Staff attributions of the causes of challenging behaviour in children and adults with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities

P. Poppes*, A. A. J. van der Putten, A. ten Brug, C. Vlaskamp

*Bijbehorende auteur voor dit werk

OnderzoeksoutputAcademicpeer review

3 Citaten (Scopus)
12 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

A study has shown that staff do not generally perceive challenging behaviour in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) as being of serious consequence. In this study we aimed to gain a better understanding of the causal explanations that direct care and support staff give for challenging behaviour in this group. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to determine the way staff attribute challenging behaviour in children and adults with PIMD; and (2) to analyse whether more experienced staff attribute challenging behaviour in children and adults with PIMD differently than less experienced staff. In total, 195 direct support staff and an equal number of children and adults with PIMD participated in the study. Direct support staff filled out the Challenging behaviour Attribution Scale (five causal explanatory models of challenging behaviour) to explain challenging behaviour in one individual that they supported. The results show that direct support staff as a whole report the biomedical model as the most plausible explanation for challenging behaviour in children and adults with PIMD. However, in the present study the mean scores on all models are low. This might indicate that a large number of staff found none of the models particularly useful as possible explanations of challenging behaviour in people with PIMD. This could mean that staff have difficulties stating the cause of challenging behaviour in this group. Another possible explanation could be that there is little scientific knowledge about causing and maintaining factors of challenging behaviour in people with PIMD. It could also mean that staff have additional explanations for challenging behaviour in this target group that are not mentioned in the instrument used. Future research should address these issues. No differences were found between more experienced and less experienced direct support staff. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Originele taal-2English
Pagina's (van-tot)95-102
Aantal pagina's8
TijdschriftResearch in Developmental Disabilities
Volume48
DOI's
StatusPublished - jan-2016

Citeer dit