Design and Procedure. This study was a pragmatic, randomised, triple-blind, placebo controlled, multicentre, crossover intervention study to investigate the effect of dietary supplements on aggressive behavior among people with intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning. The data was collected at locations of six care organizations between April 11, 2018 and February 1, 2021. Participants first entered a run-in phase and received placebo supplements for 2 weeks. Thereafter, they were randomized and included in the 16-week study. After completion, they were asked to participate in the crossover trial, and after a new informed consent procedure and a washout period of at least two weeks, they would repeat the study in a different treatment arm, while the study pharmacist maintained the blind to treatment allocation. Support staff offered the supplements and reported incidents daily. Trained research assistants collected baseline and endpoint data from the support staff, and if possible, from the participants. On a weekly basis, they monitored incident reports and adverse events collected by support staff. The participants received a gift voucher of 5 euros twice for their contribution to providing baseline and endpoint data. Participants Participants were recruited from six care organizations for people with intellectual disabilities in different regions in the Netherlands (i.e., Amarant, Amerpoort, Gemiva-SVG-groep, Schakenbosch, ‘s Xxxxxx Loo, and Trajectum). People with borderline intellectual functioning may need similar support as people with mild intellectual disability due to psychological co- morbidity and deficits in adaptive abilities (Xxxxxx et al., 2021). In the Netherlands they can receive support through the care system for people with intellectual disabilities. Therefore, these people were also recruited to participate in our study. To explain the study to potential participants an animation film and folders in simple language were developed. People who were willing to participate were asked to provide informed consent. For legally incapacitated people with intellectual disabilities, as monitored by the organizations' psychologist, and children under the age of 16, informed consent was (also) requested from the legal representative. The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used: Successfully completing the run-in phase; Age between 12-40 years; Receiving care from an intellectual disabilities-organisation; IQ < 85; Score > 5 on the...
Design and Procedure. Each trial consisted of an image, a sentence and a rating scale, as in Fig.1. It was explained at the start that one of the characters in each image – namely the one with the speech bubble – is the speaker, and that the sentence below the image indicates what the speaker says.
Design and Procedure. To obtain a global measure of children's general cognitive-intellectual abilities, Xxxxx's Progressive Matrices, black and white version (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1979) was administered as a pretest. Depending on their Raven PM score, gender, and age, the children were assigned to an experimental, a semi-control or a control condition. Teachers of children in the experimental condition also participated in the semi-control condition. In this way, differences in teaching practice towards individual children could be measured, as well as changes in estimations/expectations of learning potential. Teachers in the "pure" control condition did not have any children in the experimental condition, did not receive any recommendation based on dynamic assessment, and functioned as a comparison group to teachers who did have any information about dynamic assessment. The distribution of teachers and children over the three conditions and administrative order of various measurements are displayed in Table 5.1. Before the formal assessment took place teachers completed for every participating child a Dutch version of the School Behavior Checklist (SCHOBL-R; Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxx, 1993; Resing, Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx, 1999), including an additional, newly constructed Learning Potential scale. In addition, experimenters (five psychology students) conducted an interview with the teacher and performed classroom observations. During the interview, teachers were asked to rate the learning potential for each participating child in their classroom on a 6-point scale varying from low potential (0) to high potential (6). In the next few weeks the dynamic assessment measure (LIR) was administrated to children in the experimental condition, including a pretest, 3 training sessions, a posttest, and a reversal task. Based on the outcomes of assessment, questionnaire, and classroom observation a written report, including recommendations, was handed to each teacher. Reports with specific recommendations based on the dynamic test were provided only regarding children in the experimental condition. All reports were written by the experimenters under supervision of and edited by the first author to insure similar content, structure, and style. Two to three weeks later classroom observations and questionnaires were repeated, including a second teacher interview and completion of learning potential ratings by the teachers.
Design and Procedure. The EU-GEI study WP2 employed a case-control design collecting data with an extensive battery of demographic, clinical, social, and biological measures (Core assessment); psychological measures, and cognitive tasks. All EU-GEI WP2 participants with JTC and IQ data were included in the current study. All the researchers involved in administrating the assessments undertook a training organised by a technical working committee of the overall EU-GEI study (Work Package 11) at the beginning and throughout the study. Inter-rater reliability was assessed annually to warrant comparability of procedures and methods across sites. Statistical analysis Analyses were conducted in STATA 15 (StataCorp., 2017). Preliminary descriptive analyses were performed using chi-square and t tests to examine the differences on age, sex, ethnicity, level of education, IQ, and DTD between cases and controls. To test possible statistical mediation by IQ as intervening variable between case/control status and DTD, we applied Baron and Xxxxx’s procedure (1986). According to the authors, a mediation can be established when 1) variations in the independent variable (IV) significantly account for variations in the dependent variable (DV); 2) variations in the IV significantly account for variations in the mediator variable (Rimvall et al); 3) variations in the MV significantly account for variations in the DV; 4) a previous significant effect of IV on DV is markedly decreased after controlling for MV. Perfect mediation occurs when the independent variable has no effect after controlling for the mediator (Xxxxx XX, 1986). The STATA 15 sgmediation command was used to perform three OLS regressions according to Xxxxx and Xxxxx’s steps as follows: 1) DTD (DV) regressed on case/control status (IV) – Path c, 2) IQ (Xxxxxxx et al) regressed on case/control status (IV) – Path a, 3) DTD (DV) regressed on IQ (MV) and case/control status (IV) – Path b and c’ (Figure 1). All the steps included as covariates age, sex, ethnicity, and country. Furthermore, to generate confidence intervals for the indirect effect, 5000 bootstrap replications were performed (Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx, 2008) and non-parametric confidence interval based on the empirical sampling distributions was constructed. To investigate whether jumping to conclusions was associated with the liability for psychotic disorders and general intelligence, we firstly tested the accuracy of the PRSs to predict their primary phenotypes (case/control status ...
Design and Procedure. The EU-GEI study Work-Package 2 (WP2) employed a case-control design collecting data with an extensive battery of demographic, clinical, social, and biological measures (Core assessment); psychological measures, and cognitive tasks. EU-GEI WP2 participants with complete Degraded Facial Affect Recognition (DFAR) task and Benton Face Recognition Test (BFRT) data were included in the current study. All the researchers involved in administering the assessments undertook a training organised by a technical working committee of the overall EU-GEI study at the beginning and throughout the study. Inter-rater reliability (0.75) was assessed annually to warrant comparability of procedures and methods across sites. Participants Participants were recruited and assessed as part of the incidence and first episode case- control study, conducted as part of the EU-GEI programme24-26. The study was designed to investigate risk factors for psychotic disorders between 1/5/2010 and 1/4/2015 in 17 catchment areas in England, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Brazil. Patients were included if they met the following criteria during the recruitment period: (a) aged between 18 and 64 years; (b) presentation with a clinical diagnosis for an untreated FEP, even if longstanding (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] codes F20-F33); (c) resident within the catchment area at first presentation. Exclusion criteria were: (a) previous contact with psychiatric services for psychosis; (b) psychotic symptoms with any evidence of organic causation; and
