Comparison of Social Validity Ratings With the Effects of a Video-Feedback Intervention for Communication Partners of Individuals With Deafblindness

Abstract

The parents, teachers, and professional caregivers of individuals with disabilities may benefit from interventions to enhance their educational skills. In previous studies, positive effects were observed of a video-feedback intervention for caregivers (i.e. parents, teachers, and professional caregivers) on their communication with an individual with congenital deafblindness. The intervention they received, was the High-Quality Communication (HQC) intervention. The aim of the current study was to gain insight into the perceived relevance, feasibility, and effectiveness (i.e., social validity) of the HQC-intervention according to these caregivers, and the correspondence between the social validity ratings and the observational effects of the HQC-intervention. Responses on the Social Validity Scale from 25 caregivers who participated in the High-Quality Communication (HQC) intervention revealed that they considered the HQC intervention to be a relevant, feasible, and effective intervention. Comparing the caregiver ratings with observational effects of the HQC intervention at the individual case level, we found no association between the observed effectiveness of this intervention and caregivers’ opinions about its relevance, feasibility and effectiveness. There was however, an association between the rated feasibility and effectiveness, which suggests that the perceived success of the intervention was influenced by caregivers’ experienced competency in supporting the communication of individuals with CDB. The combination of observational and social validity data enabled a critical analysis of the clinical value of the HQC intervention. We recommend that future studies use multiple data source for social validity assessment.

Interventions for children with deafblindness—An integrative review

“…Damen et al developed the high‐quality communication education intervention, with the purpose of encouraging interpersonal communication between persons with CBD and their communication partners (Damen et al, 2015, 2017, 2021). There was a positive effect on interpersonal communication between the children (6–13 years old) and their communication partners after the intervention (Damen et al, 2015, 2021).…”

“…Damen et al developed the high‐quality communication education intervention, with the purpose of encouraging interpersonal communication between persons with CBD and their communication partners (Damen et al, 2015, 2017, 2021). There was a positive effect on interpersonal communication between the children (6–13 years old) and their communication partners after the intervention (Damen et al, 2015, 2021). In another study, the results showed a significant similarity between the communicative behaviour of the communication partner and the children with CDB (age not provided), which indicated that a competent partner contributed to a more complex level of interpersonal communication (Damen et al, 2017).…”

“…In another study, the results showed a significant similarity between the communicative behaviour of the communication partner and the children with CDB (age not provided), which indicated that a competent partner contributed to a more complex level of interpersonal communication (Damen et al, 2017). The communication partners considered the intervention to be relevant and believed that it was a very good communication support for the communication partners of children with deafblindness (Damen et al, 2021). There was, however, no correspondence between the communication partners' opinions about the relevance of the intervention and the observed effects.…”

“…Many of the interventions on social interaction and communication as well as motivation and participation used video observations as a method for counselling and for determining the outcome for the intervention (Bruce, 2002; Bruce et al, 2016; Damen et al, 2015, 2021; Haakma et al, 2016, 2017a, 2017b; Janssen et al, 2003; Martens et al, 2014). Presumably, it is challenging to have one's interactions video recorded and then have to view them and be evaluated, especially in a situation where one is perhaps uncertain about how to best interact with another individual.…”

Case report: Dancing in the dark: A critical single case study engaging a blind father in the rehabilitation journey of his visually impaired child

“…Children with low-vision or complete blindness conditions may lack-at least partially-the capacity to timely respond to vision-dependent requests or behaviors (Adamson et al, 1977). Eye contact, visual imitation, recognition of emotional expressions, and cognitive-spatial orientation may be impaired, and this may dramatically limit opportunities to engage in social relationships (Dale et al, 2014;Damen et al, 2015). A recent systematic review of this literature (Grumi et al, 2021) highlighted that responsivity to interactive stimuli may be the most impaired domain of early dyadic interactions in these children.…”