Moving forward: Perspectives of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities regarding the effectiveness of Individual Support Plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Individual Support Plan (ISP) is a comprehensive document that outlines a person’s goals, describes the desired support for goal achievement, and tracks the progress or changes in pursuing these goals (Herps et al., 2016). This research explored the perspectives of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) on the effectiveness of the current ISP framework. Seven adults with an IDD participated in semi-structured interviews to share their opinions, knowledge, and understanding of several aspects of their ISP and the current framework. The interview process was designed for inclusivity by tailoring it to the participant's unique needs and communication preferences. These adaptations were analyzed in the form of a Process Analysis. Further, the Process Analysis encouraged reflection on the current discourse surrounding goals, forcing one to appreciate a more rationalized notion of goals, by considering the incorporation of emotions and narratives. The shared diverse perspectives from the interview will significantly inform agencies of practical ways to enhance the ISP framework in various aspects, including goal setting and achievement, comprehension of ISPs, and access frequency. The participants' perceptions highlighted the need for an individualized approach to developing and maintaining ISPs. Their unique responses also prompted a reconsideration of the conceptualization of goals and ISPs, shifting from a structured approach to an emergent process.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".