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.

Increasing item engagement and decreasing automatically reinforced problem behavior within a modified competing stimulus assessment.

A competing stimulus assessment (CSA) is commonly used to identify leisure items for use in treatments designed to decrease automatically reinforced problem behavior. However, this type of assessment may not yield useful information if participants do not readily engage with leisure items. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a modified CSA that included additional treatment components (i.e., prompting, prompting plus differential reinforcement of alternative behavior). The modified CSA identified the treatment components and leisure items that were most effective for increasing leisure-item engagement and decreasing problem behavior for each participant. Modified CSA outcomes maintained during an extended treatment analysis in a natural setting and when intervention components were faded.