The purpose of this study was to examine teachers' preference for positive versus negative interventions based on the amount of information they were provided about the student with behavior problems. A total of 144 educators, mostly teachers, completed a questionnaire that asked them to choose the intervention they would be most likely to use. Half of the participants received scenarios that contained no explanation of behavior, and half had detailed explanations of possible reasons for misbehaviors. Although there was an overall preference for the selection of positive interventions, having an explanation of misbehavior did lead to the choice of more positive interventions than negative interventions in some cases. These choices are discussed as well as their relationship to the experience level of the teacher and the severity of the problem.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldermanG. L., & GimpelG. (1996). What teachers and other educators prefer when receiving consultation about the student with behavior problems.Journal of Psychological and Educational Consultation, 7, 305–313.
2.
AlgozzineK. M., MorsinkC. V., & AlgozzineB. (1986). Classroom ecology in categorical special education classrooms: And so, they counted the teeth in the horse.Journal of Special Education, 20, 209–217.
3.
AgneK. J., GreenwoodG. E., & MillerL. D. (1994). Relationships between teacher belief systems and teacher effectiveness.The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 141–152.
4.
ClarkC., & PetersonP. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: MacMillan.
5.
CombsA. (1982). A personal approach to teaching: Beliefs that make a difference.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
DemchakM. (1993). Functional assessment of problem behaviors in applied settings.Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 89–95.
7.
DreikursR., & CasselP. (1972). Discipline without tears: What to do with children who misbehave (Rev. ed.). New York: Hawthorn Books.
8.
ElliottS. N. (1988). Acceptability for behavioral treatments: Review of variables that influence treatment selection.Professional Psychology, 19, 68–80.
9.
ElliottS. N., WittJ. C., CalvinG. A., & PetersonR. (1984). Acceptability of positive and reductive behavioral interventions: Factors that influence teachers' decisions.Journal of School Psychology, 22, 353–360.
10.
FowlerR. C., & SchnackerL. E. (1994). The changing character of behavioral assessment and treatment: An historical introduction and review of functional analysis research.Diagnostique, 19, 79–102.
11.
FrentzC., & KellyM. L. (1986). Parents' acceptance of reductive treatment methods: The influence of problem severity and perception of child behavior.Behavior Therapy, 17, 75–81.
12.
GlasserW. (1972). Reality therapy: A new approach to psychiatry.New York: Harper and Row.
13.
HallC. W., & WahrmanE. (1988). Theoretical orientation and perceived acceptability of intervention strategies applied to acting-out behavior.Journal of School Psychology, 26, 195–198.
14.
HileM. G., & DesrochersM. N. (1993). The relationship between functional assessment and treatment selection for aggressive behaviors.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 14, 265–274.
15.
IwataB. A. (1994). Functional analysis methodology: Some closing comments.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 215–240.
16.
JohnsonL. J., & PugachM. C. (1990). Classroom teachers' views of intervention strategies for learning and behavior problems: Which are reasonable and how frequently are they used?The Journal of Special Education, 24, 69–84.
17.
KazdinA. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259–273.
18.
KazdinA. E. (1981). Acceptability of time out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior.Behavior Therapy, 11, 329–344.
19.
LongN. J. (1986). The nine psychoeducational stages of helping emotionally disturbed students through the reeducation process.The Pointer, 30, 74–89.
20.
MartensB. K., WittJ. C., ElliottS. N., & DarveauxD. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191–198.
21.
ReimersT. M., WackerD. P., & KoepplG. (1987). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: A review of the literature.School Psychology Review, 16, 212–227.
22.
RoseJ., & MedwayF. (1981). Measurement of teacher's beliefs in their control over student outcome.Journal of Education Research, 74, 185–190.
23.
SassoG. M., ReimersT. M., CooperL. J., WackerD., BergW., SteegeM., KellyL., & AllaireA. (1992). Use of descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 809–821.
24.
StanleyS. O., & GreenwoodC. R. (1983). How much opportunity to respond does the minority disadvantaged student receive in the school?Exceptional Children, 49, 370–373.
25.
ThurlowM. L., YsseldykeJ. E., GradenJ., & Al-gozzineB. (1984). Opportunity to learn for LD students receiving different levels of special education services.Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 55–67.
26.
TingstromD. H. (1989). Increasing acceptability of alternative behavioral interventions through education.Psychology in the Schools, 26, 188–194.
27.
TobinT. (1994). Recent developments in functional assessment: Implications for school counselors and psychologists.Diagnostique, 19, 5–28.
28.
UmbreitJ. (1995). Functional assessment and intervention in a regular classroom setting for the disruptive behavior of a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.Behavioral Disorders, 20, 267–278.
29.
VollmerT. R., & IwataB. A. (1992). Differential reinforcement as treatment for behavior disorders: Procedural and functional variations.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 393–417.
30.
WalkerH. M., ColvinG., & RamseyE. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
31.
WittJ. C. (1986). Teachers' resistance to the use of school-based interventions.Journal of School Psychology, 24, 37–44.
32.
WittJ. C., & ElliottS. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom management strategies. In KratochwillT. R. (Ed.), Advances in school psychology. (Vol. 4, pp. 251–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
WittJ. C., ElliottS. N., & MartensB. K. (1984). Acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms: The influence of amount of teacher time, severity of behavior problem, and type of intervention.Behavioral Disorders, 9, 95–104.
34.
WittJ. C., & MartensB. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms.Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510–517.
35.
WittJ. C., MartensB. K., & ElliotS. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers' judgment of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention.Behavior Therapy, 15, 204–209.
36.
WittJ. C., MoeG., GutkinT. B., & AndrewsL. (1984). The effect of saying the same thing in different ways: The problem of language and jargon in school-based consultation.Journal of School Psychology, 22, 361–367.
37.
WittJ. C., & RobbinsJ. R. (1985). Acceptability of reductive interventions for the control of inappropriate child behavior.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 59–67.
