Table 4 Feasibility of outcome measures

Anthropometric measures

Measures of cardiovascular fitness

Measures of physical strength (excluding 10RM)

Knowledge Scale for Use with People with an Intellectual Disability (NAKS) questionnaire

While all participants completed this measure, wide variability in baseline to endpoint scores raise questions about instrument reliability for our cohort: For example, one participant scored 13 at baseline but went on to score a significantly lower score of 5 at endpoint. Since it is unlikely that participants would ‘lose’ this amount of knowledge in a 12-week time frame it is possible that scores reflect guess-work rather than change in knowledge

The Personal Wellbeing Index- Intellectual Disability (PWI-ID)

While all participants agreed to undertake the measure significant differences in pre-testing scores from baseline to endpoint raise concerns about instrument validity in our cohort: At baseline two participants were unable to complete step two of the pre-testing process. We were therefore unable to administer the measure to them. However, at endpoint, the same two participants were able to complete the full pre-testing protocol and the 11-point scale. The extremely high scores these participants recorded on the measure at endpoint (100 and 92.9 respectively) raise questions about the reliability of their responses, however. At baseline the remaining four participants pre-testing scores indicated that they were unable to complete the 11-point scale, however, at endpoint they were all able to appropriately answer the pre-testing questions and thus had the 11-point scale administered to them

24 hour food recall

While this form was handed to each participant and the support worker who attended the session with them, no completed or partially completed forms were returned at baseline or endpoint: Participants were unable to independently recall what they had eaten at previous meals, and family members and carers did not complete the form on their behalf

Food photography

Only two participants provided photographic data at both the pre-and post-program data collection periods. While the two participants captured three full days at baseline, neither reached the target of a three complete photographic records at endpoint (capturing 1 and 2 days only). One participant declined to undertake this task at both time-points (reason was not stated). The remaining three participants either did not take photos despite agreeing to undertake the task, took incomplete days of records or took photos in which they had blocked the camera lens with their hand or clothes

Accelerometer data

One participant (baseline) and two participants (endpoint) did not meet the minimum wear time of at least six hours on three out of the five wear days that was stipulated in our protocol. One participant who had a co-occurring diagnosis of autism, struggled with wearing the device due to sensory issues (stated he dislikes the feel of the device around his waist)

IPAQ-proxy

While this form was handed to each participant and the support worker who attended the session with them, only two of the forms were returned at baseline or endpoint, and these were insufficiently completed to provide meaningful data

Physical Strength: 10RM strength testing

We were unable to reliably establish participants’ rate of perceived exertion in the pre-testing phase of the protocol and thus were unable to administer this outcome measure. Inability to establish perceived rate of exertion was related to difficulties participants experienced using even a modified scale to rate their level of exertion. For example, participants, both in cases where the weight used was extremely light and in cases where the weight used was so heavy the participants could not attempt the task, reported the exercise as “easy”. Without this baseline measurement, all participants commenced the program on the lowest weight available and the decision to increase weight was based on technique alone and experienced Exercise Physiologist decision making