The Incidence and Prevalence of Self-injurious Behavior

Johnson, Willard L.; Day, Robert M.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9130-2_2

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been pointed out in previous reviews of the literature (Johnson & Day 1992 ; Rojahn & Esbensen 2002) that there is much variation in the methodology employed in prevalence studies of challenging behaviour. This was also noted in the current review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk markers associated with challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities: a meta‐analytic study

McClintock

Hall

Oliver

2003

J intellect Disabil Res

579

412

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta-analysis of prevalence and cohort studies conducted over the last  years was carried out to identify risk markers for challenging behaviour shown by individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs). A total of  potential studies was identified from the review, with  (  .  %) containing sufficient data to enable a statistical analysis to be conducted. Results indicated that males were significantly more likely to show aggression than females, and that individuals with a severe/profound degree of ID were significantly more likely to show self-injury and stereotypy than individuals with a mild/moderate degree of ID. Individuals with a diagnosis of autism were significantly more likely to show self-injury, aggression and disruption to the environment whilst individuals with deficits in receptive and expressive communication were significantly more likely to show self-injury. In most cases, tests for heterogeneity were statistically significant, as expected. The meta-analysis highlighted the paucity of methodologically robust studies of risk markers for challenging behaviours and the lack of data on incidence, prevalence and chronicity of challenging behaviour in this population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk markers associated with challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities: a meta‐analytic study

McClintock

Hall

Oliver

2003

J intellect Disabil Res

579

412

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the use of a referred sample limits the extent to which our data may be generalizable throughout the population, this limitation extends to all existing studies on the incidence or prevalence of SIB. In each of the epidemiological surveys reviewed by Johnson and Day (1992), the subject sample was limited by one or more setting-related factors (e.g., community-based residential facility, institution, pediatric cinic, private service provider, etc.). Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that data presented here on the functional characteristics of SIB are comparable with those reported elsewhere on its descriptive characteristics.…”

Section: Summary Of Assessment Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the descriptive characteristics of SIB have been well established through a series of studies on incidence or prevalence. Johnson and Day (1992) recently examined data from 34 epidemiological surveys and summarized the findings along several dimensions, including overall frequency and distribution of SIB according to subject characteristics (e.g., gender, age, handicapping condition), response characteristics (e.g., topography, frequency), and other variables such as residential setting, frequency of drug administration, and so on.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Functions of Self‐injurious Behavior: An Experimental‐epidemiological Analysis

Iwata

Pace

Dorsey

et al. 1994

J of App Behav Analysis

715

505

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data are summarized from 152 single-subject analyses of the reinforcing functions of self-injurious behavior (SIB). Individuals with developmental disabilities referred for assessment and/or treatment over an 11-year period were exposed to a series of conditions in which the effects of antecedent and consequent events on SIB were examined systematically by way ofmultielement, reversal, or combined designs. Shook, Keith Slifer, and G. Linden Thorn for the special panel concluded that, although much is known about SIB at the present time, thorough understanding and eventual reduction in the frequency of SIB will require continued research on all aspects of the disorder, induding prevalence, etiology, treatment, and prevention.In an attempt to define the general parameters of SIB as a clinical disorder, a number of investigators have conducted group surveys using methods roles they played in developing or maintaining the clinical environments that accommodated this research. Michael Dorsey is now at the South Bay

show abstract

“…Self-mutilation during psychotic episodes is also excluded from many defi nitions of SIB [1] . In the context of delusions or hallucinations, self-mutilation can culminate in gouging of the eyes or amputation of limbs [6] .…”

Section: Defi Nition Of Sibmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Johnson and Day [1] were confronted with very different defi nitions of SIB when reviewing studies about the prevalence and incidence of SIB. Below some aspects that differentiate SIB from other self-harming behavior ( table 1 ) are briefl y discussed.…”

Section: Defi Nition Of Sibmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do People Injure Themselves?

Haas

Popp

2005

Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate a questionnaire for the assessment of immediate functions of self-injurious behavior (SIB). SIB is defined as deliberate injuries of the skin such as burning, cutting or beating. Suicidal attempts as well as self-injuries for aesthetic reasons were excluded. Immediate functions were collected from the literature as well as from statements of SIB sufferers. Finally, 154 questions with the response options ‘right’, ‘wrong’ and ‘unknown’ – for phenomena people did not know – were given to 120 persons with SIB aged 13–54 years. They were recruited from SIB-related homepages as well as from psychologists and psychiatrists in hospitals in Austria and Germany. Twelve factors were extracted via factor analysis (varimax rotation): ‘self-punishment’, ‘coping with emotions’, ‘extreme rage’, ‘vitality’, ‘dissociation’, ‘changed perception’, ‘control over body’, ‘uniqueness’, ‘interaction’, ‘addiction’, ‘coping with sexuality’ and ‘expression of sexuality’. All items of each factor were analyzed and unsatisfactory ones excluded to devise a questionnaire as short as possible but with high expressiveness and good reliability. The remaining 107 items have a reliability of r = 0.9118 (Cronbach’s alpha). Evaluation of this questionnaire is in progress.

show abstract

The Incidence and Prevalence of Self-injurious Behavior

Cited by 17 publications

References 19 publications

Risk markers associated with challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities: a meta‐analytic study

Risk markers associated with challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities: a meta‐analytic study

The Functions of Self‐injurious Behavior: An Experimental‐epidemiological Analysis

Why Do People Injure Themselves?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About