NCT04616638

Brief Summary

Adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) have significantly lower levels of fitness compared to the general population. The health benefits of enhanced muscular strength in the general population are well established. In adults with ID, increased muscular strength levels are positively associated with improved aerobic capacity and performance of functional tasks. A concerted effort has been made to design and evaluate resistance training (RT) interventions aimed at increasing muscular strength in adults with ID. While the findings are encouraging, the small number of published studies, missing or poorly described theoretical frameworks or familiarization protocols that guided the RT interventions, and compromised methodological quality raise questions about the actual effects of these interventions and warrant further investigation. The primary purpose of this study is to design and pilot test the effects of an innovative community-based multi-component RT program, Resistance Training for Empowerment (RT-POWER). The primary aim of RT-POWER is to improve muscular strength and independent functional performance in adults with ID. The trial is guided by the SCT theoretical framework. Adults with ID will be randomly allocated to either an experimental group (EG) or a control group (CG). The EG will receive the RT-POWER intervention and the CG will receive an RT intervention traditionally used with the general population. Stage 1 will consist of six familiarization sessions (2 per week for 3 weeks) and Stage 2 will consist of 20 RT sessions (2 per week for 10 weeks). Five hypotheses will be tested: (a) The EG will demonstrate significantly greater increases on the chest-press and leg-press one-repetition maximum (1-RM) tests from baseline to Week 15 compared with the CG; (b) The EG will demonstrate significantly greater increases on the plank test from baseline to Week 15 compared with the CG; (c) The EG will demonstrate significantly greater increases on the six-minute walk test (6MWT) from baseline to Week 15 compared with the CG; (d) The EG will demonstrate significantly greater decreases on the stair climb functional test (SCFT) from baseline to Week 15 compared with the CG; and (e) The EG will demonstrate significantly greater increases in the percentage of steps performed correctly and independently of four RT exercise tasks from baseline to Week 15 compared with the CG.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
24

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Jan 2018

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

January 17, 2018

Completed
1.5 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

July 31, 2019

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

July 31, 2019

Completed
1.2 years until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

October 23, 2020

Completed
13 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

November 5, 2020

Completed
Last Updated

November 5, 2020

Status Verified

October 1, 2020

Enrollment Period

1.5 years

First QC Date

October 23, 2020

Last Update Submit

October 29, 2020

Conditions

Keywords

Functional performanceIntellectual disabilityResistance trainingSocial cognitive theory

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

  • Change in dynamic upper-body and lower-body strength

    Upper-body and lower-body muscular strength will be measured with the chest-press and the leg-press 1-RM tests (ACSM, 2018), respectively. Each testing session will start with a warm-up set of 6-10 repetitions, with approximately 50% of the estimated resistance. Loads will be estimated with the repetitions-to-fatigue method. Participants will be given 3 attempts. For each attempt, participants will be asked to complete 2 repetitions at the same speed of movement and range of motion. If a participant completes 2 repetitions, the resistance will be increased by 3-10% in the next attempt (or decreased by 3-10% if the first attempt is not successful). This same procedure will be used for the third attempt. The final weight lifted successfully with only one repetition will be recorded to the nearest 5 lb. The rest period will be 3-5 min between the attempts and 5 min between the exercises. Both tests have been used in other clinical trials with adults with ID (Shields et al., 2008).

    Change from Baseline to Week 15

  • Change in static trunk strength

    The prone plank test will measure static trunk strength (ACSM, 2018). After taking shoes off, the participants will be asked to assume the forearm plank position with elbows in contact with the ground, the humerus forming a perpendicular line to the horizontal plane, and the forearms in the neutral position with hands directly in front of the elbows. The timer will start once participants assume a rigid anatomical body position so that only their forearms and toes supported the body. Participants will hold this position as long as possible, and the test will be terminated when the participants voluntarily stop the test, fail to maintain the position, or report ill effect from the test. The total time to hold the position will be measured to the nearest 0.01 s. The best of two trials (30 s between trials to rest) will be used for analysis. The test is a valid and reliable measure for evaluating trunk strength in both younger and older adults (Bohannon et al., 2018).

    Change from Baseline to Week 15

  • Change in cardiopulmonary functional capacity

    Two measures of functional performance were used in this study. The Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT; American Thoracic Association, 2002) is a submaximal field test of cardiopulmonary functional capacity for activities of daily living (Enright \& Sherrill, 1998). The test will be performed using a 50-ft course in the gym. Participants will be instructed to walk as fast as possible for 6 min without running or jogging. During the first lap, a research assistant will walk behind the participant, and then provide standardized encouragement every minute (Casey et al., 2012). The distance walked in 6 min will be measured to the nearest cm. The 6MWT is a reliable (ICC = .96) and a valid test for assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness in adults with mild to severe ID, with strong relationships with VO2 peak and isometric leg strength (Guerra-Balic et al., 2015).

    Change from Baseline to Week 15

  • Change in functional mobility

    The Stairs Climb Functional Test (SCFT; Nightingale et al., 2014) assesses ability to ascend and descend a flight of stairs and lower extremity strength, power, and balance. Participants will be instructed to as quickly as possible ascend, turn, and descend 10 stairs (about 25 cm deep and 16.5 cm high) using any method of traversing the stairs but to take one step at a time and not use the handrails for support. The total time to ascend and descend stairs will be measured to the nearest 0.01 s. The best of three trials (30 s between trials to rest) will be used for analysis. The SCFT is a valid measure of functional mobility in adults with different diagnoses (Nightingale et al., 2014).

    Change from Baseline to Week 15

  • Change in performance of RT exercise tasks

    The performance of four RT exercise tasks (i.e., chest press, leg press, seated row, and military press) will be assessed. A Sony Handycam camcorder will be used to record performance of each exercise task. To observe and code exercise performance, Obrusnikova et al. (2020) and Obrusnikova et al. (2019) developed a coding manual for the four exercise tasks following guidelines proposed by Yoder and Symons (2010). According to the coding manual, a participant's response was considered correct if the performed step conformed to the description in the task analysis (quality), was initiated within 8 s of the exercise directive or completion of the previous step in the task sequence (latency), and was completed within 15 s (duration). The coding manual was piloted and used in previous studies with adults with ID (Obrusnikova et al., 2020; Obrusnikova et al., 2019). To ensure coding reliability, inter-observer agreement (IOA) checks will be completed for all observational data.

    Change from Baseline to Week 15

Study Arms (2)

RT-POWER Intervention

EXPERIMENTAL

Six familiarization sessions and 20 RT-POWER sessions.

Behavioral: Resistance Training for Empowerment (RT-POWER)

Control Intervention

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Six control familiarization sessions and 20 traditional RT sessions.

Behavioral: A traditional RT intervention

Interventions

The EG intervention was designed using the Social Cognitive Theory and its four sources of self-efficacy to promote a participant's (a) involvement in exercise planning, (b) muscular strength, and (c) independent functional performance. It consisted of three phases, which were adapted from the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (Wehmeyer et al., 2000). This model draws from theory and research on self-management and self-control (Bandura, 1986; Martin et al., 1988). Participants were taught by their coaches how to (a) set a goal to meet fitness needs (Phase 1), (b) make a plan to meet goals (Phase 2), and (c) adjust actions to complete the plan (Phase 3).

RT-POWER Intervention

The control intervention also consisted of a three-phase instructional process. Consistent with traditional RT interventions (ACSM, 2009), the coaches rather than the participants, were the primary agents for goal-setting, exercise planning, goal attainment monitoring, and readjusting of the exercise plan. Neither the visual activity schedules nor the system of least-to-most prompts was used in this intervention.

Control Intervention

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 44 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

  • an IQ score below 70;
  • a chronological age between 18 and 44 years;
  • a receptive vocabulary score at or above five years of age;

You may not qualify if:

  • previous diagnosis of any chronic or co-morbid condition that could affect the performance of the target exercise tasks as assessed by the AHA/ACSM Health/Fitness Facility Preparticipation Screening Questionnaire (ACSM, 2014);
  • a record of currently being pregnant or undergoing hormonal replacement or cancer therapy;
  • prior or current experience with a similar intervention.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

University of Delaware

Newark, Delaware, 19716, United States

Location

Related Publications (23)

  • American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Mar;41(3):687-708. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670.

    PMID: 19204579BACKGROUND
  • Cowley PM, Ploutz-Snyder LL, Baynard T, Heffernan K, Jae SY, Hsu S, Lee M, Pitetti KH, Reiman MP, Fernhall B. Physical fitness predicts functional tasks in individuals with Down syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Feb;42(2):388-93. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181b07e7a.

    PMID: 19927019BACKGROUND
  • Bouzas S, Martinez-Lemos RI, Ayan C. Effects of exercise on the physical fitness level of adults with intellectual disability: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Dec;41(26):3118-3140. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1491646. Epub 2018 Oct 9.

    PMID: 30301367BACKGROUND
  • Obrusnikova I, Novak HM, Cavalier AR. The Effect of Systematic Prompting on the Acquisition of Five Muscle-Strengthening Exercises by Adults With Mild Intellectual Disabilities. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2019 Oct 1;36(4):447-471. doi: 10.1123/apaq.2018-0192. Epub 2019 Sep 13.

    PMID: 31521057BACKGROUND
  • Obrusnikova I, Cavalier AR, Novak HM, Blair AE. The Effect of Systematic Prompting on the Acquisition of Two Muscle-Strengthening Exercises by Adults with Moderate Disabilities. J Behav Educ. 2020 Sep;29(3):584-605. doi: 10.1007/s10864-019-09328-7. Epub 2019 May 14.

    PMID: 33737797BACKGROUND
  • Wehmeyer ML, Palmer SB, Agran M, Mithaug DE, Martin JE. Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children. 2000;66(4):439-53. doi: 10.1177/001440290006600401

    BACKGROUND
  • Latham GP, Locke EA. Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics. 2006;35(4):332. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.08.008.

    BACKGROUND
  • Bandura A, Simon KM. The role of proximal intentions in self-regulation of refractory behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1977;1(3):177. doi: 10.1007/BF01186792

    BACKGROUND
  • Robertson RJ. Perceived exertion for practitioners: rating effort with the OMNI picture system. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004.

    BACKGROUND
  • Mays RJ, Goss FL, Schafer MA, Kim KH, Nagle-Stilley EF, Robertson RJ. Validation of adult omni perceived exertion scales for elliptical ergometry. Percept Mot Skills. 2010 Dec;111(3):848-62. doi: 10.2466/05.06.PMS.111.6.848-862.

    PMID: 21319623BACKGROUND
  • Strecher VJ, Seijts GH, Kok GJ, Latham GP, Glasgow R, DeVellis B, Meertens RM, Bulger DW. Goal setting as a strategy for health behavior change. Health Educ Q. 1995 May;22(2):190-200. doi: 10.1177/109019819502200207.

    PMID: 7622387BACKGROUND
  • Perepletchikova F, Kazdin AE. Treatment integrity and therapeutic change: Issues and research recommendations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2005;12(4):365-83. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.bpi045.

    BACKGROUND
  • Motl RW, Dishman RK, Saunders R, Dowda M, Felton G, Pate RR. Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Aug;21(2):110-7. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00326-9.

    PMID: 11457630BACKGROUND
  • Elliott SN, Treuting MVB. The behavior intervention rating scale: Development and validation of a pretreatment acceptability and effectiveness measure. Journal of School Psychology. 1991;29(1):43-51. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(91)90014-I.

    BACKGROUND
  • Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant T, Gardner MJ. Statistics with confidence. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2000

    BACKGROUND
  • American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM's health-related physical fitness assessment manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2018

    BACKGROUND
  • Shields N, Taylor NF, Dodd KJ. Effects of a community-based progressive resistance training program on muscle performance and physical function in adults with Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Jul;89(7):1215-20. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.056.

    PMID: 18586124BACKGROUND
  • Bohannon RW, Steffl M, Glenney SS, Green M, Cashwell L, Prajerova K, Bunn J. The prone bridge test: Performance, validity, and reliability among older and younger adults. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2018 Apr;22(2):385-389. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.07.005. Epub 2017 Jul 25.

    PMID: 29861239BACKGROUND
  • ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Jul 1;166(1):111-7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102. No abstract available.

    PMID: 12091180BACKGROUND
  • Enright PL, Sherrill DL. Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Nov;158(5 Pt 1):1384-7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.158.5.9710086.

    PMID: 9817683BACKGROUND
  • Casey AF, Wang X, Osterling K. Test-retest reliability of the 6-minute walk test in individuals with Down syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;93(11):2068-74. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.022. Epub 2012 May 7.

    PMID: 22575394BACKGROUND
  • Guerra-Balic M, Oviedo GR, Javierre C, Fortuno J, Barnet-Lopez S, Nino O, Alamo J, Fernhall B. Reliability and validity of the 6-min walk test in adults and seniors with intellectual disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2015 Dec;47:144-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.09.011. Epub 2015 Sep 29.

    PMID: 26426514BACKGROUND
  • Nightingale EJ, Pourkazemi F, Hiller CE. Systematic review of timed stair tests. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):335-50. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.06.0148.

    PMID: 25019658BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Intellectual DisabilityMotor ActivityObesity

Interventions

Resistance Training

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Neurobehavioral ManifestationsNeurologic ManifestationsNervous System DiseasesSigns and SymptomsPathological Conditions, Signs and SymptomsNeurodevelopmental DisordersMental DisordersBehaviorOverweightOvernutritionNutrition DisordersNutritional and Metabolic DiseasesBody Weight

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Exercise TherapyRehabilitationAftercareContinuity of Patient CarePatient CareTherapeuticsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPhysical Conditioning, HumanExerciseMotor ActivityMovementMusculoskeletal Physiological PhenomenaMusculoskeletal and Neural Physiological Phenomena

Study Officials

  • Iva Obrusnikova, PhD

    University of Delaware

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
NONE
Purpose
PREVENTION
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Associate Professor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

October 23, 2020

First Posted

November 5, 2020

Study Start

January 17, 2018

Primary Completion

July 31, 2019

Study Completion

July 31, 2019

Last Updated

November 5, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-10

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations