Article1995

UNDERSTANDING FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RESPONSES TO CHALLENGING BEHAVIOURS: AN EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW STUDY

86 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Behavioral and Psychological Studies Down syndrome and intellectual disability research Family and Disability Support Research

Abstract

Abstract Staff beliefs about challenging behaviours, and their perception of their working environment, are important for two main reasons. Firstly, the manner in which staff define challenging behaviour affects who is labelled as a challenge, and who is referred to specialist services. Secondly, staff views of their working environment may help us to understand why staff interact with people with learning disabilities in the apparently counter‐habilitative ways outlined in previous reasearch. These issues were investigated in a systematic semi‐structured interview of 19 care staff. The interview covered staff definitions of challenging behaviour, the reasons for its occurrence, and strategies for its amelioration; their views on training and behavioural programmes; and their reported emotional responses to challenging behaviour. Content analysis of the interview transcripts revealed several patterns that may help in generating an account of staff behaviour. For example, staff's beliefs about the causes of challenging behaviour were partially congruent with those of psychological analyses, but their reported interventions for challenging behaviour could not be characterised as ‘functional’ strategies. Staff reports also revealed some of the factors in the service environment that may explain why they respond ‘inappropriately’ to challenging behaviour in the short term. These included: an emphasis in staff training on techniques for managing behaviour rather than understanding it, the (possibly resulting) belief that challenging behaviour is to be controlled, and the aversive nature of challenging behaviours. These findings, and their implications for research and practice, are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 86 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Qualitative Data Analysis 1982DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN DISCRIMINATIVE AND MOTIVATIONAL FUNCTIONS OF STIMULI 1977The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses.1994THE FUNCTIONS OF SELF‐INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR: AN EXPERIMENTAL‐EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS 1992BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES TO EVALUATE ABERRANT BEHAVIOR IN AN OUTPATIENT SETTING: A SUMMARY OF 79 CASES 1988BASING THE TREATMENT OF STEREOTYPIC AND SELF‐INJURIOUS BEHAVIORS ON HYPOTHESES OF THEIR CAUSES 1981SETTING EVENTS IN APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS: TOWARD A CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL EXPANSION 1974Toward a constructional approach to social problems: ethical and constitutional issues raised by applied behavior analysis.

Cited by

2004Negative Emotional Reactions to Challenging Behaviour and Staff Burnout: Two Replication Studies 1999Mediator analysis: an overview of recent research on carers supporting people with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour 2006The response to challenging behaviour by care staff: emotional responses, attributions of cause and observations of practice 1997Staff beliefs about the challenging behaviors of children and adults with mental retardation

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.