Evidence for Reciprocal Interaction Effects Among Adults with Self-Injury and Their Caregivers

Abstract

Patterns of caregiver responses to client adaptive behavior were compared between adults with intellectual disabilities with and without self-injurious behavior. Participants with moderate to profound intellectual disability and self-injury (n = 89) and age/IQ matched control participants (n = 20) were selected from a large sample of adults living in a regional residential center. Approximately 45 minutes of direct observation data were collected for each participant during unstructured leisure time. Data were sequentially analyzed and Yule’s Q scores derived and compared among groups. Results indicated that caregivers were more responsive to prosocial initiations and adaptive engagement among individuals with severe self-injurious behavior than to those with mild or no self-injurious behavior and that these responses were more likely to be in the form of a demand.

Repetitive and self-injurious behaviors: associations with caudate volume in autism and fragile X syndrome

“…This study did not account for the influence of environmental variables on behavior, and thus the relationship between brain, behavior, and environment is unknown. Because SIB both shapes, and is shaped by, the environment in which it occurs [46,47], properties such as behavioral function could further inform the brain-behavior associations reported here. Similarly, it would be illuminating to measure to what extent, if any, associated features such as arousal or anxiety moderate the relationship between subtypes of repetitive behavior and brain structure or function [43].…”

A descriptive analysis of self‐injury in community settings: exploring behaviour–behaviour contingencies

“…; Wolff et al . ). Strong positive contingencies between SIB and social stimuli have been interpreted to support hypotheses related to mechanisms of reinforcement, yet the descriptive nature of these data increases the potential for false positive or false negative outcomes (Lerman & Iwata ; Mace & Lalli ; Thompson & Iwata ).…”

“…For example, sequential analyses have been conducted to evaluate contingencies between SIB and social stimuli, including attention from staff or caregivers (e.g. Symons et al 2001;Symons et al 2003;Wolff et al 2012). Strong positive contingencies between SIB and social stimuli have been interpreted to support hypotheses related to mechanisms of reinforcement, yet the descriptive nature of these data increases the potential for false positive or false negative outcomes (Lerman & Iwata 1993;Mace & Lalli 1991;Thompson & Iwata 2007).…”

Factors facilitating or hindering meaningful staff–client interactions in people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour: A systematic mixed studies review using thematic synthesis

“…The severity of specifically self‐injurious behaviour negatively influenced the quality of staffs’ interaction with clients outside the direct occurrence of self‐injurious behaviour. That is, the increased staff contact towards people with more severe behaviour was more likely to be in the form of a demand (Wolff et al, 2012). Zijlmans et al (2012) showed a differential effect of internalizing and externalizing challenging behaviour (i.e.…”