Intensive Interaction and Conventional Interventions: what is Different?

I was recently asked by a colleague for a copy of a piece of work that I have variously used across a number of different training presentations - this work looks to set out what is different about Intensive Interaction when compared with other more conventional 'interventions' (i.e. ways of working which would have previously been seen as more standard practice) used when working with, or supporting people with communication or social impairments. 

This 'What is different?' list is the work of the most estimable Dr Mark Barber (he of Intensive Interaction Australia), and I think this list is both useful and interesting, especially so in helping define what Intensive interaction actually is in terms of it's general rationale; and I shamelessly share it with you below (as possibly the easiest blog I've ever done):

What is different? Conventionally, an intervention begins by assessing the person to identify what skills are absent or problematic, or which areas of the person’s performance require intervention.

-  Using Intensive Interaction, observation is aimed at identifying strengths and preferences, so that these become the context for social encounters. 

What is different? Conventional styles of intervention and teaching are characterised by practitioners deciding on a predicted outcome or objective.

-  Intensive Interaction is characterised as open ended – the outcome of an encounter is not predicted or aimed towards. 

What is different? Conventionally, the practitioner leads and controls an interaction, engaging the person in a planned ‘teaching’ or ‘learning’ session.

-  Using Intensive Interaction the practitioner makes themselves available for social activity: Intensive Interaction = partnership. 

What is different? Conventionally, the practitioner leads by providing the focus of interest, attracting the person’s attention into joint focus [usually around an object or structured activity].

-  Using Intensive Interaction the practitioner looks for and responds to the person’s focus of interest by actually joining in with it. 

What is different? Conventionally, the practitioner has control over the place, the subject and any reward associated with an experience.

-  Using Intensive Interaction the choice of place depends on the preferences of the person, there’s no need for a reward –because the activity [or subject] of the interaction follows what s/he is already doing there’s no need for a reward……..its enjoyable for the learner [that’s why s/he is doing it] 

What is different? Conventionally, stereotyped or self-involved behaviours are seen as negative or ‘inappropriate’, and can become the focus of an intervention.

-  Using Intensive Interaction stereotyped or self-involved behaviours are viewed as probable ‘access points’ or indications of a means to enable ‘social’ activity. 

What is different? Conventionally, interventions focus on assisting the person to elicit developmentally helpful behaviours from those around them [usually staff].

-  Using Intensive Interaction contingent interactions are a starting point, although the goal of progress up an ‘interactive spiral’ is the same [Nind & Powell 2000]. 

What is different? Conventionally, interventions frequently focus on teaching new skills or developing a new behavioural repertoire.

-  Using Intensive Interaction practitioners engage the person by joining in with their existing behaviour, encouraging them to use skills they already have.

There, I told you it was both useful & interesting! and you can view more of Mark's work at:

www.drmarkbarber.co.uk