157 General Discussion 7 How did we theoretically define our variables of interest (or components) as distinct entities? Without a clear demarcation, the boundaries between personality risk profiles, behavioral problems, and substance use become blurred. This lack of distinction can lead to conceptual overlap, making it difficult to accurately identify and measure the unique contributions of each component. Diving into personality theory (Chapter 5) taught us that personality is hardly a static essence within a person causing behavior (e.g., impulsive behavior stemming from impulsivity within someone). Instead, dynamic systems personality theories agree that personality is an internal system of interacting cognitions and emotions, producing stable behavioral patterns across similar situations (e.g., Cervone, 2005; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Thus, when we assessed the role of behavioral problem domains as components in the interrelation between therapeutically targeted personalityrisk factors and substance use outcomes, it turns out that these variables can in fact be seen as different branches from the same tree. That is, personality encompasses emotional and behavioral problems, while the domain of behavioral problems includes substance use. The boundaries between the variables that the theory consists of are blurry, making the theoretical framework as a whole somewhat vague. By no means does this imply that theorizing about relevant factors (or components) contributing to problems of people with a mild intellectual disability is trivial. The AAIDD model (Figure 1 in Chapter 1; Schalock et al., 2012; Embregts et al., 2019) is a good example of a comprehensive overview of relevant components for people with a mild intellectual disability, which can guide research or the development of effective interventions. My concern, however, is that such theories may be too broad to falsify and lack real-world predictive power—a problem that extends beyond the topic and target group of this dissertation, into social sciences in general (cf. Meehl, 1990). The focus of most theory-building efforts tends to be on constructing a universal set of components, visualized within boxes or circles that represent variables, connected by lines or arrows that reflect their interrelations. Although these may be informative at the group level, I doubt that such frameworks apply to change processes in any specific individual. Chapter 4 taught us that the components brought forth by individual participants to monitor in diaries were highly heterogeneous and Chapter 5 illustrated the lack of a universal connectedness between components at the individual level.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw