The study evaluated the effects of type of information naive participants received
about challenging behaviour on ratings of acceptability of two multi-element
treatment plans. Three groups of 20 undergraduate students with no experience of
intellectual disability watched an identical 5 minute acted video of an individual
with an intellectual disability engage in aggressive behaviour. Voiceover on the
video differed: one group was exposed to information derived from a functional
assessment, one to causal information that reflected personality and emotional
factors, and the third to no causal information. Participants then rated two
multielement treatment plans: one based upon functional assessment, and the other
upon general non-aversive interventions. Results indicate that all groups were more
accepting of the functional plan. However, individuals exposed to information
derived from functional assessment were less accepting of non-functional treatment
plans. Results have implications for staff cultures and the explanations for
challenging behaviours that these cultures endorse.
AGER, A.
&
O ’MAY, F.
(2001)
‘Issues in the Definition and Implementation of “Best
Practice” for Staff Delivery of Interventions for Challenging Behaviour’
, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability26:
243–256
.
2.
CARR, E. G.
,
HORNER, R. H.
,
TURNBULL, A.
,
MARQUIS, J. G.
,
MAGITO, E.
,
MCLAUGHLIN, D.
,
MCATEE, M. L.
,
SMITH, C. E.
,
ANDERSON RYAN, K.
,
RUEF, M. B.
&
DOOLABH, A.
(1999) Positive Behaviour Support for People with
Developmental Disabilities:A Research Synthesis.
Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation
.
3.
ELLIOTT, S. N.
(1988)
‘Acceptability of Behavioural Treatments: Review of Variables
that Influence Treatment Selection Contents’
, Professional Psychology:Research and Practice19:
68–80
.
4.
EMERSON, E.
(2001) Challenging Behaviour:Analysis and Intervention in
People with Intellectual Disabilities.
New York: Cambridge University Press
.
5.
FOXX, R. M.
,
BREMER, B. A.
,
SCHULTZ, C.
,
VALDEZ, J.
&
JOHNDROW. C.
(1996a)
‘Increasing Treatment Acceptability through Video’
, Behavioural Interventions11:
171–180
.
6.
FOXX, R. M.
,
MCHENRY, W. C.
&
BREMER, B. A.
(1996b)
‘The Effects of a Video Vignette on Increasing Treatment Acceptability’
, Behavioural Interventions11:
131–140
.
7.
GREY, I. M.
,
MCCLEAN, B.
&
BARNES-HOLMES, D.
(2002)
‘Staff Attributions about the Causes of Challenging Behaviours:
Effects of Longitudinal Training in Multi-Element Behaviour Support’
, Journal of Learning Disabilities6:
297–312
.
8.
HASTINGS, R. P.
(1995)
‘Understanding Factors that Influence Staff Responses to
Challenging Behaviours: An Exploratory Interview Study’
, Mental Handicap Research8:
296–320
.
9.
HASTINGS, R. P.
(1997)
‘Staff Beliefs about the Challenging Behaviours of Children and
Adults with Mental Retardation’
, Clinical Psychology Review17:
775–790
.
10.
HASTINGS, R. P.
&
JONES, C.
(2003)
‘Staff Reactions to Self-Injurious Behaviours in Learning
Disability Services: Attributions, Emotional Responses and Helping’
, British Journal of Clinical Psychology42:
189–204
.
11.
HASTINGS, R. P.
&
REMINGTON, B.
(1994)
‘Rules of Engagement: Toward an Analysis of Challenging Behaviour’
, Research in Developmental Disabilities15:
279–298
.
12.
HASTINGS, R. P.
,
BOULTON, H. V. N.
,
MONZANI, L. C.
&
TOMBS, A. K. H.
(2004)
‘Behavioral Function Effects on Intervention Acceptability and
Effectiveness for Self-Injurious Behavior’
, Research in Developmental Disabilities25:
139–154
.
13.
JONES, K. M.
&
LUNGARO, C. J.
(2000)
‘Teacher Acceptability of Functional Assessment Derived Treatments’
, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation11:
323–332
.
14.
KAZDIN, A. E.
(1977)
‘Assessing the Clinical or Applied Importance of Behaviour Change
through Social Validation’
, Behaviour Modification1:
427–451
.
15.
KAZDIN, A. E.
(1980)
‘Acceptability of Alternative Treatments for Deviant Child Behaviour’
, Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis13:
259–273
.
16.
KAZDIN, A. E.
(1981)
‘Acceptability of Child Treatment Techniques: The Influence of
Treatment Efficacy and Adverse Side Effects’
, Behaviour Therapy12:
493–506
.
17.
KEMP, F. D.
,
MILTENBERGER, R. G.
&
LUMLEY, V. A.
(1996)
‘Treatment Acceptability and “Faking Good”:
Are Staff Telling Us What They Think We Want To Hear?’
, Behavioural Interventions11:
181–191
.
18.
KINCAID, D.
,
KNOSTER, T.
&
HARROWER, J. K.
(2002)
‘Measuring the Impact of Positive Behaviour Support’
, Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions4:
109–117
.
19.
KOEGEL, L. K.
,
KOEGEL, R. L.
&
DUNLAP, G.
(1996) Positive Behaviour Support:Including People with
Difficult Behaviour in the Community.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes
.
20.
LA VIGNA, G.
&
WILLIS, T.
(1995)
‘Challenging Behaviour: A Model for Breaking the Barriers to
Social and Community Integration’
, Positive Practices1:
8–15
.
21.
MILTENBERGER, R. G.
(1990)
‘Assessment of Treatment Acceptability: A Review of the Literature’
, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education10:
24–38
.
22.
MILTENBERGER, R. G.
&
LUMLEY, V. A.
(1997)
‘Evaluating the Influence of Problem Function on Treatment Acceptability’
, Behavioural Interventions12:
105–111
.
23.
MOSSMAN, D. A.
,
HASTINGS, R. P.
&
BROWN, T.
(2002)
‘Mediators’ Emotional Responses to Self-Injurious
Behaviour: An Experimental Study’
, American Journal on Mental Retardation107:
252–260
.
24.
OLIVER, C.
,
HALL, S.
,
HALES, J.
&
HEAD, D.
(1996)
‘Self-Injurious Behaviour and People with Intellectual
Disabilities: Assessing the Behavioural Knowledge and Causal Explanations of
Care Staff’
, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities9:
229–239
.
25.
REIMERS, T. M.
,
WACKER, D. P.
&
COOPER, G.
(1987)
‘Acceptability of Behavioural Interventions: A Review of the Literature’
, School Psychology Review16:
216–227
.
26.
REIMERS, T. M.
,
WACKER, D. P.
,
COOPER, G.
&
DE RAAD, A. O.
(1992)
‘Clinical Evaluation of the Variables Associated with Treatment
Acceptability and their Relation to Compliance’
, Behavioural Disorders18:
67–76
.
27.
TARNOWSKI, K. J.
&
SIMONIAN, S. J.
(1992)
‘Assessing Treatment Acceptance: The Abbreviated Acceptability
Rating Profile’
, Journal of Behavioural Theory and Experimental Psychiatry23:
101–106
.
28.
WEIGLE, K. L.
&
SCOTTI, J. R.
(2000)
‘Effects of Functional Analysis Information on Ratings of
Intervention Effectiveness and Acceptability’
, Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps25:
201–211
.
29.
WOLF, M. M.
(1978)
‘Social Validity: The Case for Subjective Measurement, or How
Applied Behaviour Analysis Is Finding its Heart’
, Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis11:
203–214
.
