Defining and Measuring Social Vulnerability in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Challenges and Future Directions

• Published in: Journal of intellectual disability research 2024, Vol.68 (7), p.701
• Main Authors: Tabin, M., Arvidsson, Patrik
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1365-2788; 0964-2633

Background : Social vulnerability, sometimes called gullibility (i.e., an individual’s susceptibility to manipulation and victimization), is a significant concern for adults with intellectual disabilities (ID). However, there is a lack of consensus on its definition and measurement, hindering effective interventions and abuse prevention. This contribution synthesizes the results of two research studies conducted in Sweden and Switzerland that explored social vulnerability in adults with ID. By comparing data from these studies, we aim to address theoretical and methodological questions about what social vulnerability entails and how it should be measured. Method : Twenty-nine Swiss participants (mean age: 29.1) completed the ‘Test of Social Vulnerability’ (TV-22), containing 22 items, each describing specific risky scenarios. Forty Swedish participants (mean age: 24.1) completed ‘A Measure of Social Vulnerability’ (SV-15), containing 15 items encompassing concrete situations and general risky scenarios. Both groups underwent self-ratings/structured interviews and measures related to participation in everyday activities, adaptive behaviour, and IQ. Findings : Both studies found that greater participation in everyday activities is associated with reduced social vulnerability. The Swiss study found no correlation between social adaptive behaviour and social vulnerability, while the Swedish study showed a strong negative correlation. The Swiss study found a moderate association between social vulnerability and IQ, but no such association was found in the Swedish study. In the TV-22, the vulnerability ranged between 3-45% for each item; for the SV-15 this range was 19-69%. Conclusions : The similarity between the studies, showing that participation in everyday activities is associated with reduced social vulnerability, highlights the potential of a standardised definition/measurement in, e.g., developing prevention programmes. The differences between the two studies, e.g., differences in the role of IQ and adaptive behaviour, emphasise the need for further research to deepen the understanding of social vulnerability and reduce the susceptibility to victimisation in adults with ID.