INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010

Person-Centered Planning: Analysis of Research and Effectiveness

Claudia Claes, Geert Van Hove, Stijn Vandevelde, Jos van Loon, and Robert L. Schalock

Abstract
Person-centered planning is a well known and widely used approach to individual program planning
in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Its purpose is to develop collaborative
supports focused on community presence, community participation, positive relationships, respect,
and competence. Because there is little research on its effectiveness, our purpose here was to (a)
review the current status of effectiveness research; (b) describe its effectiveness in terms of outcomes
or results; and (c) discuss the effectiveness of person-centered planning in relation to evidence-
based practices. Analyzed studies suggest that, overall, this planning has a positive, but moderate,
impact on personal outcomes for this population. The body of evidence provided in this review is
weak with regard to criteria for evidence-based research.
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-48.6.432

Person-centered planning is a well-known and (J. O’Brien & Lovett, 1992), Personal Futures
often used approach to individual program planning Planning (J. O’Brien & Lovett, 1992), Planning
in the field of intellectual and developmental Alternative Tomorrows With Hope (Pearpoint,
disabilities (Felce, 2004; Green, Middleton, & Reid, O’Brien, & Forest, 1993), and the Picture Method
2000; Holburn, 2002 a, 2002b; Mansell & Beadle- (Holburn, Gordon, & Vietze, 2007).
Brown, 2004; J. O’Brien, 2004). The general term Although person-centered planning processes
emerged in 1985 and its components reflect the are increasingly used in the intellectual and
broader ideological framework of normalization and developmental disabilities field (Amado & McBride,
inclusion. (Holburn, Jacobson, Vietze, Schwartz, & 2002; Keyes & Owens-Johnson, 2003; King, Bald-
Sersen, 2000; C. O’Brien & O’Brien, 2002). win, Currie, & Evans, 2005), to our knowledge there
Person-centered planning covers a wide range of has been no systematic review of the literature
procedures and guidelines focused on the creation of regarding the effectiveness of person-centered plan-
fundamental changes in the lives of people with ning. In this study, our purpose was to conduct such a
intellectual and developmental disabilities (Clou- review. We had three objectives: (a) to review the
tier, Malloy, Hagner, & Cotton, 2006; Combes, current status of research into the effectiveness of
Hardy, & Buchan, 2004; Holburn, 2002 a, 2002b). person-centered planning, (b) to describe the
The purpose of person-centered planning is to effectiveness of person-centered planning in terms
develop collaborative, goal-oriented, and individu- of outcomes or results, and (c) to discuss the
alized programs that are focused on community effectiveness of person-centered planning in relation
presence, community participation, positive rela- to evidence-based practices. Our rationale was that
tionships, respect, and competence (Cloutier et al., to be considered as evidence-based, person-centered
2006; Keyes & Owens-Johnson, 2003; J. O’Brien, planning interventions need to have clear empirical
1987; Rea, Martin, & Wright, 2002). Some of the support (Veerman & van Yperen, 2007; Wade,
most common forms of person-centered planning are 1999) that requires both reliable implementation of
the McGill Action Planning System (Vandercook, the process and valid assessment of the outcomes
York, & Forest, 1989), Essential Lifestyle Planning (Holburn, 2002 a, 2002b; King et al., 2005; Rea et
(Smull & Harrisson, 1992), Life-Lifestyle Planning al., 2002; Wagner, 2002).

432 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

(Green et al., 2000; Reid, Everson, & Green, 1999;

Method
Robertson et al., 2006). The focus in 5 studies was
Identification of Potential Articles/Studies on functional assessment and positive behavior
We restricted our literature review to all support in combination with person-centered
articles published on the Web of Science between planning (Artesani & Mallar, 1998; Buschbacher,
1985 and January 2009. Initially, we paired the 2004; Buschbacher & Fox, 2003; Gardner, Bird,
terms person-centered planning and person-centred Maguire, Carreiro, & Abenaim, 2003; Kennedy et
planning with the term effectiveness. This search al., 2001). In 4 studies investigators specified the
query identified only 15 manuscripts. In order to be described planning processes as a personal career
more comprehensive, we extended our search using plan (Menchetti & Garcia, 2003), innovative and
one string only: person-centered planning and person- culturally responsive person-centered practice
centred planning. These searches were not limited by (Hasnain & Sotnik, 2003), and later-life planning
diagnostic group. This extended search identified (Heller, Factor, Sterns, & Sutton, 1996; Heller,
108 potential articles. Miller, Hsieh, & Sterns, 2000). In 3 studies the
authors defined the person-centered planning
Selection of Articles for Analysis process as Whole Life Planning (Hagner, Helm,
Two of the authors (the first and third), who & Butterworth, 1996) and Personal Futures Plan-
are active researchers in the field of intellectual and ning (Holburn, Jacobson, Schwartz, Flory, &
developmental disabilities, independently reviewed Vietze, 2004; Miner & Bates, 1997). Holburn et
titles and abstracts of all potentially relevant al. conducted the only study in which key factors
studies. They used two inclusion criteria: (a) that associated with the implemented person-centered
person-centered planning was applied to people planning process were also assessed.
with intellectual and developmental disabilities and
(b) that the researchers reported empirical findings Assessment of Methodological Quality of
on effectiveness. Quantitative Studies
Based on an initial analysis of the abstracts or We used 16 criteria to examine the method-
full texts of the 108 articles, we excluded 14 articles ological quality of the 11 quantitative outcome
as being abstracts or book reviews. Thirty five were studies identified. These criteria were based on the
excluded because the authors did not focus on people widely used checklist (see, for example, Alla,
with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We Sullivan, Hale, & McCrory, 2009; Prins, Blanker,
excluded an additional 35 studies that were exclu- Bohnen, Thomas, & Bosch, 2002; Wells & Littell,
sively descriptive in nature. Of the remaining 24 2009) developed by Downs and Black (1998) to
potential articles, researchers in 9 examined only research the methodological quality and evidence-
elements of the person-centered planning process based nature of quantitative nonrandomized stud-
(not effectiveness) and, therefore, were not includ- ies. This information contributed to the evidence-
ed. Only 15 studies met the two selection criteria based practices of reporting relevant information
referenced above. An overview summary of these 15 and demonstrating external and internal validity.
studies is presented in Table 1. This summary The 16 criteria are listed in Table 2. We
includes the study’s independent and dependent developed a rating sheet to evaluate each article on
variables, sample size, design, data-collection strat- these 16 criteria. Specifically, we chose the criteria
egy, measurement instrument, and the main effects to describe evidence presented related to (a)
reported. As also shown in Table 1, 11 were reporting (the information provided is sufficient
quantitative and 4 were qualitative studies. to allow readers to make an unbiased assessment of
the findings of the study: Items 1–8), (b) external
Results validity (study results are applicable to other
populations: Items 9–11), and (c) internal validity
Definition of Person-Centered Planning (the measurement is accurate apart from random
There is no universal definition of person- error: Items 12–16). In the present study, we gave
centered planning. In 3 of the studies, the each criterion a yes (1), or no/unable to determine
researchers described person-centered planning in (0). Two judges/authors did the scoring indepen-
general terms of a person-centered planning process dently. In case of disagreement (which occurred on

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 433

434
Table 1 Overview of Person-Centered Planning (PCP) Studies
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Robertson Social network; PCP (not 93 people with Quantitative Questionnaires Health Survey for Modest positive
et al. contact with specified) intellectual research; England; Index benefit on the
(2006) family; contact disability pre–post study; of Community life experiences
Person-centered planning

with friends; information on Involvement; of people;

community the life Social Network benefits in the
involvement; experiences of Maps; Client areas of social
scheduled day participants Service Receipt networks,
activities; collected over a Inventory: community
choice; period of 2 years Strengths and involvement,
community- for a cohort of 93 Difficulties scheduled day
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

based service adults with Questionnaire; services, contact

receipt; intellectual Risks Scale; with friends,
hospital-based disability Adaptive contact with
service receipt; Behavior Scale; family and
physical PASS–ADD choice; No
activity; checklist; impact on
current Learning inclusive social
VOLUME

medication Disabilities networks,

48,

receipt; health Casemix Scale; employment,

problems; English Indices physical activity,
strengths and Deprivation medication
NUMBER

difficulties; risk Change in a

negative
direction for
6: 432–453

risks, physical
|

health, and
emotional and
behavioral needs
DECEMBER

Costs: $1,202 per

person

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

C. Claes et al.
2010
 Table 1 Continued
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Buschbacher Challenging Functional One 7-year-old Quantitative Interviews/ Reductions in
(2004) behavior; assessment and boy dually research; single direct challenging
Person-centered planning

engagement in positive diagnosed with case study; observation behavior;

daily routine; behavior autistic-like multiple baseline increases in child’s
parent–child support in characteristics design engagement;
interactions combination and Landau- increases in
with personal Kleffner parent–child
futures syndrome interactions;
planning increased number
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

of days the child

slept during the
night
Holburn et al. Changes in PCP Personal futures 20 people with Quantitative Questionnaires Developmental Rate of improvement
(2004) processes and planning intellectual research; Disabilities in both PCP process
quality of life; disability and control group; Profile 2; and outcomes

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

movement to problem longitudinal Personal Futures (QOL) for the
VOLUME

the community behavior and a comparative Planning intervention group

48,

matched evaluation- Indicators; significantly

control group matched contrast Indicators of greater than that
NUMBER

group Principles Scale; of the

person-centred comparison
planning; quality group; 18/19
of life indicators participants
6: 432–453

moved to
|

community living
arrangements cf.
5 to 18 in the
DECEMBER

contrast group

435
2010
C. Claes et al.
436
Table 1 Continued
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Person-centered planning

Buschbacher & Positive behavior One boy Quantitative Not specified Six months later,
Fox (2003) support diagnosed with research; single use of visual
combined with autism case study schedules and
PCP spectrum choice boards,
disorder increasingly
verbalized
requests and
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

protests,
engaged in
simple dramatic
play with others,
and participated
in an increased
number of
VOLUME

community
48,

activities
effectively; more
consistent
NUMBER

responding to
education and
therapeutic
6: 432–453

interventions
|
DECEMBER

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

C. Claes et al.
2010
 Table 1 Continued
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Gardner et al. Lifestyle changes Applied behavior Two adolescents Qualitative Recorded data Targeted challenging
Person-centered planning

(2003) analysis and who received research; single collection behaviors reduced to
PCP the intensive, case study; zero; participants’
longitudinal, long-term, domains of activity
multicomponent natural- increased and self-
intervention environment management
case study improved even as
method supports were
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

(3-year case systematically

study design) withdrawn
Hasnain & Client outcomes. Innovative and People (N5328) Qualitative Planning Several positive
Sotnik culturally with research, meetings outcomes:
(2003) responsive PCP disabilities who program awareness of new
represented a evaluation employment

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

variety of options and
VOLUME

different opportunities,
48,

backgrounds, experience of
experiences, positive gains in
and situations employment
NUMBER

options;
difficulties in
engaging
6: 432–453

individuals from
|

ethnically,
linguistically, and
culturally diverse
backgrounds
DECEMBER

437
2010
C. Claes et al.
 Table 1 Continued

438
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Menchetti & Career choice; Personal career 83 supported Qualitative Document High and moderate
Garcia employment plan employees with research; single analyses; levels of
(2003) outcomes intellectual category design focus groups preference
disability (document attained by 83%
Person-centered planning

analyses and of the employees

focus groups) studied; wages
and length of
employment not
significantly
different by level
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

of match
Kennedy Problem behavior PCP, functional Three students: 1 Quantitative Teacher records Two of 3 students
et al. and general assessment, receiving research; single and student increased or
(2001) education and positive special case study; schedules; maintained high
participation behavior education combined observations levels of general
support services and 2 concurrent and education
at risk for more nonconcurrent participation;
restrictive multiple baseline decreased in
VOLUME

placements across-students problem

48,

design behavior; for 1

student, poor
NUMBER

implementation
of support plan
associated with
increases in
6: 432–453

problem behavior
|

and decreases in
general
education
DECEMBER

participation

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

C. Claes et al.
2010
 Table 1 Continued
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Green et al. Identification of PCP Three adults Quantitative Single-item PCP resulted in
(2000) accurate with multiple research; approach and identification of
preferences physical single case study avoidance accurate
Person-centered planning

disabilities and assessment preferences and

profound observation also in a number
mental of inaccurate
retardation reports of
preferences
Heller et al. Knowledge of Later-life 60 adults with Quantitative Questionnaires Later-Life Planning Significant
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

(2000) choice-making planning mental research; control Curriculum Test; interaction effect
and ageing retardation group Life Satisfaction by group and
issues, daily Scale; Daily time for amount
choice-making Choice Inventory; of choice-
and life Inventory for making, but no
satisfaction Client and Agency effect on life
Planning satisfaction;

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOLUME

adults with
48,

mental
retardation gain
skills and
NUMBER

knowledge as
they aged;
highlighted key
6: 432–453

roles of staff and

|

families in
providing
support to meet
preferred life
DECEMBER

goals

439
2010
C. Claes et al.
 Table 1 Continued

440
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Reid et al. Identification of PCP use of Four adults with Quantitative Single-item PCP resulted in
(1999) accurate mapping multiple research; single approach and identification of
preferences physical case study avoidance accurate preferences
(leisure-related disabilities and assessment as well as in a number
Person-centered planning

preferences) profound observation of inaccurate reports

mental of preferences; PCP
retardation should be
accompanied by
systematic
preference
assessments
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Artesani & Challenging PCP, functional One student Quantitative Observation Increased time engaged
Mallar behavior analysis, and with research; single in academic tasks,
(1998) positive challenging case study reduced need for
behavior behavior one-to-one
support assistance, improved
quality of academic
performance,
VOLUME

increased
48,

involvement in group
activities, increased
use of alternative
NUMBER

methods for avoiding

tasks and
satisfaction; benefits
6: 432–453

of team approach,
|

integral involvement
of the family and
student, and
DECEMBER

development of a
broader vision

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

C. Claes et al.
2010
 Table 1 Continued
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Miner & Bates Parent/guardian Personal futures 22 students and Quantitative Observation Significant difference
(1997) participation in planning model their families research; Questionnaire in percentage of
Person-centered planning

IEP/transition randomized intervals in which

planning control group the parents spoke in
meetings and design the meetings
discussion of between the
postschool treatment and
issues control group
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

(higher
experimental
group); no
significant
difference in favor
of treatment group
in the percentage of

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOLUME

intervals in which
postschool issues
48,

were discussed
between groups;
NUMBER

similar postmeeting
satisfaction
between groups;
6: 432–453

stronger
perceptions of
|

change by families
who participated in
PCP in the follow-up
DECEMBER

441
2010
C. Claes et al.
442
Table 1 Continued
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Person-centered planning

Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported

Hagner et al. Whole Life Six participants Qualitative Participant Constraints on equal
(1996) Planning with moderate, research observation, participation
mild, or severe in-depth (differences by both
mental interviewing and role and age,
retardation document friends comprised
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

analyses the smallest group

of attendees,
negative comments
could not be
avoided, only thin
line between giving
assistance and
VOLUME

overpowering
48,

individual’s own
views; facilitator
role difficulties;
NUMBER

unplanned nature of
outcomes (closer
social relationships)
6: 432–453
|
DECEMBER

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

C. Claes et al.
2010
 Table 1 Continued
Dependent Independent Data collection Measurement Main effects
Author variable variable Sample size Design strategy instrument reported
Heller et al. Knowledge of Person-centered 70 adults with Quantitative Questionnaires/ Later Life Planning Improved knowledge
(1996) choice-making later life intellectual research; Observations Inventory; on leisure–
and ageing planning disabilities (42 control group Inventory for recreation
Person-centered planning

issues, life training intervention, Client and Agency information,

satisfaction, program 38 comparison Planning; Later retirement, work
social support, group) Life Curriculum and volunteering,
participation in Test; Service and social support;
recreation– Planning no improvements in
leisure Observational knowledge of
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

activities and Tool choice-making and

daily choice- action plans, health
making and wellness, and
living arrangements;
increased use of
leisure–recreation
activities for the

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOLUME

trainees living at
48,

home; decrease in
ratings of life
satisfaction; and
NUMBER

greater involvement
of families, more
encouragement of
6: 432–453

the individual’s
|

participation, and
more incorporation
of individual’s
desires in written
DECEMBER

goals

443
2010
C. Claes et al.
444
Table 2 Results of Quantitative Analysis
Reporting External validity Internal validity
Sub- Sub- Sub-
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 total 9 10 11 total 12 13 14 15 16 total Total
Person-centered planning

Robertson et al.
(2006) 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 8
Buschbacher
(2004) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 9
Holburn et al.
(2004) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 9
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Gardner et al.
(2003) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 8
Kennedy et al.
(2001) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 9
Green et al.
(2000) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 9
Heller et al.
VOLUME

(2000) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 10
48,

Reid et al.
(1999) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 9
Artesani & Mallar
NUMBER

(1998) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 8
Miner & Bates
(1997) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 10
6: 432–453

Heller et al.
|

(1996) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 10
DECEMBER

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

C. Claes et al.
2010
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

10 of the 176 possible scores), a consensus score was

Total
agreed upon after considerable discussion. The

27
21

25
24
results of this analysis are shown in Table 2.

recognition knowledge Applicability

Assessment of Methodological Quality of
Qualitative Studies

3
3

3
The same two authors assessed the methodo-

Heuristic relevance
logical quality of the qualitative studies by means of
the widely used checklist and scoring system

Existing
developed by Cesario, Morin, and Santa-Donato

3
3

3
(2002) (see, for example, Genuis & Genuis, 2006;
McCartney & Morin, 2005). Cesario et al.

Intuitive
developed the scoring system to evaluate qualita-
tive evidence (i.e., the assertion of the strength of

3
3

3
qualitative research and the ability to evaluate the
level of evidence). The scale contains criteria for
rating the following five categories: descriptive

connected-
Theoretical
vividness, methodological congruence, analytical

ness

3
3

2
preciseness, theoretical connectedness, and heuris-
tic relevance. The authors scored every study with
each of those five categories according to a 3-point
preciseness
rating scale: 3 5 more than 75% of the criteria met, Analytical
2 5 between 50% and 74% of the criteria met, and

3
2

2
1 5 between 25% and 49% of the criteria met.
Scoring was done independently by the same
authors, and differences (on 5 of the 40 possible
Confirm-
ability

ratings) were discussed and settled, resulting in a

3
3

2
consensus score. The results of this analysis are
presented in Table 3. One study met the criterion
Methodological congruence

of fair, indicating that the total score was 15 to 22.4

Ethical

(i.e., 50 to 74% of the total criteria met); Three of

rigor

1
1

the 4 studies met the criterion of good, indicating

that the total score was 22.5 to 30 (i.e., 75% to
100% of the total criteria met (Cesario et al.,
documenta- Procedural

2002).
Rigor

2
2

1
Table 3 Results of the Qualitative Analysis

Evaluation of Outcome Effectiveness

The rating scale used to evaluate outcome
Rigor in

effectiveness was developed by Prout and Nowak-

tion

3
2

Drabik (2003). For this rating scale, which enables

the evaluation of various variables for outcome
effectiveness, a 5-point scale is used: 1: no
Descriptive

significant change/no effectiveness (i.e., researchers

vividness

reported no impacts on the studied variables), 2:

2

3
2

minimal change/minimal effectiveness (i.e., authors

report a positive impact on some outcome variables,
but mostly side effects in the negative direction), 3:
Hagner et al.
Buschbacher

Menchetti &

moderate change/moderate effectiveness (i.e., pos-

Hasnain &

(2003)

(1996)
(2003)

(2003)
Sotnik

Garcia
& Fox

itive impacts were reported on most of the studied

Study

outcome variables, but also some side effects in the

negative direction), 4: significant change/signifi-

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 445

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

cant effectiveness (i.e., researchers found signifi- Table 4 Rating of Outcome Effectiveness
cant effects on all studied outcome variables), and Mean
5: marked change/marked effectiveness (i.e., signif- Outcome variable/reference Score score
icant and marked effectiveness on all outcome
variables was reported). The two authors involved Improvement of social networks 3.6
in the evaluation process made an independent Hagner et al. (1996) 3
rating of each article based on this 5-point scale; Artesani & Mallar (1998) 4
their ratings were averaged to produce a final score Buschbacher (2004) 4
(see Table 4). As shown in the table, significant Holburn et al. (2004) 4
change/effectiveness was most apparent in the Robertson et al. (2006) 3
outcome variables related to reduction in challeng-
ing behavior references, improvement in social Community involvement 3.5
networks, community involvement and issues Holburn et al. (2004) 4
related to the planning process (involvement of Robertson et al. (2006) 3
the person or his or her family, improved commu- Choice-making 2.9
nication, teamwork, development of a larger
vision). The researchers reported less change or Hagner et al. (1996) 3
effectiveness in knowledge issues and choice- Heller et al. (1996) 3
making. Reid et al. (1999) 2
Green et al. (2000) 2
Heller et al. (2000) 3
Discussion Hasnain & Sotnik (2003) 3
The use of person-centered planning was Menchetti & Garcia(2003) 3
associated with an improvement in social networks, Holburn et al. (2004) 4
closer contact with family and friends, or greater Robertson et al. (2006) 3
involvement and engagement in group activities
(Artesani & Mallar, 1998; Buschbacher, 2004; Knowledge Issues 3
Hagner et al., 1996; Holburn et al., 2004; Heller et al. (1996) 3
Robertson et al., 2006). Robertson et al. measured Heller et al. (2000 3
person-centered planning against statistically
Reduction in challenging behavior 4
tracked changes in these domains, with a 52%
increase in the size of social networks, a 2.4 times Artesani & Mallar (1998) 4
greater chance of having active contacts with Kennedy et al. (2001) 4
family members, and a 40% increase in the level Buschbacher & Fox (2003) 4
of contact with friends. However, they did not find Gardner et al. (2003) 4
an impact on inclusive social networks. Buschbacher (2004) 4
Person-centered planning also resulted in
Process issuesa 3.4
benefits in the area of community involvement
(Holburn al., 2004; Robertson et al., 2006). In Heller et al. (1996) 3
Holburn’s study, people who participated in person- Miner & Bates (1997) 3
centered planning were significantly more likely to Artesani & Mallar (1998) 4
leave the developmental center for a community Heller et al. (2000) 3
living arrangement designed especially for them Holburn et al. (2004) 4
than were matched peers who received conven- a
Involvement of the person and his or her family,
tional individualized support interventions.
The effect of person-centered planning on teamwork, communication, and development of a
choice-making or expressing preferences was re- larger vision.
ported (although to a lesser extent than with social
networks) in several studies (Green et al., 2000; Robertson et al., 2006). Green et al. (2000) and
Hagner et al., 1996; Hasnain & Sotnik, 2003; Reid et al. (1999) investigated the identification of
Heller et al., 1996, 2000; Holburn et al., 2004; accurate preferences through person-centered plan-
Menchetti & Garcia, 2003; Reid et al., 1999; ning; they found that this type of planning resulted

446 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

in a number of accurate preferences, but also a decrease in life satisfaction. Miner and Bates (1997)
number of inaccurate reports. Menchetti and reported no significant effects on discussion of
Garcia (2003) concluded that high and moderate postschool issues during planning meetings.
levels of preferences on career choice were attained As reflected in the studies analyzed for this
by 83% of the employees they studied. article, peer-reviewed studies on the evaluation of
Heller and colleagues focused on knowledge outcomes related to the use of person-centered
issues regarding ageing-related themes. They found planning are scarce. One reason for this might be
improved knowledge on leisure information, retire- the lack of one clear definition of person-centered
ment, work, volunteering and social support, but no planning. Also, the components of its process are
improvements in knowledge of choice-making, complex and hard to define (Holburn et al., 2000).
health, wellness, or living arrangements (Heller et No studies were published before 1996. All
al., 1996). In another study, Heller et al. (2000) investigations except one were conducted in the
found significant effects of later-life planning on United States. This may indicate that person-
the knowledge of choice-making. Adults were able centered planning has not been widely adopted yet
to gain skills and knowledge as they aged. internationally.
In 5 studies, researchers evaluated the effect of Five general statements can be made regarding
positive behavior support and person-centered plan- the studies involved in the present analysis. First,
ning on challenging behavior (Artesani & Mallar, most of them were quantitative and involved small
1998; Buschbacher, 2004; Buschbacher & Fox, 2003; sample sizes (11 of the 15). Second, although the
Gardner et al., 2003; Kennedy et al., 2001). In each methodological quality of the studies was assessed
of these studies, the investigators reported a reduc- as being of good quality, they were weak in terms of
tion in challenging behavior and increased engage- external validity (see Table 2). Third, person-
ment. Similarly, Buschbacher found increases in centered planning was either not defined or defined
parent–child interactions; Kennedy et al. found loosely. Fourth, there was only one study in which
increased or maintained high levels of general the researchers reported on the assessment of the
education participation; and Artesani and Mallar implemented person-centered planning process
reported improved academic performance and in- (Holburn et al., 2004). In order to demonstrate
creased involvement in group activities. evidence-based practices, a full description of the
Several authors described the advantages of the person-centered planning process needs to be
implementation of person-centered planning relat- included. Fifth, there was no horizontal alignment
ed to the planning process (Artesani & Mallar, between various aspects of person-centered plan-
1998; Heller et al., 1996, 2000; Holburn et al., ning and person-referenced outcomes.
2004; Miner & Bates, 1997). Findings mainly Based on these five general statements, limited
emphasized the importance of teamwork and the generalizations can be drawn on the effects of
integral involvement of the person and his or her person-centered planning and its evidence. The
family. Other reported benefits were improved limited description of the different components of
communication, incorporation of the individual’s the process (or combined procedures, for example,
desires in written goals, development of a larger applied behavior analysis together with person-
vision, and a significant effect on parental partic- centered planning), along with the lack of a control
ipation in planning meetings. condition makes it difficult to conclude that
In addition to these positive outcomes, less changes in outcomes can be directly attributed to
positive outcomes were reported. For example, the person-centered planning intervention that was
Robertson et al. (2006) reported no impact of reported. Perhaps changes occurred independently
person-centered planning on inclusive social net- of the person-centered planning intervention (or
works, employment, physical activity, or medica- because of other variables or interventions related
tion and a change in a negative direction for risks, to the person-centered planning intervention),
physical health, and emotional and behavioral which is an assertion that has already been made
needs. Menchetti and Garcia (2003) found no by Holburn et al. (2000).
effect on wages or length of employment. Hasnain Based on the data summarized in Tables 1
and Sotnik (2003) had difficulty engaging individ- through 4, we have identified five difficulties/
uals from ethnically, linguistically, and culturally weaknesses associated with the studies reported to
diverse backgrounds. Heller et al. (1996) found a date in the person-centered planning (descriptive)

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 447

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

literature. First, person-centered planning reaches making their own decisions (Cambridge & Car-
only a minority of service users (Felce, 2004; naby, 2005) and to abandon the controlled position
Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2004; Robertson, Emer- that people with disabilities are often involved in
son et al., 2007; Robertson, Hattan et al., 2007). (C. O’Brien & O’Brien, 2002).
Robertson. Emerson et al. indicated that there is a Fourth, the absence of relationships and social
strong influence of factors relating to the charac- isolation might be counter-productive in a person-
teristics of participants in both the access to and centered planning process (Amado & McBride,
efficacy of person-centered planning. Participants 2002; Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2004; Mount,
with mental health, emotional or behavioral O’Brien, & O’Brien, 2002). As studies of social
problems, autism, and/or additional health prob- networks of people with disabilities showed, circles
lems are less likely to receive a plan; they are also of support—as required in person-centered plan-
less likely to benefit if they do receive one ning—are frequently hard to establish (Mansell &
(Robertson, Hatton et al., 2007). Findings of other Beadle-Brown, 2004; C. O’Brien & O’Brien, 2002).
studies illustrate that people with communication This conclusion was also confirmed in our analysis
difficulties, challenging behavior, or severe intel- of the Robertson et al. (2006) study.
lectual disability are often excluded from the Fifth, there might be too much optimism in
planning process (Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2004; person-centered planning processes, which leads to
J. O’Brien, 2004; Reid & Green, 2002). This might unrealistic goals, unsuccessful outcomes, or unreal-
be the reason that the researchers examining ized expectations (Holburn & Cea, 2007).
effectiveness described in the current analysis To evaluate program strategies and evidence-
frequently combined person-centered planning based practices, one must address the two core
with other methods, such as applied behavioral principles that from our perspective are important:
analysis or systematic preference assessment. (a) a theory-driven approach that explains how
Second, person-centered planning might be a program inputs and processes work is necessary and
paper exercise that is not related to the real lives of (b) methodological pluralism, which combines
individuals (Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2004; C. qualitative and quantitative data-gathering strate-
O’Brien & O’Brien, 2000; J. O’Brien, 2004; Reid & gies (i.e., evidence), needs to be employed (Scha-
Green, 2002; Smull & Lakin, 2002). As a lock, Gardner, & Bradley, 2007). In this regard, we
consequence, planning meetings are sometimes agree with Holburn et al. (2000) that two actions
not attended by any family member, lawyer, or have to be taken to ascertain the effects of person-
the consumer (Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2004); centered planning: operationally defining relevant
frequently, there are no meetings with the people outcomes connected to such planning and using
involved (Combes et al., 2004), and although needs process measurement to guarantee valid implemen-
are identified, plans are often not implemented tation in assessing person-centered planning.
because of a lack of support solutions (Robertson et Methodological pluralism (qualitative together
al., 2007b). For example, Dumas, De La Garza, with quantitative evidence) suggests that in the
Seay, and Becker (2002) illustrated that frequently future, researchers studying person-centered planning
participants actually do not understand their own will be challenged to meet requirements of evidence-
person-centered planning process. Karlsson (2007) based practices (Mantzoukas, 2007). Related to this
found that the use of discursive strategies during challenge is that defenders of a phenomenological
person-centered planning processes did not stimu- approach and qualitative research frequently criticize
late self-determination and that parents and the attempt to identify outcomes in predefined
professionals performed some kind of paternalistic measures (C. O’Brien & O’Brien, 2000; Wagner,
steering. We came to the same conclusion in the 2002). They argued that person-centered planning
actual analysis in the study by Heller et al. (1996). cannot be reduced to a number of dependent
Third, the flexible support that is needed to variables that can be assessed separately (Felce,
make person-centered planning work is frequently 2004; Towell & Sanderson, 2004).
difficult in large traditional service systems with To get a better understanding of the different
their ‘‘all-in one’’ service packages (Magito- components of the person-centered planning pro-
McLaughlin, Spinosa, & Marsalis, 2002; Wagner, cess and their effects on the outcomes, professionals
2002). Within these programs, it is very difficult to must look at practice-driven evaluation, which can
address fundamental values of supporting people in provide valuable information about the effective-

448 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

ness of an intervention (Halle & Lowrey, 2002). In We are aware that other relevant articles
this regard, Veerman and van Yperen (2007) (other than those selected and analyzed as a basis
argued for a classification system that includes for this article) might exist and that the articles
different levels of evidence-based practices that analyzed in this study could produce bias. However,
take real-world interventions as a starting-point. we chose to limit our search to the Web of Science to
The four parameters of evidence they describe can guarantee quality standards on the research pro-
be adopted to evaluate the effectiveness of person- jects. Although we outlined and investigated
centered planning: (a) descriptive evidence as a selection criteria and independently made judg-
clear specification of the different components of ments on methodological quality and effectiveness,
the planning process; (b) theoretical evidence as subjective opinions may exist. Based on this review,
the quality of life conceptual and measurement one could argue that person-centered planning
framework as a rationale of why and how person- generates a modicum of outcome-related evidence.
centered planning should lead to changes in If outcomes differ from traditional care models or
people’s lives; (c) indicative evidence as systematic between different person-centered planning ap-
evaluations (pre–post studies) that show the desired proaches, the approach used has to be validated.
outcomes did occur; and (d) causal evidence as How person-centered planning produces its results
randomized control studies demonstrating that the and for whom are issues for further research.
person-centered planning intervention itself was
responsible for causing the outcomes.
The evaluation of person-centered planning References
related outcomes could be done using a quality of Alla, S., Sullivan, S. J., Hale, L., & McCrory, P.
life conceptual and measurement framework that (2009). Self-report scales/checklists for the
would include indicators of personal development; measurement of concussion symptoms: System-
self-determination; interpersonal relations; social atic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
inclusion; rights; and emotional, physical, and 43, i3–i12.
material well-being (Schalock, Verdugo, Bonham, Amado, A., & McBride, M. (2002). Realizing
Fantova, & van Loon, 2008). There is a growing individual, organizational and systems change.
number of reliable and valid research tools in this In S. Holburn & P. M. Vietze (Eds.), Person-
field (Claes, Van Hove, van Loon, Vandevelde, & centered planning. Research, practice and future
Schalock, 2010; Schalock et al., 2008). In our view, directions (pp. 361–377). Baltimore: Brookes.
the use of a logic model—with its input, process, Artesani, A., & Mallar, L. (1998). Positive
and outcome components—also has many advan- behavior supports in general education set-
tages in this regard. The use of logic models allows tings: Combining person-centered planning
one to not only identify potential input and and functional analysis. Intervention in School
throughput predictors but also to build evaluation and Clinic, 34, 33–38.
capacity (Donabedian, 1980; Frechtling, 2007; Buschbacher, P. (2004). Recapturing desired family
Isaacs, Clark, Correia, & Flannery, 2009; Schalock routines–A parent-professional behavioral.
& Bonham, 2003). Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Using a quality of life logic model, researchers Handicaps, 29, 25–39.
investigating person-centered planning could (a) Buschbacher, P., & Fox, L. (2003). Understanding
stress the underlying assumptions, rationale, or and intervening with the challenging behavior
theory of a planning process, (b) explain the of young children with autism spectrum
connections between inputs and outcomes, (c) disorder. Language Speech and Hearing Services
identify critical factors that affect variation in in Schools, 34, 217–227.
planning process outcomes, and (d) provide a Cambridge, P., & Carnaby, S. (2005). Person
systems approach to portraying the path towards centred planning and care: Management with
desired outcomes and evidence-based treatment people with learning disabilities. London: Jessica
planning. A similar example is found in Cooksy, Kingsley.
Gill, and Kelly (2001), who used a program logic Cesario, S., Morin, K., & Santa-Donato, A. (2002).
model as an integrative framework for the multi- Evaluating the level of evidence of qualitative
method evaluation of a middle-school curriculum research. Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and
delivery program. Neonatal Nursing, 31, 708–714.

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 449

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

Claes, C., Van Hove, G., van Loon, J., Vandevelde, knowledge into clinical practice. Journal of
S., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Quality of life Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 12, 49–62.
measurement in the field of intellectual Green, C., Middleton, W., & Reid, D. (2000).
disabilities: Eight principles for assessing qual- Embedded evaluation of preferences sampled
ity of life-related personal outcomes. Social from person-centered plans for people with
Indicators Research, 98, 61–72. profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Ap-
Cloutier, H., Malloy, J., Hagner, D., & Cotton, P. plied Behavior Analysis, 33, 639–642.
(2006). Choice and control over resources: Hagner, D., Helm, D., & Butterworth, J. (1996). ‘‘This
New Hampshire’s individual career account is your meeting’’: A qualitative study of person-
demonstration projects. Journal of Rehabilita- centered planning. Mental Retardation, 34, 77–83.
tion, 72, 4–11. Halle, J. W., & Lowrey, K. A. (2002). Can person-
Combes, H., Hardy, G., & Buchan, L. (2004). centered planning be empirically analyzed to
Using q-methodology to involve people with the satisfaction of all stakeholders? Research
intellectual disability in evaluating person- and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
centred planning. Journal of Applied Research 27, 268–271.
in Intellectual Disabilities, 17, 149–159. Hasnain, R., & Sotnik, P. (2003). Person-centered
Cooksy, L. J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P. A. (2001). The planning: A gateway to improving vocational
Program Logic Model as an integrative frame- rehabilitation services for culturally diverse
work for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabil-
and Program Planning, 24, 119–128. itation, 69, 10–17.
Donabedian, A. (1980). Explorations in quality Heller, T., Factor, A., Sterns, H., & Sutton, E.
(1996). Impact of person-centered later life
assessment and monitoring. The definition of
planning training program for older adults with
quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann
mental retardation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 62,
Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
77–83.
Downs, S., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of
Heller, T., Miller, A., Hsieh, K., & Sterns, H.
creating a checklist for the assessment of the
(2000). Later-life planning: Promoting knowl-
methodological quality both of randomised and
edge of options and choice making. Mental
non-randomised studies of health care inter-
Retardation, 38, 395–406.
ventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Commu-
Holburn, S. (2002a). How science can evaluate and
nity Health, 52, 377–384.
enhance person-centered planning. Research
Dumas, S., De La Garza, D., Seay, P., & Becker, H. and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
(2002). I don’t know how they made it happen, 27, 250–260.
but they did. In S. Holburn & P. M. Vietze Holburn, S. (2002b). Person-centered planning
(Eds.), Person-centered planning. Research, prac- must evolve: Rejoinder to O’Brien, Evans,
tice and future directions (pp. 223–246). Balti- and Halle and Lowrey. Research and Practice
more: Brookes. for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 272–275.
Felce, D. (2004). Can person-centred planning Holburn, S., & Cea, C. (2007). Excessive positiv-
fulfill a strategic planning role? Comments on ism in person-centered planning. Research and
Mansell & Beadle-Brown. Journal of Applied Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 3,
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17, 27–30. 167–172.
Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in Holburn, S., Gordon, A., & Vietze, P. (2007).
program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Person-centered planning made easy: The PIC-
Gardner, R., Bird, F., Maguire, H., Carreiro, R., & TURE method. Baltimore: Brookes.
Abenaim, N. (2003). Intensive positive behav- Holburn, S., Jacobson, J., Schwartz, A., Flory, M.,
ior supports for adolescents with acquired brain & Vietze, P. (2004). The Willowbrook futures
injury: Long term outcomes in community project: A longitudinal analysis of person-
settings. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, centered planning. American Journal on Mental
18, 52–74. Retardation, 109, 63–76.
Genuis, S. K., & Genuis, S. J. (2006). Exploring the Holburn, S., Jacobson, J., Vietze, P., Schwartz, A.,
continuum: Medical information to effective & Sersen, E. (2000). Quantifying the process
clinical practice. Paper I: The translation of and outcomes of person-centered planning.

450 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105, Mount, B., O’Brien, J., & O’Brien, C. (2002).
402–416. Increasing the chances for deeper change through
Isaacs, B., Clark, C., Correia, S., & Flannery, J. person-centered planning. Syracuse: Syracuse
(2009). Utility of logic models to plan quality University, Center on Human Policy, and
of life outcome evaluations. Journal of Policy Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Train-
and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6(1), 52– ing Center on Community Living, Institute on
61. Community Integration. Retrieved from http://
Karlsson, K. (2007). Handling dilemmas of self- [Link]/[Link]
determination in ’user-centred’ rehabilitation. O’Brien, C., & O’Brien, J. (2002). The origins of
Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 245–253. person-centered planning. In S. Holburn &
Kennedy, C., Long, T., Jolivette, K., Cox, J., Tang, P. M. Vietze (Eds.), Person-centered planning.
J., & Thompson, T. (2001). Facilitating Research, practice and future directions (pp. 3–
general education participation for students 27). Baltimore: Brookes
with behavior problems by linking positive O’Brien, J. (1987). A guide to life-style planning:
behavior supports and person-centered plan- Using the activities catalogue to integrate
ning. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral services and natural support systems. In G. T.
Disorders, 9, 161–171. Bellamy & B. A. Wilcox (Eds.), Comprehensive
Keyes, M., & Owens-Johnson, L. (2003). Develop- guide to the activities catalogue: An alternative
ing person-centered IEPs. Intervention in School curriculum for youth and adults with severe
and Clinic, 38, 145–152. disabilities (pp. 175–189). Baltimore: Brookes.
King, G., Baldwin, P., Currie, M., & Evans, J. O’Brien, J. (2004). If person-centred planning did
(2005). Planning successful transitions from not exist, valuing people would require its
school to adult roles for youth with disabilities. invention. Journal of Applied Research in
Children’s Health Care, 34, 193–216. Intellectual Disabilities, 17, 11–15.
Magito-McLaughlin, D., Spinosa, T., & Marsalis, O’Brien, J., & Lovett, H. (1992). Finding a way
M. (2002). Overcoming the barriers. Moving towards every-day lives: The contribution of
toward a service model that is conductive to person centered planning. Harrisburg: Pennsylva-
person-centered planning. In S. Holburn & nia Office of Mental Retardation.
P. M. Vietze (Eds.), Person-centered planning. Pearpoint, J., O’Brien, J., & Forest, M. (1993).
Research, practice and future directions (pp. 127– PATH: A workbook for planning positive possible
150). Baltimore: Brookes. futures and planning alternative tomorrows with
Mansell, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2004). Person- hope for schools, organizations, businesses and
centred planning or person-centred action? A families (2nd ed.). Toronto: Inclusion Press.
response to the commentaries. Journal of Prins, J., Blanker, M., Bohnen, A., Thomas, S., &
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17, Bosch, J. (2002). Prevalence of erectile dys-
31–35. function: A systematic review of population-
Mantzoukas, S. (2007). A review of evidence-based based studies. International Journal of Impotence
practice, nursing research and reflection: Lev- Research, 14, 422–432.
elling the hierarchy. Journal of Clinical Nursing, Prout, T. H., & Nowak-Drabik, K. M. (2003).
17, 214–223. Psychotherapy with persons who have mental
McCartney, P. R., & Morin, K. H. (2005). Where is retardation: An evaluation of effectiveness.
the evidence for teaching methods used in American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108,
nursing education? American Journal of Mater- 82–93.
nal/Child Nursing, 30, 406–412. Rea, J., Martin, C., & Wright, K. (2002). Using
Menchetti, B., & Garcia, L. (2003). Personal and person-centered supports to change the culture
employment outcomes of person-centered ca- of large intermediate care facilities. In S.
reer planning. Education and Training of the Holburn & P. M. Vietze (Eds.), Person-centered
Mentally Retarded, 38, 145–156. planning. Research, practice and future directions
Miner, C., & Bates, P. (1997). The effect of person (pp. 73–96). Baltimore: Brookes.
centered planning activities on the IEP/transi- Reid, D. H., Everson, J. M., & Green, C. W.
tion planning process. Education and Training in (1999). A systematic evaluation of preferences
Developmental Disabilities, 32, 105–112. identified through person-centered planning

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 451

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

for people with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Dis-
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 467–477. abilities, 17, 17–21.
Reid, D. H., & Green, C. W. (2002). Person- Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The
centered planning with people who have McGill Action Planning System (MAPS): A
severe multiple disabilities. In S. Holburn & strategy for building the vision. Journal of the
P. M. Vietze (Eds.), Person-centered planning. Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
Research, practice and future directions (pp. 183– 14, 205–215.
202). Baltimore: Brookes. Veerman, J., & van Yperen, T. (2007). Degrees of
Robertson, J., Emerson, E., Hatton, C., Elliott, J., freedom and degrees of certainty: A develop-
McIntosh, B., Swift, P., et al. (2006). Longitu- mental model for the establishment of evi-
dinal analysis of the impact and cost of person- dence-based youth care. Evaluation and Program
centered planning for people with intellectual Planning, 30, 136–148.
disabilities in England. American Journal on Wade, D. (1999). Randomized controlled trials—A
Mental Retardation, 111, 400–416. gold standard? Clinical Rehabilitation, 13, 453–455.
Robertson, J., Emerson, E., Hatton, C., Elliott, J., Wagner, G. (2002). Person-centered planning from
McIntosh, B., & Swift, P. (2007). Person- a behavioral perspective. In S. Holburn & P.
centred planning: Factors associated with M. Vietze (Eds.), Person-centered planning.
successful outcomes for people with intellectu- Research, practice and future directions (pp.
al disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability 273–289). Baltimore: Brookes.
Research, 51, 232–243. Wells, K., & Littell, J. H. (2009). Study quality
Robertson, J., Hatton, C., Emerson, E., Elliott, J., assessment in systematic reviews of research on
McIntosh, B., Swift, P., et al. (2007). Reported Intervention effects. Research on Social Work
barriers to the implementation of person- Practice, 19, 52–62.
centred planning for people with intellectual
disabilities in the UK. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20, 297–307. Appendix: Evaluation Criteria
Schalock, R. L., & Bonham, G. S. (2003). Reporting
Measuring outcomes and managing for results.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 229–235. 1. Is the hypothesis/aim/objectives of the study
Schalock, R. L., Gardner, J. F., & Bradley, V. J. clearly described?
(2007). Quality of life for persons with intellectual 2. Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly
and other developmental disabilities: Applications described in the introduction or Methods
across individuals, organizations, communities, and section?
systems. Washington, DC: American Association 3. Are the characteristics of the patients included
on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. in the study clearly described?
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Bonham, G. S., 4. Are the interventions of interest clearly de-
Fantova, F., & van Loon, J. (2008). Enhancing scribed?
personal outcomes: Organizational strategies, 5. Are the main findings of the study clearly
guidelines and examples. Journal of Policy and described?
Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 276–288. 6. Have all important adverse events that may be a
Smull, M. W., & Harrisson, S. (1992). Supporting consequence of the intervention been reported?
people with severe reputations in the community. 7. Have the characteristics of patients lost to
Alexandria, VA: National Association of State follow-up been described?
Mental Retardation Program Directors. 8. Have actual probability values been reported?
Smull, M. W., & Lakin, K. C. (2002). Public policy
External validity
and person-centered planning. In S. Holburn
& P. M. Vietze (Eds.), Person-centered planning. 9. Were the subjects asked to participate in the
Research, practice and future directions (pp. 379– study representative of the entire population
397). Baltimore: Brookes. from which they were recruited?
Towell, D., & Sanderson, H. (2004). Person- 10. Were those subjects who were prepared to
centred planning in its strategic context: participate representative of the entire popula-
Reframing the Mansell/Beadle-Brown critique. tion from which they were recruited?

452 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 48, NUMBER 6: 432–453 | DECEMBER 2010
Person-centered planning C. Claes et al.

11. Were the staff, places, and facilities where the Received 5/19/09, first decision 2/16/10, accepted 4/
patients were treated, representative of the 25/10.
treatment the majority of patients receive? Editor-in-Charge: David T. Helm
Internal validity
12. Was a comparison group used and properly Authors:
described? Claudia Claes, MSc (E-mail: [Link]@hogent.
13. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to be), Lecturer, and Stijn Vandevelde, PhD, Professor,
the intervention they have received? University College Ghent, Faculty of Social Work
14. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring and Welfare Studies, Voskenslaan 362, Ghent, B-
the main outcomes of the intervention? 9000, Belgium. Geert Van Hove, PhD, Professor,
15. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main University of Ghent, Centre for Disability Studies and
outcomes appropriate? Inclusive Education, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium. Jos van
16. Were the main outcome measures used accu- Loon, PhD, Academic Consultant, University of
rate? Ghent, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium. Robert L. Schalock,
PhD, Former Psychology Chair, Hastings College,
Score: 1 5 yes, 0 5 no or unable to determine Department of Psychology, Hastings, NE 68901.

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 453