Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T05:50:43.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Staff Attitudes Towards Data Collection in Behavioural Programming for the Intellectually Disabled

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Kathryn Bays  and
Neville King
Kathryn Bays*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, La Trobe University
Neville King
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, Monash University
*
La Trobe University, Department of Psychology, Bundoora, Victoria 3083
Get access

Abstract

Attitudes of staff responsible for the implementation of behavioural programs toward the collection of data were assessed. A questionnaire was devised to evaluate three aspects of attitude towards data collection: perceived importance and/or usefulness of information gained, practical feasibility of data collection and professional support aspects of data collection. Seven items were pooled to generate an Attitude Score which was found to have high reliability and internal consistency. The remaining individually considered items were also reliable. Responses from 191 subjects indicated an overall positive attitude towards data collection. Theoretical and methodological problems are addressed and suggestions for further study are made.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 19 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1988

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

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayllon, T., & Micheal, J. (1959). The nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of the Experimental analysis of Behavior, 2, 223–334.Google Scholar
Burg, M. M., Reid, D. H., & Lattimore, J. (1977). Use of a self-recording, and supervision program to change institutional staff behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 363–376.Google Scholar
Bush, D. W., & White, K. R. (1985). Questionnaire Distribution: A Method that Significantly Improved Return Rates. Psychological Reports, 56, 427–430.Google Scholar
Delamater, A. M., Conners, C. K., & Wells, K. C. (1984). A comparison of staff training procedures: Behavioral applications in the child psychiatric inpatient setting. Behavior Modification, 8, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubno, R., Hillburn, D., Robinson, G., Sandler, D., Trani, J., & Weingarten, E. (1978). An attitude to behavior modification scale. Behavior Therapy, 9, 99–108.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1972). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 23, 487–544.Google Scholar
Ferguson, D. G., & Cullari, S. (1983). Behavior modification in facilities for the mentally retarded. Advances in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 1, 177–197.Google Scholar
Fredericks, H. D., and staff of the Teaching Research Infant and Child Centre. (1980). The teaching research curriculum for moderately and severely handicapped — Self help and cognitive skills. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Fredericks, H. D., and staff of the Teaching Research Infant and Child Centre (4th Ed.). (1982). A data-based classroom for the moderately and severely handicapped. Monmouth: Instructional Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. M. (1971). Behavior modification in mental institutions: A review of research and analysis of trends. In Rubin, R. O. & Franks, C. M. (Eds.), Advances in behavior therapy-Proceedings. Oshkosh, WI: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E., & Cole, P. M. (1981). Attitudes and labelling biases toward behavior modification: The effects of labels, content, and jargon. Behavior Therapy, 12, 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubany, E. S., & Sloggett, B. B. (1973). Coding procedures for teachers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 339–334.Google Scholar
Martin, G. L. (1972). Teaching operant technology to psychiatric nurses, aides, and attendants. In Clark, F. W., Evans, D. R., & Hamerlynck, L. A. (Eds.), Implementing behavioral programs for schools and clinics. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.Google Scholar
O'Leary, K. D. (1984). The image of behavior therapy: It is time to take a stand. Behavior Therapy, 15, 219–233.Google Scholar
Quilitich, H. A. (1975). A comparison of three staff management techniques. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 59–66.Google Scholar
Repp, A. C., & Barton, L. E. (1980). Naturalistic observations of institutionalized retarded persons: A comparison of licensure decisions and behavioral observations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 333–342.Google Scholar
Repucci, N. D. (1977). Implementation issues for the behavior modifier as institutional change agent. Behavior Therapy, 8, 594–605.Google Scholar
Rosnow, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1976). The volunteer subject revisited. Australian Journal of Psychology, 28, 97–108.Google Scholar
S.P.S.S.X., (1982). Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sulzer-Azeroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Veit, S. W., Allen, G. J., & Chinksy, J. M. (1976). Interpersonal interactions between institutionalized retarded children and their attendants. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 535–542.Google ScholarPubMed
Woolfolk, A. E., Woolfolk, R. L., & Wilson, G. T. (1977). A rose by any other name… Labelling bias and attitudes toward behavior modification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 184–191.Google Scholar