Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:01:04.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“But I'm Not Really Bad”: Using an Ideographic Versus a Nomothetic Approach to Understand the Reasons for Difficult Behaviour in Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Vicki Bitsika
Vicki Bitsika*
Affiliation:
Bond University, Queensland
*
School of Health Sciences, Bond University, Gold Coast, 4229, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

The number of students who are identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties in the mainstream school setting is growing. However, current efforts by teachers to address these behavioural difficulties are seriously limited because of lack of training in the procedures for assessing and working with difficult behaviour. This paper will argue that the apparent failure of traditional “behaviour modification” in producing positive changes in difficult behaviour lies in its prescriptive application of general strategies to specific student problems. This approach to behaviour change is ineffective because it is not based on an understanding of the reasons for difficult behaviour. The functional assessment framework for investigating and understanding student difficulties will be presented as a more efficient means of changing the behaviour problems that occur in the classroom. At the foundation of this framework is the assumption that meaningful and long-term changes to difficult behaviour can only result from teaching the student to behave differently rather than focusing on the elimination of problem behaviour.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 13 , Issue 1: Mental Health Issues and Schools , July 2003 , pp. 87 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

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

Bitsika, V. (2000, November). Managing the challenging behaviours of individuals with autism. Paper presented at the Best Practices in ASD Conference, Singapore.Google Scholar
Carr, E.G. (1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393–399.Google Scholar
Carr, E.G., Langdon, N.A., & Yarbrough, S.C. (1999). Hypothesis-based intervention for severe problem behavior. In Repp, A.C. & Horner, R.H. (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior: From effective assessment to effective support (pp. 9–31). Belmont CA, Wadsworth Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
Cone, J.D. (1997). Issues in functional analysis in behavioral assessment. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 35, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crone, D.A., & Horner, R.H. (2000). Contextual, conceptual and empirical foundations of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Exceptionality, 8, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C.A., & Fox, J. (1999). Evaluating environmental arrangements as setting events: Review and implications for measurement. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 77–96.Google Scholar
Durand, V.M., & Carr, E.G. (1991). Functional communication training to reduce challenging behavior: Maintenance and application in new settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 251–264.Google Scholar
Fox, J., & Conroy, M. (1995). Setting events and behavioral disorders of children and youth: An interbehavioral field analysis for research and practice. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 130–140.Google Scholar
Groden, G., Groden, J., & Stevenson, S. (1997). Facilitating comprehensive behavioral assessments. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 49–52.Google Scholar
Heckaman, K., Conroy, M., Fox, J., & Chait, A. (2000). Functional assessment-based intervention research on students with or at risk of emotional and behavioral disorders in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 196–209.Google Scholar
Kinch, C., Lewis, P.T., Hagan, B.S., & Sugai, G. (2001). A comparison of teacher and student functional behavior assessment interview information from low-risk and high-risk classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 480–494.Google Scholar
LaRocque, M., Brown, S.E., & Johnson, K.L. (2001). Functional behavior assessments and intervention plans in early intervention settings. Infants and Young Children, 13, 59–68.Google Scholar
Metzler, C.W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J.C., & Sprague, J.R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 448–479.Google Scholar
Miller, L.K. (1997). Principles of everyday behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
O'Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Storey, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA:Brookes/Cole.Google Scholar
Shriver, M.D., Anderson, C.M. & Proctor, B. (2001). Evaluating the validity of functional behavior assessment. School Psychology Review, 30, 180–193.Google Scholar
Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., & Sprauge, J. R. (1999). Functional-assessment-based behavior support planning: Research to practice to research. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 253–257.Google Scholar