Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities.

Antaki (2013) listened to 30 hours of real staff chats with adults who have intellectual disabilities. The team wrote down every word and looked for patterns in how staff kept the talk going.

They compared two follow-up styles after an open question. One style used hints and little add-ons. The other style fired more yes/no checks.

Hints and elaborations won. Adults gave longer, richer answers when staff gently nudged instead of quizzing.

Yes/no follow-ups often shut the door. Clients echoed the staff word or just said “yeah” and stopped.

Finney et al. (1995) warned that yes/no questions invite acquiescence bias in ID interviews. Antaki (2013) shows the same yes/no trap hurts daily reflection chats, not just formal assessments.

Fryling et al. (2016) argue open-ended FBA questions pull out surprise details. Antaki (2013) extends that idea to casual day-review talks—open plus gentle hints equals even more detail.

Worsham et al. (2015) found waiting for client initiation raises alertness. Antaki (2013) mirrors the pause principle: staff who hold back and hint let the adult steer the reflection, producing fuller talk.

You run day-review sessions or evening chats. Swap your quiz voice for a curious friend voice. After asking “What did you like at the workshop?” stay quiet, then offer a small hint: “I heard there was painting…” The adult gets space to think, talk, and own the story. Richer reflection boosts self-awareness and meets ethical goals for autonomy without extra forms or time.