Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T05:33:52.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acceptability of a Visual Screening Procedure for Reducing Stereotypy in Mentally Retarded Children: Evaluation by New Zealand Institutional Staff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Oliver C. Mudford
Oliver C. Mudford*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
*
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 1, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

The acceptability of three treatments for the maladaptive, but not injurious, repetitive stereotyped behaviour of a mentally retarded child was evaluated. Evaluation was conducted by questionnaires to two groups of staff (nurses and teachers) at two New Zealand institutions for mentally retarded people. A differential reinforcement procedure was found to be most acceptable. A visual screening procedure was judged as being more than moderately acceptable by nurses but less than moderately acceptable by teachers. When visual screening and reinforcement were combined in a treatment package and a rationale for so doing was provided, acceptability was increased significantly for both groups of staff. Teachers rated visual screening, when explicitly prescribed with differential reinforcement, as more than moderately acceptable. The implications of the finding of differential rating of acceptability across and within occupational groups was discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 4 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In Honig, W. A. (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 380–447). New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Berkson, G., & Davenport, R. K. (1962). Stereo-typed movements in mental defectives: I: Initial survey. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 66, 849–852.Google Scholar
Burgio, L. D., Page, T. J., & Capriotti, R. M. (1985). Clinical behavioral pharmacology: Methods for evaluating medications and contingency management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chock, P. N., & Glahn, T. J. (1983). Learning and self-stimulation in mute and echolalic autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 13, 365–381.Google Scholar
Dick, D. M., & Jackson, H. J. (1983). The reduction of sterotypic screaming in a severely retarded boy through a visual screening procedure. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 14, 363–367.Google Scholar
Jennrich, R., & Sampson, P. (1981). P8V: General mixed model analysis of variance — equal cell sizes. In Dixon, W. J. (Ed.), BMDP statistical software 1981 (pp. 427–435). Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1980a). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259–273.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1980b). Acceptability of time out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior. Behavior Therapy, 11, 329–344.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazdin, A. E., French, N. H., & Sherick, R. B. (1981). Acceptability of alternative treatments for children: Evaluations by inpatient children, parents, and staff. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 900–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazdin, A. E., & Krouse, R. (1983). The impact of variations in treatment rationales on expectancies for therapeutic change. Behavior Therapy, 14, 657–671.Google Scholar
Koegel, R., & Covert, A. (1972). The relationship of self-stimulation to learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 381–387.Google Scholar
Koegel, R., Firestone, P. B., Kramme, K. W., & Dunlap, G. (1974). Increasing spontaneous play by suppressing self-stimulation in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 521–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
La Grow, S. J., & Repp, A. C. (1984). Stereotypic responding: A review of intervention research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 595–609.Google Scholar
Luiselli, J. K., Pemberton, B. W., & Helfen, C. S. (1978). Effects and side effects of a brief over-correction procedure in reducing multiple self-stimulatory behavior: A single case analysis. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 22, 287–293.Google Scholar
McGonigle, J. J., Duncan, D., Cordisco, L., & Barrett, R. P. (1982). Visual screening: An alternative method for reducing stereotypic behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 461–467.Google Scholar
Mudford, O. C. (1985). Training officers and applied behaviour analysis. Mental Handicap in New Zealand, 9(3), 47–61.Google Scholar
Norton, G. R., Austen, S., Allen, G. E., & Hilton, J. (1983). Acceptability of time out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior: A further analysis. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
Salend, S. J. (1984). Integrity of treatment in special education research. Mental Retardation, 22, 309–315.Google Scholar
Singh, N. N., & Katz, R. C. (1985). On the modification of acceptability ratings for alternative child treatments. Behavior Modification, 9, 375–386.Google Scholar
Turnbull, H. R. (1981). The least restrictive alternative: Principles and practices. Washington, DC: AAMD.Google Scholar
Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Elliot, S. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers' judgements of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention. Behavior Therapy, 15, 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, J. C., & Robbins, J. R. (1985). Acceptability of reductive interventions for the control of inappropriate child behavior. Journal of Abnornal Child Psychology, 13, 59–67.Google Scholar
Yeaton, W. H. & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 156–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed