Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:30:38.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intrusiveness of Interventions: Ratings by Psychologists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

R. Don Tustin ,
Barbara Pennington  and
Mitch Byrne
R. Don Tustin*
Affiliation:
Minda Incorporated
Barbara Pennington
Affiliation:
Minda Incorporated
Mitch Byrne
Affiliation:
South Australia Department of Correctional Services
*
PO Box 5, Brighton, Adelaide SA 5048, Australia
Get access

Abstract

A survey was conducted of opinions of 24 psychologists in South Australia about the intrusiveness of 89 interventions including methods that might be used to reduce challenging behaviour. Interventions arose from a variety of sources, including behavioural psychology and medicine. Interventions might infringe on 8 different rights. Respondents rated the degree to which interventions were perceived to intrude on clients' rights, using a 4-point scale: abusive, very intrusive, intrusive, and not intrusive. A reasonable degree of consistency in ratings was found. Respondents did not rate all interventions that infringed on the same right as being equally intrusive. A number of interventions were rated as being intrusive but not abusive. Intrusive methods may be legitimate if properly authorised. The question arises of how decisions should be made to authorise intrusive methods when clients are unable to make decisions on their own behalf.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 94 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1994

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, M. (1993). Behaviour management: An approach for the 90s. Newcastle, NSW: Australian Society for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disability, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, (1986). Resolution on the cessation of intrusive interventions. In Meyer, L.H., Peck, C.A., & Brown, L. (Eds.) Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities, p. 550. Baltimore, MA: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar
Ayres, J.A. (1972). Sensory integration and learning disorders. LA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Blampied, N.M., & Kahan, E. (1992). Acceptability of alternative punishments. Behaviour Modification, 16, 400–413.Google Scholar
Butterfield, W. (1990). The compassion of distinguishing punishing behavioral treatment from aversive treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 137–141Google Scholar
Cootes, J., Simpson, J., & West, R. (1988). Rights in residences. Sydney: Southwood Press.Google Scholar
Doman, G. (1974). What to do with your brain-injured child. London: Cape.Google Scholar
Foxx, R.M. (1982). Decreasing behaviors of severely retarded and autistic persons. Champaign, IL: Research.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, P., Holmes, D.L., Alessandri, M., & Goodman, M. (1991). Social policy on the use of aversive interventions: Empirical, ethical, and legal considerations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guess, D., Helmstetter, E., Turnbull, H.R., & Knowlton, S. (1987). Use of aversive procedures with people who are disabled: A historical review and critical analysis. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 2, 1–68.Google Scholar
Harris, S., & Handleman, J. (1990). Aversive and nonaversive interventions: Controlling life-threatening behaviour in the developmentally disabled. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hayes, S.C., & Hayes, R. (1982). Mental retardation: Law, policy and administration. Sydney: Law Book Company.Google Scholar
Horner, R. (1990). Ideology, technology, and typical community settings: Use of severe aversive stimuli. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 166–168.Google Scholar
Jones, C. (1980). The uses of mechanical vibration with the severely mentally handicapped: Part 2 — behavioural effects. Apex, Journal of the British Institute of Mental Handicap, 7, 112–114.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. (1980a). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behaviour. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 13, 259–273.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. (1980b). Acceptability of timeout from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behaviour. Behaviour Therapy, 11, 329–344.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. (1984). Acceptability of aversive procedures and medication as treatment alternatives for deviant child behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 289–302.Google Scholar
La Vigna, G., & Donnellan, A. (1986). Alternatives to punishment: Solving behaviour problems with non-aversive strategies. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Lennox, D.B., & Miltenberger, R.G. (1990). On the conceptualization of treatment acceptability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 211–224.Google Scholar
Lusthaus, C.S., Lusthaus, E.W., & Gibbs, H. (1981). Parents' role in the decision process. Exceptional Children, 48, 256–257.Google Scholar
Morgan, R.L. (1989). Judgments of restrictiveness, social acceptability, and usage: Review of research on procedures to decrease behaviour. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 121–133.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. (1983). Law for nurses and allied health professionals in Australia. Sydney: Law Book Company.Google Scholar
Repp, A., & Singh, N. (1990). Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1987). Behaviour management versus rights. Interaction, 1, 9–10.Google Scholar
Singh, N.N., Watson, J.E., & Winton, A.S.W. (1987). Parents' acceptability ratings of alternative treatments for use with mentally retarded children. Behaviour Modification, 11, 17–26.Google Scholar
Thayer, S. (1988). The language of touch. In Marsh, P. (Ed.), Eye to eye: How people interact (pp. 88–97). Oxford: Andromeda.Google Scholar
Triplett, J.L., & Arneson, S.W. (1979). The use of verbal and tactile comfort to alleviate distress in young hospitalized children. Research in Nursing and Health, 2, 17–23.Google Scholar