Implications of Biobehavioral States for the Education and Treatment of Students with the Most Profoundly Handicapping Conditions

Abstract

Implications of biobehavioral state measures for the assessment of students with profoundly handicapping conditions are discussed in relation to similar behaviors observed in infants and among persons recovering from severe head trauma. Data are presented showing different profiles in biobehavioral states among students with severe and profound disabilities. These profiles are compared with similar descriptions of physical and psychological functioning described in the head-trauma literature, with a discussion of similar education and intervention problems and the need for more exchange of information between special education and rehabilitation therapy for persons with severe neurological impairments. Additionally, biobehavioral state measures among persons with severe and profound disabilities are offered as a potentially valuable assessment tool with important implications for improved intervention strategies and future research directions.

Teaching Persons With Profound Multiple Handicaps: A Review of the Effects of Behavioral Research

“…However, although the overall impact of applied behavioral research in this area has been quite significant, there is one population of persons with developmental disabilities for whom the impact has not been dear. Specifically, the utility of behavioral procedures for affecting adaptive behavior change among individuals who have profound mental and physical handicaps has been seriously questioned (Landesman-Dwyer & Sackett, 1978;Rainforth, 1982 (Guess et al, 1988). The most common descriptor used with standardized quantification is profound mental retardation (Grossman, 1983).…”

“…First, as just noted, these individuals generally are considered untestable on intelligence tests because often they can perform none of the tasks comprising the tests (Bailey, 1981). Second, this population exhibits obvious signs of very serious neuromuscular dysfunction such as severe spasticity, muscle rigidity, and skeletal deformities (Landesman-Dwyer & Sackett, 1978) as well as sensory impairments (Guess et al, 1988). As a result of neuromuscular dysfunction, these individuals are nonambulatory and are often quite small for their chronological age (Rice, McDaniel, Stallings, & Gatz, 1967), have little or no control over their movements (Guess et al, 1988), and appear to have minimal or no physical potential to allow for independence in performing self-care routines (Bailey, 1981).…”

“…In short, practitioners are charged with teaching a population whom practitioners may not know how to teach, due at least in part to the questionable availability of an effective behavior-change technology (cf. Guess et al, 1988).…”

“…Although recently there has been increased professional attention directed to the training needs of individuals with profound disabilities (e.g., Evans & Scotti, 1989;Guess et al, 1988), a critical review of the experimental methodology and efficacy of behavioral teaching research with this population has been lacking. This type of review is warranted to determine objectively the extent to which research has demonstrated the teaching of meaningful skills to persons with profound multiple disabilities.…”

Analyzing Alertness Among People With Profound Multiple Disabilities: Implications for Provision of Training

“…Our experience suggests that trainers frequently withhold training when students appear to be nonalert, based on the premise that students will respond to training only when they are alert. Such a practice coincides with the view that changes in alertness may reflect alterations in biobehavioral states similar to those reported among nondisabled infants (Guess et al, 1988), and certain states may prevent an individual from responding to environmental stimuli (Rainforth, 1982). However, the relation between alertness levels and possible biobehavioral states remains undear Rainforth, 1982), and little objective information is available for determining whether it is beneficial to withhold training when students appear to be nonalert.…”