Behavioral staff management: An analogue study of acceptability and its behavioral correlates

Abstract

This study examined the acceptability of four behavioral staff management techniques: instruction1 modeling, reinforcement, punishment, and self-management. Staff working with developmentally handicapped clients were randomly assigned to these conditions, which were presented in roleplays with a handicapped confederate, while the experimenter directed the management techniques toward the reinforcing behaviors of staff. Dependent variables included number of reinforcers delivered by the staff person, number of problems attempted by the confederate, and ratings of acceptability from staff. Instruction/modeling was most acceptable, followed, in order, by self-management, reinforcement, and punishment. A significant interaction showed number of reinforcers to increase only for instruction/modeling and self-management conditions.

A Review of Procedural Acceptability in Organizational Behavior Management

“…However, staff with less education tended to rate all of the management techniques more highly than staff with more education. In a similar study, staff completed the ARS after participating in role plays of management procedures involving eithcr instruction, reinforcement, self-management or punishment (Davis & Russell, 1990). Results were consistent with results previously reported by Davis et al (1989) except that all procedures including punishment fell within the range of the scale indicating acceptance.…”

“…(1989). Direct comparisons of the results reported by Davis and Russell (1990) with the other two studies using the ARS are more difficult because the average ratings for the management procedures in the Davis and Russell investigation were much higher for all proccdures than the average ratings reported by either Miltenberger et al or Davis et al The main finding among all studies utilizing rating scales to assess staff acceptance is that, with few exceptions, OBM procedures were acceptable to staff. Acceptability was found to be favorable whether staff were rating multifaceted intervcntions, components within multifaceted interventions, or different management procedures in actual or analogue situations.…”

“…The only exception's to uniformly high levels of acceptability based on rating scale evaluations have been procedures involving punishment (Burgio et al, 1983;Davis et al, 1989), self-management (Miltenberger et al, 1992) and publicly-posted feedback (Burgio et al, 1983). However, results of ratings indicating a lack of acceptance of specific procedures have been inconsistent in that procedures involving publicly-posted feedback (Greene et al, 1978;Korabek et al, 1982), self-management (Burgio et al, 1983;Davis et al, 1989;Davis & Russell, 3990) and even punishment (Boudreau et al, 1993;Davis & Russell, 1990) have also been found to be acceptable to staff.…”

“…In three studies, staff ratcd the acceptability of several management procedures after exposure to the proccdures in analogue situations (Davis et al, 1989;Davis & Russell, 1990;Miltcnberger, Larson, Doerner, & Orvedal, 1992). The Acceptability Rating Scale (ARS), an extensive survey with reported reliability and validity, was initially used to determine the relative acceptability of instructions, reinforcement, self-management and punishment (Davis et al, 1989).…”

Issues in the definition and implementation of “best practice” for staff delivery of interventions for challenging behaviour

“…Understanding of behavioural principles in care staff may often be poor (Oliver, Hall, Hales & Head, 1996), with staff determining the response to a client's behaviour in a manner not related to such formal conceptual frameworks (Hastings, 1995). Approaches based upon "contingency control" are viewed as "less acceptable" by staff than approaches involving modelling or instruction (Davis & Russell, 1990). Even in staff with relatively high levels of training who are able to plan coherent medium-term intervention plans, reported short-term management strategies can be counter-habilitativ e (Hastings, 1996).…”