Social validation data on three methods of physical restraint: views of consumers, staff and students

Cunningham, Joanna; McDonnell, Andy; Easton, Simon; Sturmey, Peter

doi:10.1016/s0891-4222(03)00044-1

Cited by 56 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, we addressed this matter by assessing the social validity of PR among parents-guardians of adults who had ID. As noted previously, acceptance and satisfaction are critical measures when evaluating an intervention such as PR but have been infrequently reported (Cunningham et al 2003;Luiselli et al 2015;McDonnell and Sturmey 2000;McDonnell et al 1993). The present study adds to this limited literature and to our knowledge is the first social validity assessment of PR conducted with parents-guardians.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We constructed a social validity questionnaire with reference to previous research targeting PR (Cunningham et al 2003;McDonnell and Sturmey 2000;McDonnell et al 1993) and adapted from the Luiselli et al (2015) assessment protocol. The questionnaire had four domains categorized as (a) rationale justification, (b) training, (c) implementation, and (d) effectiveness.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study by McDonnell and Sturmey (2000) reported the same results with (a) special education practitioners at schools for students with developmental disabilities, (b) residential-care staff within hospital and community settings serving people with ID, and (c) high school pupils with no experience caring for people with developmental disabilities. In Cunningham et al (2003) the participants were college students, residential-care staff, and individuals with ID-all of the groups rated PR negatively although they judged chair restraint more acceptable than floor restraint.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas the previously cited research concentrated on the method of restraint (Cunningham et al 2003;McDonnell and Sturmey 2000;McDonnell et al 1993), Luiselli et al (2015) assessed opinions about the rationale justification, training, safety, and implementation effectiveness of PR. The results indicated consistently high approval and acceptability within these four domains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

Luiselli¹,

Sperry²,

Draper³

et al. 2017

Adv Neurodev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parents-guardians of adults who had intellectual disability completed a social validity assessment that documented their attitudes and opinions about physical restraint. Both parents-guardians of adults that had and had not experienced physical restraint rated most highly that (a) physical restraint should only be used if less intensive procedures have failed and (b) physical restraint can be adapted to ensure safety and reduce risk of harm. They endorsed less favorably that effective use of physical restraint makes it possible for individuals to progress and achieve a better quality of life. The parents-guardians of adults that had not experienced physical restraint differed from the parents-guardians of adults with a physical restraint history in acceptance of physical restraint to ensure safety of their family member. We discuss these findings and implications for habilitation services programs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

Luiselli¹,

Sperry²,

Draper³

et al. 2017

Adv Neurodev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Video-recorded skits were used as this has been shown to reduce discomfort and provide focus when interviewing people with ID (Cunningham, McDonnell, Easton, & Sturmey, 2003;Gates & Waight, 2007;Ramcharan et al, 2009). Of the five skits, two reflected benign elements of daily life, such as having receiving assistance to make a cup of tea.…”

Section: Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conceptual model of quality service provision for people with intellectual disability and challenging behaviours: Enhancement and enrichment through service user and other stakeholder consultation

Gatfield¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour are one of the most disenfranchised groups in society. How they are supported through services has a primary role in changing this outcome. While legislation provides frameworks for quality service provision for people with disabilities, they do not identify the mechanisms specific to the cohort that can address this disenfranchisement. As such, it is paramount to develop an understanding of quality service provision specific to those with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour.To identify the factors required for quality service provision for people with ID and CB, a three-stage design incorporating participants from various stakeholder groups (n=7) was undertaken. Study one involved data collection from CEOs and managers (n=55) of service provider agencies using a Delphi study, and clinicians and senior practitioners (n=85) using survey methods. Study two incorporated interviews conducted with families/carers of service users (n=11), advocates (n=10), support workers (n=13) and supervisors (n=11) who had provided services to the cohort, complemented by survey data (n=102). Study three involved data collection with service users with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour (n=14) through focus groups.The results of this research led to the identification of processes and practices associated with and impacting on quality service provision that were not identified through the literature review. Further, it identified agents that are formative to the production of quality services.The outcome of this research is a model of quality service provision for the cohort that conceptualises quality as a continuous process and includes factors across sociopolitical systems that are formative to, and impacting on, quality service provision. The developed model has significant implications for service provider agencies, service user consultation, government, substitute decision making, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

show abstract

Research and Development

Sturmey

Taylor

Lindsay

2004

Offenders With Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social validation data on three methods of physical restraint: views of consumers, staff and students

Cited by 56 publications

References 6 publications

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

A conceptual model of quality service provision for people with intellectual disability and challenging behaviours: Enhancement and enrichment through service user and other stakeholder consultation

Research and Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About