Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) experts were surveyed to examine their perceptions of the treatment acceptability of commonly used decelerative consequence-based behavioral procedures. Findings illuminate the paradigm shifts that have occurred over the course of the careers of PBS experts and the factors that have contributed to these personal paradigm shifts. Many of the decelerative consequence-based procedures once used by respondents are no longer perceived by them to be acceptable. A small percentage of experts indicated that they still might use the full range of decelerative techniques under certain circumstances. The need for more training and ideological change were perceived to be the greatest challenges currently facing the field. Experts also indicated that involvement in PBS has broadened their understanding of applied behavior analysis, the function of behavior, antecedents, quality of life, and self-determination issues facing people with disabilities. The implications of the findings for current and future PBS researchers and practitioners are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AAMD position statement on aversive therapy. (1987). Mental retardation, 25, 118.
2.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Butterfield, E.C. (1990). The compassion of distinguishing punishing behavioral treatment from aversive treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 137—141.
4.
Carr, E.G., & Durand, V.M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 18, 111—126.
5.
Durand, V.M. (1990). Severe behavior problems: A functional communication training approach. New York: Guilford Press.
6.
Eisner, E.W. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 302—326). New York: MacMillan .
7.
Evans, I.M., Scotti, J.R., & Hawkins, R.P. (1999). Understanding where we are going by looking at where we have been. In J. R. Scotti & L. H. Meyer (Eds.), Behavioral intervention: Principles, models, and practices (pp. 3—23). Baltimore: Brookes.
8.
Ferguson, D.L. (1987). Curriculum decision making for students with severe handicaps: Policy and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Ferguson, D.L. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a “rabid inclusionist.” Phi Delta Kappan,77, 281—287.
10.
Guess, D., Helmstetter, E., Turnbull, H.R., III , & Knowlton, S. (1987). Use of aversive procedures with persons who are disabled: An historical review and critical analysis (Monograph No. 2). Seattle, WA: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
11.
Helms, B.J., & Moore, S.C. (1993). Perceptions of aversiveness by supported employment supervisors and job coaches. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 212—219.
12.
Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., & Todd, A.W. (2000). Positive behavior support. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed., pp. 207—243). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
13.
Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R.L., Carr, E.G., Sailor, W., Anderson, J., et al. (1990). Toward a technology of “nonaversive” behavioral support. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps,15, 125—132.
14.
Jackson, L., & Panyan, M.V. (2002). Positive behavioral support in the classroom: Principles and practices. Baltimore: Brookes.
15.
Johnson, J.C. (1990). Selecting ethnographic informants (Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol. 22). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Kahng, S., Iwata, B.A., & Lewin, A.B. (2002). Behavioral treatment of self-injury, 1965 to 2000 . American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 212— 221.
17.
Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259—273.
18.
Keyes, J., Creekmore, W., Karst, R., Crow, R., & Dayan, M. (1988). The AAMR position statement on aversive therapy: The controversy. Mental Retardation, 26, 314—318.
19.
Kincaid, D., Knoster, T., Harrower, J.K., Shannon, P., & Bustamante, S. (2002). Measuring the impact of positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , 4, 109—117.
20.
Knoster, T., Anderson, J., Carr, E.G., Dunlap, G., & Horner, R.H. (2003). Emerging challenges and opportunities: Introducing the Association for Positive Behavior Support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 183—186.
21.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. (Eds.). (1996). Positive behavior support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community. Baltimore: Brookes.
22.
Lennox, D.B., & Miltenberger, R.G. (1990). On the conceptualization of treatment acceptability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 211—224.
23.
Luiselli, J.K., & Cameron, M.J. (1998). Conclusions and future directions. In J. K. Luiselli & M. J. Cameron (Eds.), Antecedent control: Innovative approaches to behavioral support (pp. 373—379). Baltimore: Brookes.
24.
Martin, G., & Pear, J. (1999). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
26.
Miltenberger, R.G., Lennox, D.B., & Erfanian, N. (1989). Acceptability of alternative treatments for persons with mental retardation: Ratings from institutional and community-based staff . American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 388—395.
27.
Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 287—293.
28.
Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Pickering, D., & Morgan, S.B. (1985). Parental ratings of treatments of self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 15, 303—314.
30.
Reimers, T.M., & Wacker, D.P. (1988). Parents' ratings of behavioral treatment recommendations made in an outpatient clinic: A preliminary analysis of the influence of treatment effectiveness. Behavior Disorders, 14, 7—15.
31.
Ricketts, R., Goza, A., & Matese, M. (1992). Case study: Effects of Naltrexone and SIBIS on self-injury. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 7, 315—326.
32.
Scotti, J.R., & Kennedy, C.H. (2000). Introduction to issues in the application of functional assessment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 195—196.
33.
Smith, F.A., & Linscheid, T.R. (1994). Effect of parental acceptance or rejection of a proposed aversive intervention on treatment acceptability . American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 262—269.
34.
Spreat, S., & Walsh, D.E. (1994). Impact of treatment efficacy and professional affiliation on ratings of treatment acceptability. Mental Retardation, 32, 227—233.
35.
SPSS, Inc. (2000). SPSS for Windows V 10.0. Chicago: Author .
36.
Tarnowski, K.J., Mulick, J.A., & Rasnake, L.K. (1990). Acceptability of behavioral interventions for self-injurious behavior: Replication and inter-institutional comparison. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 182—187.
37.
Tarnowski, K.J., Rasnake, L.K., Mulick, J.A., & Kelly, P.A. (1989). Acceptability of behavioral interventions for self-inuuirous behavior. American Journal on Mental Retardation , 93, 575—580.
38.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
39.
Williams, D.E., Kirkpatrick-Sanchez, S., & Iwata, B.A. (1993). A comparison of shock intensity in the treatment of longstanding and severe self-injurious behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 14, 207—219.
40.
Wolfensberger, W., Nirje, B., Olshansky, S., Perske, R., & Roos, P. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services . Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
