Correlates of interventions with self‐injurious behaviour

Abstract

ABSTRACT. A review was conducted of published intervention research on the self‐injurious behaviour (SIB) of individuals with severe or profound mental retardation. The review comprised articles published between 1980 and 1990. Thirty‐eight biodemographic and environmental variables were investigated, with type of SIB and intervention type considered primary variable classes. Efficacy was also investigated as an additional variable. Cross‐tabulations were performed on selected variables with 24 significant and five marginally significant results obtained. These results indicated that there were possible biases in treatment approaches, problems in compliance with standards of practice, and differential efficacy levels related to certain variable types. Findings were discussed in relation to establishing a prototype for successful SIB interventions.

Why IEP Teams Assign Low Performers With Mild Disabilities to the Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards

“…Many studies have demonstrated that significant intellectual disability is often accompanied by associated impairments that further limit the individual’s adaptive abilities and adversely affect outcomes. The prevalence of these associated impairments correlates with the severity of the intellectual disability (Cascella, 1999; Ferrell, Wolinsky, Kauffman, Flashman, & McAllister, 2004; Fuller & Sabatino, 1998; Jansen, Krol, Groothoff, & Post, 2004; McBrien, 2003; Seager & O’Brien, 2003; Steffenburg, Hagberg, & Kyllerman, 1995; Steffenburg, Hagberg, Viggedal, & Kyllerman, 1995; Sternberg, Taylor, & Babkie, 1994). These associated impairments include cerebral palsy, sensory impairments, seizure disorders, communication impairments, feeding difficulties, behavioral/psychiatric disorders, and attention disorder.…”

Handbook of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…However, there are also instances in which practitioners appear unaware of empirical evidence regarding efficacy of particular intervention procedures that may be strongly indicated for treatment of a specific class of behaviors or disorders. For example, studies have shown that pharmacological interventions are widely used to treat behavior problems of individuals with ID despite repeated findings that pharmacotherapy alone is less effective than behavioral interventions or conjoint pharmacotherapeutic and behavioral interventions (Didden, Duker, Korzilius, 1997;Scotti, Evans, Meyer, & Walker, 1991;Sternberg, Taylor, & Babkie, 1994). Another potential difficulty, which will be discussed in a later section, is the traditional top-down strategy that researchers employ in designing research studies.…”

“…For example, the APA Task Force's sweeping generalization that ABA is empirically supported for ID does little to guide practitioners in formulating an intervention plan for a specific behavior problem. Although research does support the conclusion that ABA in general is efficacious in reducing a number of problem behaviors among individuals with ID (e.g., Kahng, Iwata, & Lewin, 2002;Scotti et al, 1991;Sternberg et al, 1994), there are differences in the effectiveness within the genre of behavioral interventions. For instance, differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors (DRI) procedures alone are less effective than other behavioral intervention procedures such as time-out, relaxation, desensitization, and response cost for reducing problem behaviors (Didden et al, 1997;Lundervold & Bourland, 1988;Scotti et al, 1991).…”

“…For instance, differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors (DRI) procedures alone are less effective than other behavioral intervention procedures such as time-out, relaxation, desensitization, and response cost for reducing problem behaviors (Didden et al, 1997;Lundervold & Bourland, 1988;Scotti et al, 1991). However, there is agreement that DRO and DRI increase the overall effectiveness of an intervention when combined with other behavioral procedures (Lundervold & Bourland, 1988;Scotti et al, 1991;Sternberg et al, 1994). Reviews of empirically supported treatments generally do not narrow in on the differential effectiveness of various behavioral techniques.…”

Reducing challenging behavior through structured therapeutic intervention in the controlled multi-sensory environment (Snoezelen). Ten case studies

“…Methods such as: electric shocks (17), mutual learning programs (18), medication (19,) and different behavioral conditioning programs (20) were investigated. Some of those intervention methods have been found successful, whereas others have failed (21). Currently, the major therapeutic approach for the reduction of challenging behaviors of individuals with IDD is based on behavior modification (22,23).…”