Turkish Special Education Teachers’ Reported Use of Positive and Reductive Interventions for Problem Behaviors: An Examination of the Variables Associated With Use

Abstract

The purpose of this survey study was to determine the following: (a) What strategies do Turkish special education teachers use to address problem behaviors in their classroom? (b) What are teachers' views with regard to the effectiveness and acceptability of these strategies? (c) Is there a relationship between the use of strategies and teachers' perceived effectiveness and acceptability? and (d) Are differences among teacher ratings of strategy use, effectiveness, and acceptability associated with teacher characteristics (e.g., area of specialization, years of experience)? Results revealed that Turkish teachers' views of acceptability and effectiveness of strategies varied; however, in general, their ratings of positive strategies were higher than their ratings of reductive strategies. Results are discussed in the context of current literature, and directions for further research are suggested. Keywords elementary and middle school, challenging behaviors, disabilities, antecedent and consequence interventionPresence of problem behaviors in school settings is often associated with negative outcomes for students (e.g., segregation, punitive discipline, poor academic outcomes; e.g., Carr et al., 1999;Sprague & Walker, 2000;Sugai et al., 2000). Research also shows that the problem behaviors are more likely to worsen in the absence of intervention (Horner, Carr, Strain, Todd, & Reed, 2002;Oliver, Murphy, & Corbett, 1987). Applied behavior analysis greatly contributed to the development of interventions for problem behaviors. Horner et al. (2002) provided a synthesis of research on behavioral interventions for young children with autism published between 1996 and 2000 and reported that behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing a variety of problem behaviors performed by individuals with autism. These researchers reviewed the published work by integrating intervention approaches into several categories that provided guidance for this study: (a) stimulus-based procedures invol ving alteration of antecedent events, (b) instruction-based procedures involving direct instruction on appropriate behaviors, (c) reinforcement-based procedures involving contingent delivery of reinforcers to increase appropriate behaviors, (d) extinction-based procedures involving interventions withdrawing or minimizing delivery of presumed reinforcers, (e) punishment-based procedures involving delivery of aversive stimuli or removal of positive stimuli contingent on inappropriate behavior to decrease problem behaviors, (f) pharmacological-based procedures including the use of medications to decrease problem behaviors, and (g) other including descriptions of interventions that did not fit one of the categories described above. For the purpose of this study, the term positive is used to refer to the interventions that are preventive and/or designed to increase appropriate behaviors (stimulus based, instruction based, reinforcement based) and reductive for the interventions designed to decrease problem behavior

Acceptability ratings of language interventions and reasoning as described by early childhood special education teachers

“…The present findings were also consistent with previous acceptability research with respect to interventions for challenging behaviours -researchers found that acceptability varied as a function of the type of intervention (e.g. Kazdin, 1980aKazdin, , 1980bTuran et al, 2010). Follow-up interviews provided further insights about teachers' LIRP ratings.…”

“…However, most of the research in this area is restricted to acceptability information pertaining to interventions designed to address challenging behaviour (e.g. Kazdin, 1980a;Turan, Erbas, Ozkan, & Kurkcuoglu, 2010;Witt & Martens, 1983). In the area of language interventions, information on treatment acceptability predominantly relies on consumer satisfaction measures (e.g.…”