Search

The purpose of the present study was to examine psychometric properties of the Staff Behavior toward Clients questionnaire (SBC), a self-report measure for care staff working with children and adolescents with mild to borderline intellectual disabilities in residential care. Ninety-nine care staff completed the SBC and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for 99 of their clients. Factor analysis revealed four factors (i.e. behavior regulation, client-directed care, teaching and empowerment). Results indicated excellent internal consistency of all factors and ability of the SBC to detect differences in client populations with respect to behavior problems. These data suggest that the SBC could provide a reliable and valid measure of staff behavior toward clients in residential facilities. (Contains 2 tables.)

Background: Aggression is a common type of problem behaviour in clients with mild to borderline intellectual disability who live in a residential facility. We explored contextual events that elicit aggressive behaviour and variables that were associated with such events. Method: Respondents were 87 direct-care staff members of 87 clients with aggressive behaviour who lived in a residential facility. Staff members completed the "Contextual Assessment Inventory" (CAI) and a questionnaire on demographic information and types, frequency and severity of aggressive behaviour. Internal consistency of the total CAI was excellent (alpha = 0.95), and Cronbach alpha's for the CAI sub-scales ranged from 0.75 to 0.93. Inter-rater agreement for the CAI could be considered good (mean intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.63). Results: Both social and task-related events were reported to evoke aggressive behaviour of clients most often. Negative interactions, task characteristics and daily routines relatively often evoked aggressive behaviour while an uncomfortable environment, medication, illness and physiological states (i.e. physical and biological events) evoked aggressive behaviour least often. Mean CAI sub-scale scores were significantly related to gender, IQ and frequency of aggressive behaviour. Conclusion: The present study extends our knowledge regarding events that are associated with an increased probability of aggressive behaviour. Knowledge of these contextual variables may be helpful in designing programmes (e.g. applied behaviour analysis, social skills training and cognitive behavioural therapies) for the management and prevention of aggressive behaviour in clients with mild to borderline intellectual disability who live in a residential facility.

We explored functional variables for aggressive behavior in 87 individuals with moderate to borderline intellectual disability who lived in a residential facility. For this purpose we used the Questions About Behavioral Function scale (QABF; Matson, J., & Vollmer, T. (1995). Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF). Baton Rouge, LA: Scientific Publications). Results show that in most clients subscales describing social function (i.e., Attention, Escape/Avoidance, Tangible) had significantly higher mean scores than subscales describing non-social function (i.e., Self-stimulation, Physical discomfort). Except for gender, there were no significant associations between mean subscale scores and client variables, such as psychiatric disorder, age, level of intellectual disability. Female clients had higher mean scores on subscales of Attention, Self-stimulation, and Physical discomfort than male clients. Results of our study suggest that in most cases, aggressive behavior is positively/negatively reinforced by social events. Implications for functional assessment and function-based treatment of aggressive behavior in these clients are discussed.