The adaptation and feasibility of dialectical behaviour therapy for adults with intellectual developmental disabilities and transdiagnoses: A pilot community‐based randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preliminary evidence suggests dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) may be beneficial for persons with intellectual disabilities. This pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to determine the feasibility of adapted DBT for adults with intellectual disabilities and co-morbid psychiatric disorders in the community. METHODS: An adapted DBT programme (aDBT-ID) was delivered to adults with mild-to-moderate intellectual disability (n = 20) and their caregivers (n = 20). A single-blind, mixed-methods design was employed with treatment (n = 10) and control (n = 10). In addition to feasibility, pre-post-measures of emotional regulation, anger and mental health were taken from clients and caregivers. RESULTS: Results suggest it was feasible and beneficial to deliver adapted DBT in the community. Qualitative findings found both participants and caregivers were satisfied with the treatment delivery. No differences between conditions were found. CONCLUSION: This pilot study highlights the feasibility of adapted DBT for individuals with intellectual disabilities and the practicalities of delivering community-based inclusive research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".