As more and more people are now finding out, Intensive Interaction gives us a process through which we can develop genuine social inclusion for people with communication and/or social impairments ... and then, by being engaged in that socially inclusive process, supporting the development of a person's social communication and sociability; nothing difficult or contentious there then.
But a question I have recently been asking myself is: how can we most precisely define the naturalistic, and often fluid, 'in the moment' and open-ended process of Intensive Interaction in way that can really nail its fidelity, so that when people (e.g. in research studies) say they are doing Intensive Interaction (and possibly trying to measure its subsequent outcomes), we can be sure (to the best degree possible) that it really is the best quality Intensive Interaction that could be provided (e.g. by someone who is a competent, experienced and reflective practitioner i.e. by someone who might be described as an 'advanced' Intensive Interaction practitioner? see last week's 03/1/18 Blog).
But a question I have recently been asking myself is: how can we most precisely define the naturalistic, and often fluid, 'in the moment' and open-ended process of Intensive Interaction in way that can really nail its fidelity, so that when people (e.g. in research studies) say they are doing Intensive Interaction (and possibly trying to measure its subsequent outcomes), we can be sure (to the best degree possible) that it really is the best quality Intensive Interaction that could be provided (e.g. by someone who is a competent, experienced and reflective practitioner i.e. by someone who might be described as an 'advanced' Intensive Interaction practitioner? see last week's 03/1/18 Blog).
Now Fidelity can be a tricky thing, but in very general terms it is defined as: 'the extent to which [the] delivery of an intervention adheres to the protocol or program model originally developed'*. So, we already have a very clear starting point there.
Therefore I think that any fidelity measures that might be useful in any Intensive Interaction research should combine two things; evidence of the use of the Fundamentals of Communication** (i.e. what the practitioner actually does) and Melanie Nind's 5 Central Features of Intensive Interaction*** (i.e. how the practitioner actually does what they do).
As most of us know, the 'fundamentals of communication' have been clearly set out by Hewett and Nind, most recently in the Intensive Interaction Handbook (2nd Ed, p.26) as: enjoying being with another person; using and understanding eye contacts; developing the ability to attend to that person; using and understanding facial expressions; learning to do sequences of activity with a person; using and understanding other non-verbal communications; taking turns in exchanges of behaviour; using and understanding physical contacts; sharing personal space; learning to regulate and control arousal levels; and vocalising and using vocalisations meaningfully (including speech).
Nind’s 5 central features of Intensive Interaction (set out in 'Efficacy of Intensive Interaction ...' 1996) are also referenced in the Intensive Interaction Handbook (2nd Ed, p.14) as:
1. The creation of mutual pleasure and
interactive games: being together with the purpose of enjoying each other
2. Staff adjusting their interpersonal
behaviours in order to become more engaging & meaningful for the person
3. Interactions flowing naturally in time: with
pauses, repetitions and blended rhythms
4. The attribution of intentionality: responding
to a person’s behaviour as if it were
communicatively significant
5. The use of contingent responding: following a
person’s lead and sharing control of the activity
But, another thought: perhaps we should all be more thoughtful about the fidelity of our Intensive Interaction practices? Perhaps fidelity is a useful concept for us all to hold in our minds (and not just something for researchers to think about).
Perhaps we should all ask ourselves if we and our colleagues really are doing the best quality Intensive Interaction ... or something else, something with less fidelity 'to the protocol or program model originally developed' ... and therefore something potentially less truly intensively interactive?
But, another thought: perhaps we should all be more thoughtful about the fidelity of our Intensive Interaction practices? Perhaps fidelity is a useful concept for us all to hold in our minds (and not just something for researchers to think about).
Perhaps we should all ask ourselves if we and our colleagues really are doing the best quality Intensive Interaction ... or something else, something with less fidelity 'to the protocol or program model originally developed' ... and therefore something potentially less truly intensively interactive?
*Mowbray et al (2003) 'Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation', American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (3), p.315-340.
**Hewett, D. Ed (2018) The Intensive Interaction Handbook (2nd Ed). Sage: London.
***Nind, M. (1996) ‘Efficacy of Intensive Interaction; Developing sociability and communication in people with severe and complex learning difficulties using an approach based on caregiver-infant interaction’, European Journal of Special Educational Needs, 11 (1), 48-66.
**Hewett, D. Ed (2018) The Intensive Interaction Handbook (2nd Ed). Sage: London.
***Nind, M. (1996) ‘Efficacy of Intensive Interaction; Developing sociability and communication in people with severe and complex learning difficulties using an approach based on caregiver-infant interaction’, European Journal of Special Educational Needs, 11 (1), 48-66.
No comments:
Post a Comment