No abstract

Functional behavioral assessments are commonly used in school settings to assess and develop interventions for problem behavior. The trial-based functional analysis is an approach that teachers can use in their classrooms to identify the function of problem behavior. The current study evaluates the effectiveness of a modified pyramidal training procedure in which special education program coordinators were taught to conduct trial-based functional analyses and then provided support to special education teachers who were taught to conduct trial-based functional analyses and to calculate, graph, and analyze data. After training, the teachers conducted the trial-based functional analysis with over 85% accuracy and demonstrated criterion performance analyzing and graphing data. Accuracy was maintained during in-situ generalization probes conducted with two of the teachers.

International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 206 quality of care and human rights since the 1970s. The literature for this article is supplemented by a wider review of literature conducted on voluntary, human rights-based family planning by Rodriguez et al. 17 While Rodriguez et al.'s literature review focused on the years 1995-2012, this article includes literature from family planning programming dating back to the 1960s, because some instances and allegations of coercive practices included here occurred at that time. What Constitutes Coercion?To inform this article, we looked for existing definitions and descriptions of coercion in family planning. 18,19 There is no commonly held definition, although instances of coercion are linked to violations of human rights and there is broad consensus that coercion is morally wrong and should be avoided by family planning programs. 18,[20][21][22] To develop a definition of coercion, we found it instructive to review the three broad categories of reproductive rights described by Erdman and Cook-the right to reproductive self-determination; rights to sexual and reproductive health services, information and education; and rights to equality and nondiscrimination. 23Defining coercion or coercive actions too broadly could incriminate all family planning programs, becoming a catchall term applied to poorly implemented programs that neglect or are unable to reach quality of care standards. We contend that for the term coercion to be useful for advocacy and accountability purposes, it should not be conflated with broader issues of quality of care or equity, which deserve equal, if not more, attention and are also linked with human rights violations. Considering these factors, we propose the following definition: Coercion in family planning consists of actions or factors that compromise individual autonomy, agency or liberty in relation to contraceptive use or reproductive decision making through force, violence, intimidation or manipulation.Under this definition, coercion is a violation of the right to reproductive self-determination, including the right to bodily integrity (autonomy over one's own body). It is important to note that coercion is not the only way in which the right to reproductive self-determination can be violated; denying services to individuals also violates their rights. To illustrate actions and factors that may fit under this definition, this article focuses on policies and program management that explicitly foster practices that compromise, or have the potential to compromise, autonomy, agency or liberty when implemented.The 2012 London Summit on Family Planning refocused attention on family planning, garnering much-needed support for the goal of reenergizing and expanding programs in 69 low-and medium-income countries "to enable 120 million more women…to use contraceptives by 2020."1 Although the response to the summit's initiative (referred to as "FP2020") was generally positive, reproductive health and rights advocates expressed conce...

Despite decades of emphasis on quality of care, qualitative research continues to describe incidents of poor quality client–provider interactions in family planning provision. Using an emerging framework on disrespect and abuse (D and A) in maternal health services, we reviewed the global published literature for quantitative tools that could be used to measure the prevalence of negative client experiences in family planning programs. The search returned over 7,000 articles, but only 12 quantitative tools included measures related to four types of D and A (non-confidential care, non-dignified care, non-consented care, or discrimination). We mapped individual measurement items to D and A constructs from the maternal health field to identify measurement gaps for family planning. We found significant gaps; current tools are not adequate for determining the prevalence or impact of negative client experiences in family planning programs. Programs need to invest in tools that describe all aspects of client experiences, including negative experiences, to increase accountability and maximize the impact of current investments in family planning programs.

No abstract