Background Over the past years, it has become clear that adapted cognitive behavior therapy can be effective for adolescents with externalizing problems and mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning (MID–BIF). Most adapted treatment protocols consist, however, of a combined cognitive and behavioral approach, even though it is actually unclear which approach is most suitable for these adolescents. This experimental study aimed to examine which treatment approach (cognitive versus behavioral) and which treatment sequence (cognitive–behavioral versus behavioral–cognitive) is most effective. Methods Participating adolescents (N = 42, 50% boys, Mage = 15.52, SD = 1.43) consecutively received a cognitive and behavioral emotion regulation training module, but were randomly assigned to a different module sequence condition. Emotion regulation and externalizing problems were measured before and after the modules, and with continuing weekly assessments. Results Results indicated that the cognitive module, by itself, was more effective than the behavioral module. In addition, the results indicated that it is most effective to include behavioral exercises after (rather than before) cognitive training. Conclusions These findings highlight the importance of cognitive treatment approaches for adolescents with MID–BIF, and show that treatment approaches may have different effects, depending on the order in which they are presented.
Background: Aggressive incidents are common in people with intellectual disabilities.Therefore, we aimed to assess whether supplementation of multivitamins, minerals, and omega-3 fatty acids (FA) reduces aggressive incidents. Methods: We conducted a randomised, triple blind, placebo controlled, single crossover intervention trial. People with intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning, between 12 and 40 years of age, and showing aggressive behaviour were included. Participants received either a daily dose of dietary supplements, or placebo. Primary outcome was the number of aggressive incidents, measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS).Results: there were 113 participants (placebo, n = 56), of whom 24 (placebo, n = 10) participated in the crossover phase of the trial. All 137 trajectories were included in the analyses. There was no significant difference in mean number of aggressive incidents per day between those assigned to supplements and those who received placebo (rate ratio = 0.93: 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.59-1.45). Conclusion:In this pragmatic trial, we did not find significant differences in the outcomes between the supplement and placebo arms. The COVID-19 pandemic started midway through our trial, this may have affected the results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.