Teaching staff knowledge, attributions and confidence in relation to working with children with an intellectual disability and challenging behaviour

Abstract

Accessible summaryWe looked at how much teachers knew about helping children with a learning disability who had behaviour that was challenging in school. We found that:• Some teachers knew very little about challenging behaviour and all the different ways to help children with this. • Some teachers had beliefs about challenging behaviour that can be unhelpful. We need to find ways to help teachers find out more about challenging behaviour and to think about it in different ways. One way to do this could be to give them training about it. SummaryThe present study examined Scottish teaching staff knowledge about the definition and management of challenging behaviour displayed by children with an intellectual disability. Knowledge levels were relatively low, and participants were most likely to define challenging behaviour by function or topography. Teaching staff were largely unaware of positive programming strategies, suggesting that they may not be properly equipped to manage challenging behaviour effectively in the longer term. The teaching staff were found to hold attributions which research suggests are associated with reduced helping behaviour and increased anger. This indicates a continuing need to identify effective ways of promoting more accurate knowledge and positive attributions in teaching staff.

Screening for intellectual disability with the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Screening Questionnaire: a modified Delphi approach

“…In addition, explaining the purpose and nature of the screening process may, in itself, increase awareness of intellectual disability. This is important, as research suggests that knowledge about intellectual disability is low in key groups who would be in a position to facilitate the early identification of the condition, such as primary care staff and teachers …”

“…This is important, as research suggests that knowledge about intellectual disability is low in key groups who would be in a position to facilitate the Overall benefit to others impacted by your service 60-95 77 (13.0) early identification of the condition, such as primary care staff 26 and teachers. 27 There were also a number of important secondary benefits of screening (i.e. that followed from the diagnostic assessment associated with the screening, rather than directly from the screening itself).…”

The Validity of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) with children aged 6–7 years, 11 months: A brief report

“…Early diagnosis of ID is crucial to ensure that the child receives appropriate support and intervention to maximise his/her life chances (Guralnick, 2005), however research suggests that diagnosis can often be delayed, into adolescence or even adulthood (Hamilton, 2006) and that this can be a significant source of stress and dissatisfaction for parents (Watson et al, 2011). There are a number of reasons why this might be the case, including limited knowledge, among some health (McKenzie et al, 2000) and education professionals (Rae et al, 2011) about what ID is, and the fact that diagnosis requires professional determination of the individual's intellectual and adaptive functioning. Such assessments can be time-consuming to conduct and score (Winters et al, 2005) and many can only be administered by appropriately qualified professionals (British Psychological Society, 2001).…”

The evaluation of a screening tool for children with an intellectual disability: The Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire

“…A number of factors may influence the timing of the diagnosis, including: whether the diagnosis relates to a specific syndrome or is the less specific diagnosis of 'intellectual disability' (Quine & Rutter, 1994); whether relevant professionals such as education (Rae, McKenzie, & Murray, 2011) and primary care staff (McKenzie, Murray, Matheson, & McCaskie, 2000) have sufficient knowledge of what an intellectual disability is to recognise that a child may have one, and failure of legislation to specifically highlight the needs of this group of children (e.g. Maulik & Darmstadt, 2007;Scottish Government, 2004).…”