Background: Approximately 10% of children, adolescents and young adults with an intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) in Bavaria live in residential institutions. 2015 saw media reports raising suspicions about excessive use of coercive measures (cM) in those institutions. Until a law reform at the end of 2017 made permission from family courts mandatory for cM, their use was governed by parental consent. The REDUGIA project conducted a representative survey comparing cM and their relation to challenging behaviour (cB) and employee stress in Bavaria pre and post reform.Methods: We sent questionnaires to 65 residential institutions for children, adolescents and young adults with IDD in 2017 (pre reform, T1) and 2019 (post reform, T2). To assess changes, we analysed data from all available questionnaire pairs (T1 and T2, N = 43). We calculated paired t-test and correlative analyses concerning the relationship between cB, cM, and employee stress.Results: The number of residents overall (T1: N = 1,661; T2: N = 1,673) and per institution (T1: m = 38.6 ± 32.0; T2: m = 38.9 ± 34.5, p = 0.920) remained stable. We did not see any changes in the Index cB (p = 0.508) or the proportion of residents per institution displaying various types of challenging behaviour (all ps>0.220). There was no change in the Index cM (p = 0.089) or any indicator of employee stress, all ps > 0.323. At follow-up, the Index cB correlated positively with the Index cM (r = 0.519 p < 0.001). Regarding employee stress, the Index cB correlated positively with the frequency of sick leave (r = 0.322, p = 0.037) and physical attacks on employees (r = 0.552, p < 0.001). The Index cM also correlated positively with the frequency of sick leave (r = 0.340, p = 0.028) and physical attacks on employees (r = 0.492, p = 0.001).Discussion: Coercive measures are not a general phenomenon, but are focused on specialised institutions. The law reform did not lead to changes in the number of children, adolescents and young adults with IDD affected by coercive measures in residential institutions in Bavaria. There were still large discrepancies between institutions in the prevalence of challenging behaviour and coercive measures. Coercive measures were associated with challenging behaviour and employee stress. Taken together, findings from REDUGIA emphasise the need to prevent challenging behaviour and thus coercive measures.
Research suggests that children suffering from different types of disorders (learning disorders, behavioral disorders, or intellectual disabilities) are sometimes evaluated differently simply due to the presence of a diagnostic label. We conducted a multilevel meta-analysis of experimental studies (based on data from 8,295 participants and on 284 effects nested in 60 experiments) to examine the magnitude and robustness of such label effects and to explore the impact of potential moderators (type of evaluation, diagnostic category, expertise, student’s gender, and amount and type of information). We found a moderately negative overall label effect (Hedges’ g = −0.42), which was robust across several types of evaluation, different samples, and different diagnostic categories. There was no indication that expertise and the gender of the child moderated the effect. Presenting participants with only a label yielded the strongest negative effect of g = −1.26, suggesting that the effect was dependent on the amount of information being presented to participants. We conclude that labeling a child can exacerbate negative academic evaluations, behavioral evaluations, evaluations of personality, and overall assessments of the child. Further implications for theory and future research are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.