A positive behaviour support practice framework for disability and community services in Australia that prioritises human rights and evidence-based practices.

PURPOSE: This paper introduces a practice framework for individualised positive behaviour support (PBS). The framework incorporates existing function-based PBS principles and integrates contemporary research and Australian legislation to frame practice elements through a human rights lens. It is designed to support people with disability of varied aetiologies across the lifespan in various settings (e.g. home, schools, and aged care). METHODS: Existing research and literature have been reviewed, including key theories and current formulations to inform a new practice framework that reflects recommendations for applications in community settings. RESULTS: The PBS Pathway (PBS-P) framework promotes culturally sensitive and socially valid strategies for empowering the person and their supporters via a clear practice framework. It emphasises evidence-based practices while acknowledging the need for flexibility to meet individual needs. CONCLUSIONS: The PBS-P framework offers a pragmatic approach and focused lens for critical thinking and reflective applications within PBS. It promotes a universal approach across the lifespan and service settings, contributing to a shared understanding of PBS as a rights-based practice. The framework's alignment with current legislation supports adoption within existing systems; however, successful implementation requires skilled practitioners, adequate funding, and policies to support knowledge translation.

The positive behaviour support pathway framework guides individualised practices for people across the lifespan and service settings, with emphasis on data-based decision making to inform socially and culturally valid intervention planning.The framework aligns with current legislation and addresses current concerns relating to poor behaviour support practices and urgent recommendations for practices that protect and promote human rights.

A systematic review of social-validity assessments in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis: 2010-2020.

We conducted a systematic review of studies published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis between 2010 and 2020 to identify reports of social validity. A total of 160 studies (17.60%) published during this time included a measure of social validity. For each study, we extracted data on (a) the dimensions of social validity, (b) the methods used for collecting social-validity data, (c) the respondents, and (d) when social-validity data were collected. Most social-validity assessments measured the acceptability of intervention procedures and outcomes, with fewer evaluating goals. The most common method for collecting social validity data was Likert-type rating scales, followed by non-Likert-type questionnaires. In most studies, the direct recipients of the intervention provided feedback on social validity. Social-validity assessment data were often collected at the conclusion of the study. We provide examples of social-validity measurement methods, discuss their strengths and limitations, and provide recommendations for improving the future collection and reporting of social-validity data.

'Stakeholders are almost always resistant': Australian behaviour support practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to reducing restrictive practices.

A restrictive practice (RP) is defined as a practice or intervention that has the effect of restricting the rights or freedom of movement of a person, and includes physical, mechanical, and chemical restraint, and seclusion. If misused or overused, RPs may present serious human rights infringements. In Australia, behaviour support practitioners who deliver behaviour support funded by the National Disability Insurance Scheme are responsible for developing positive behaviour support plans that aim to reduce and eliminate the use of RPs. At present, little is known about the barriers that behaviour support practitioners experience when attempting to reduce and eliminate the use of RPs and, conversely, what helps (or enables) them to reduce and eliminate RPs. To learn more, we conducted an online survey consisting of two open-ended questions with 109 Australian behaviour support practitioners to identify barriers and enablers. We found that fear and reluctance on the part of stakeholders were often barriers to reducing the use of RPs. However, we found that having time, funding, and resources for training, supervision, other implementation activities, care team collaboration, and data-based decision-making helped overcome barriers. We provide specific recommendations for addressing identified barriers for individual behaviour support practitioners, service provider organisations, and government and regulatory agencies.

Identifying and removing ableism from Tier 1 school-wide positive behaviour support practices.

Across Australia, almost one third of schools have been trained to implement school-wide positive behaviour support (SWPBS). As part of a Tier 1 approach, students are expected to demonstrate expected behaviours. By defining these behaviours in conjunction with students and families, and explicitly teaching these to students, schools implementing SWPBS can create climates where students can thrive both academically and behaviourally. However, many students with disability continue to be over-represented in discipline data in all schools, including those implementing SWPBS. We argue this is because defining the behaviours we want to see and celebrate is only part of the solution. Implementation is destined to fail if we do not, in tandem, address the conditions we created that act as barriers for students with disability. Further, through an analysis of Australian SWPBS matrices, we show that structural ableism exists in the way some expected behaviours are framed by requiring a greater response effort from students with disability if they are to meet the standard expected. We offer suggestions for schools to both recognise and remove ableism from Tier 1 SWPBS practices.

Differing types of cellular phone conversations and dangerous driving.

This study sought to investigate the relationship between cell phone conversation type and dangerous driving behaviors. It was hypothesized that more emotional phone conversations engaged in while driving would produce greater frequencies of dangerous driving behaviors in a simulated environment than more mundane conversation or no phone conversation at all. Participants were semi-randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) no call, (2) mundane call, and, (3) emotional call. While driving in a simulated environment, participants in the experimental groups received a phone call from a research confederate who either engaged them in innocuous conversation (mundane call) or arguing the opposite position of a deeply held belief of the participant (emotional call). Participants in the no call and mundane call groups differed significantly only on percent time spent speeding and center line crossings, though the mundane call group consistently engaged in more of all dangerous driving behaviors than did the no call participants. Participants in the emotional call group engaged in significantly more dangerous driving behaviors than participants in both the no call and mundane call groups, with the exception of traffic light infractions, where there were no significant group differences. Though there is need for replication, the authors concluded that whereas talking on a cell phone while driving is risky to begin with, having emotionally intense conversations is considerably more dangerous.