25 General Introduction 1 change slopes of subgroups. In a separate panel for the intervention group (left panel) and control group (right panel) you can each see two colored lines in addition to the same black average lines from Figure 2. These colored lines show different change slopes: the average of the men (blue) and women (pink). Looking at the average gender-subgroup slopes illustrates that conclusions solely based on the black-lined group average (Figure 2) scarcely tell the full story. Whereas, on average, those who received the intervention decreased their problem behaviors over the course of two months, Figure 3 shows that the conclusion holds in particular for the men. The right panel shows that, although the average of the control condition did not change, zooming in on women and men separately does reveal change: men decreased their problem behaviors whereas it increased for the girls. Men in both intervention and control group thus decreased their problems, albeit more in the intervention group than the control group. The problems of the women in the intervention group, however, remained unchanged and even increased in the control group. Zooming in on specific subgroups may thus reveal who profited most from the intervention, which can be extremely useful information for practice. In this example, it would allow practice to further investigate why the intervention does not achieve as good of a result for the women with a mild intellectual disability. Perhaps the women would be in need of different treatment methods. Chapter 3 zooms in on various subgroups besides gender, assessing whether Take it Personal! is more or less effective in reducing substance use for groups of individuals that score high on certain other specific behavioral problems. In short, we assess various potentially moderating effects with the aim to get closer to an answer who (do not) change over time. Pre-posttest designs provide insight into whether or not people changed, but not really into how they changed over time. With only two measurement occasions, the process of the individuals and the group can only be visualized as a linear, straight line from baseline until follow-up (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). A different data collection method that is often referred to as the daily diary method or Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMA; Shiffman et al., 2008) can map out the change process in more detail. Daily self-monitoring with EMA entails that participants rate their own experiences once per day for several weeks or months for example by using an app on their mobile phone (or else by pen-and-paper). During the past two decades, researchers have often applied this in various clinical populations (e.g., schizophrenic, depressed, addicted people), but only recently has this method found its way to research in people with mild intellectual disability (Bakkum et al., 2024; Gosens et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2020). Due to the novelty of this approach
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw