Group psychotherapy for trauma‐related disorders in people with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is threefold: to summarize data on rates of sexual abuse and interpersonal trauma in people with intellectual disability (ID); to demonstrate the relationship between such trauma and psychological distress; and to describe a promising treatment technique for such exposed individuals. Design/methodology/approach A review of the literature on rates of abuse and trauma among people with ID is presented with particular attention paid to the role of developmental level in both the experience and impact of trauma. Drawing from this understanding of the phenomenology of traumatic exposure in people with ID, the authors present a theoretical framework for psychotherapeutic intervention. Findings This paper establishes the inverse relationship between the higher‐than‐average rates of trauma and interpersonal violence in the ID population, co‐occurring with lower‐than‐average access to treatment, and lower‐than‐average treatment model development for this population. Further, this paper provides a description of a theoretically based therapeutic intervention with preliminary research efficacy. Practical implications This paper documents three key areas in need of attention in order to reduce the suffering of people with ID: the need to address the high rates of exposure to abuse; the importance of taking into account developmental level when assessing the impact of potentially traumatic experiences; and the efficacy of the interactive‐behavioral model of group psychotherapy for people with ID who have trauma‐related distress. Originality/value This paper points to the need for systematic efforts to reduce the rate of traumatic exposure to which people with ID are disproportionately exposed. Moreover, it establishes how important the role of developmental level is in understanding how exposure to abuse may result in the development of psychological disorders. Finally, this paper provides a clear understanding of a targeted therapeutic approach and the need for a system of accessible care so that afflicted individuals may have the benefit of such therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".