Page 81 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

Comparison of Social Networks
member. For professionals only ten characteristics were used in the MSNA (e.g. frequency of contact, length of the relationship, initiation of contact and functional characteristics), because the other items were less relevant with respect to them (e.g. demographic characteristics). In this study we present the characteristics which are relevant for all groups of network members (e.g. size and composition of the network, frequency of contact, initiation of contact, length of the relationship and the functional characteristics).
To ensure a minimum of reliability and validity for the MSNA, the following were taken as starting points: (a) only information on network members with whom there was a direct connection should be provided; (b) the information obtained in such a manner was of a largely objective, factual nature; and (c) only information which was known for certain was provided, with anything that was uncertain therefore omitted (Baars, 1994).
For the present study, the original form of the MSNA was adapted for use 4 with people with mild ID by simplifying questions and using visualization.
This variation was used for all participants, including for participants in the
ASD and REF groups. First, a genogram (i.e. family tree) was used to map the characteristics of the participant’s family relations. Second, an ecogram was
created to visualize the remainder of the social network. This technique, using a
diagram with concentric circles around the participant, is described by Phillips,
Bernard, Phillipson, & Ogg (2000), referring to Kahn and Antonucci (1980) who
first used this technique. We made some adaptations (e.g. in the measure
we used we did not include family and we did not determine a maximum of
names). Thus, three concentric circles were placed around the name of the participant who then mapped his or her relations with friends, neighbours, colleagues, other acquaintances and professionals by pointing within which
circle a particular network member should be placed. The more important the
network member, the closer the name is written to the name of the participant.
The ecogram we used is outlined in the MSNA manual (van Asselt-Goverts et al.,
2012). Finally, a five-point ‘‘stairway’’ scale was used to measure the functional characteristics of the participant’s social network in terms of four dimensions
of supportiveness: the higher the score, the higher the step on the stairway.
79