RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
