommendations will not surprise anyone who has read the overview. The materials reviewed for this document were 'alive' with ideas.




References




Allen, Shea & Associates (1996). Building partnerships, supporting choices: a design for developing supportive relationships through positive communication and teamwork. Los Angeles: Southern California Regional Center Directors Association.

Apostoleris, N.H. (1995) Excerpts from Intrinsic motivation theory: some implications for political, economic, and societal structure. World Wide Web online materials from Clark University.

Bambara, L.M., Ager, C. (1992). Using self-scheduling to promote self-directed leisure activity in home and community settings. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (Vol. 17, No. 2).

Benson, A.B. (1995). Psychosocial interventions update: problem solving skills training. The Habilitative Mental Healthcare Newsletter, January/February (Vol. 14, No. 1).

Brown, F., Belz, P., Corsi, L., & Wenig, B. (1993). Choice diversity for people with severe disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, December.

Brown, P., Goldenberg, S. (1993). Change in self-image: the impact of individualized intervention involving consumer choice. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities (Vol. 18, No. 4).

Cavalier, P. (1995) Excerpts from The concept of autonomy. World Wide Web online materials for a course in general philosophy.

Foxx, R.M., Faw, G.D., Taylor, S., Davis, P.K., & Fulia, R. (1993). "Would i be able to . . .?" teaching clients to assess the availability of their community living style preferences. American Journal on Mental Retardation (Vol. 98, No. 2).

Grolier's Electronic Encyclopedia (1996). Decision theory.

Imel, Susan (1992). Reflective practice in adult education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

IMPACT. (1993/94) Feature issue on self-determination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration (Vol. 6, No. 4).

Jenkinson, J., Nelms, R. (1994). Patterns of decision-making behaviour by people with intellectual disability: an exploratory study. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities (Vol. 19, No. 1).

Mahon, M.J., Bullock, C.C. (1992). Teaching adolescents with mild mental retardation to make decisions in leisure through the use of self-control techniques. Therapeutic Recreation Journal (Vol. 26, No. 1).

Naylor, M. (1985). Adult development: implications for adult education. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Stancliffe, R., Wehmeyer, M.L. (1995). Variability in the availability of choice to adults with mental retardation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 5.

Thorndike. E.L., Barnhart, C.L. (1953) Comprehensive Desk Dictionary. New York, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc.

Vitti Ip, S.M., Szymanski, E.M., & Johnston-Rodriquez, S., Fenlon Karls, S. (1994). Effects of staff implementation of a choice program on challenging behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, June (Vol. 37 No. 4).

Wehmeyer, M.L. (1993). Promoting self-determination using the life centered career education curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Council for Exceptional Children Convention.

Wehmeyer, M.L. (1992). Self-determination and the education of students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation (26).

Wehmeyer, M.L., Ketchner, K., & Richards, S. (1995). Individual and environmental factors related to self-determination of adults with metnal retardation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (5).

Wehmeyer, M.L., Metzler, C. (1995). How self-determined are people with mental retardation? the national consumer survey. Mental Retardation (Vol. 33, No. 2).


GO BACK TO THE ASA MAIN MENU.