Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:35:21.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Acceptability of Physical Restraint Procedures for People with a Learning Difficulty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Andrew A. McDonnell ,
Peter Sturmey  and
Bob Dearden
Andrew A. McDonnell
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Peter Sturmey
Affiliation:
Abilene State School, Texas
Bob Dearden
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three methods of physical restraint were videotaped and presented to two groups of subjects (undergraduate students and teenagers). Two of the methods recommended restraining a person with a learning difficulty on the ground; the other method proposed seating the individual in a chair. Subjects were asked to rate the social acceptability of the procedures using the Treatment Evaluation Inventory (TEI). Both undergraduate students and teenagers rated the chair method as more acceptable. The implications of these findings for the use of physical restraint procedures were discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Elliot, S.N., Witt, J.C., Galvin, G.A. and Peterson, R. (1984). Acceptability of positive and reductive behavioral interventions: factors that influence teachers decisions. Journal of School Psychology 22, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullone, E. and King, N.J. (1989). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: child and caregiver perceptions. In Hersen, R.M. and Miller, P.M. (Eds). Progress In Behavior Modification, Vol. 24. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Harvey, E.R. and Schepers, J. (1977). Physical control techniques and defensive holds for use with aggressive retarded. Mental Retardation 13, 29–31.Google Scholar
Hill, J. and Spreat, S. (1987). Staff injury rates associated with the implementation of contingent restraint. Mental Retardation 25, 141–145.Google ScholarPubMed
Irvin, L.K. and Lundervold, D.A. (1988). Social validation of decelerative (punishment) by special educators of severely handicapped students. Research in Developmental Disabilities 9, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Acceptability of time out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior. Behavior Therapy 11, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, N.J. and Gullone, E. (1990). Acceptability of fear reduction procedures with children. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 21, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaVigna, G. and Donnellan, A.M. (1986). Alternatives to Punishment. New York: Irvington Press.Google Scholar
Lefensky, B., DePalma, T. and Lociercero, D. (1978). Management of violent behaviors. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care 16, 212–217.Google Scholar
Lennox, D.B., Miltenberger, R.G., Spengler, P. and Erfanian, N. (1988). Decelerative treatment practices with persons who have mental retardation: a review of five years of the literature. American Journal of Mental Retardation 92, 492–501.Google ScholarPubMed
Matson, J. and Taras, M.E. (1989). A 20 year review of punishment and alternative methods to treat problem behaviors in developmentally delayed persons. Research in Developmental Disabilities 10, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonnell, A., Dearden, R.L. and Richens, A. (1991). Staff training in mental handicap: 3. Physical restraint procedures. Mental Handicap 19, 151–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, A. and Sturmey, P. (in press). Managing violent and aggressive behaviours of people with learning difficulties. In Jones, R.S.P. and Eayrs, C. (Eds). Challenging Behaviours and Mental Handicap: A Psychological Perspective.Google Scholar
Miltenberger, R.G., Lennox, D.B. and Erfranian, N. (1989). Acceptability of alternative treatments for persons with mental retardation: ratings from institutional and community based staff. American Journal of Mental Retardation 93, 388–395.Google ScholarPubMed
Morgan, R. (1989). Judgements of restrictiveness, social acceptability and usage: review of research on procedures to decrease behaviour. American Journal of Mental Retardation 94, 121–133.Google Scholar
Mudford, O.C. (1987). Acceptability of a visual screening procedure for reducing stereotopy in mentally retarded children. Behaviour Change 4, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimers, T.M., Wacker, D.P. and Koeppl, G. (1987). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: a review of the literature. School Psychology Review 16, 212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarnowski, K.J., Mulick, J.A. and Kaye Rasnake, L. (1990). Acceptability of behavioral interventions for self-injurious behavior: Replication and institutional comparison. American Journal of Mental Retardation 93, 575–580.Google Scholar
Weld, E.M. and Evans, I.M. (1990). Effects of part versus whole instructional strategies on skill acquisition and excess behaviour. American Journal of Mental Retardation 94, 377–386.Google Scholar
Willis, T.J. and LaVigna, G.W. (1985). Emergency Management Guidelines. Los Angeles: Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis.Google Scholar
Witt, J.C. and Martens, B.K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in the classrooms. Psychology in the Schools 20, 510–517.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, M.M. (1978). Social validity: the case for subjective measurement or how applied behaviour analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 11, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.