Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T23:29:30.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reliability of Structured Interviews for the Assessment of Challenging Behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Jeff Sigafoos*
Affiliation:
Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University of Queensland
Michelle Kerr
Affiliation:
Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University of Queensland
Donna Roberts
Affiliation:
Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University of Queensland
Donna Couzens
Affiliation:
Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University of Queensland
*
Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Qld., 4072, Australia
Get access

Abstract

While structured behavioural interviews are often used in the assessment of problem behaviours among persons with developmental disabilities, there are no data on the reliability of this assessment methodology. In the present study, the reliability of a 15 item interview protocol was determined by comparing the answers provided by different staff concerning the aggressive behaviours displayed by 18 persons with severe disabilities. Agreement was generally low with an overall mean of 43% across clients and questions. The results suggest that information obtained from structured behavioural interviews should be verified by direct observation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1993

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

Axelrod, S. (1987). Functional and structural analyses of behavior: Approaches leading to reduced use of punishment procedures? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 165178.Google Scholar
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1987). Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 313327.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. S., & Pyles, D. A. M. (1989). Behavioral diagnostics. In Cipani, E. (Ed.), The treatment of severe behavior disorders (pp. 85107). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Burnett, P. C. (1989). Assessing satisfaction in people with an intellectual disability living in community-based residential facilities. Australian Disability Review, 1, 1419.Google Scholar
Durand, V. M. (1987). “Look homeward angel”: A call to return to our (functional) roots. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 299302.Google Scholar
Durand, V. M. (1990). Severe behavior problems: A functional communication training approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, A. F., Marcus, J. L., Dowds, B. N., & Huges, L. A. (1980). Psychological impairment and psychological health in the psychological well-being of the physically ill. Psychosomatic Medicine, 42, 279288.Google Scholar
Iwata, B. A. (1988). The development and adoption of controversial default technologies. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 149157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennox, D. B., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1989). Conducting a functional assessment of problem behavior in applied settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 304311.Google Scholar
O'Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1989). Functional analysis: A practical assessment guide. Eugene: University of Oregon Press.Google Scholar
Repp, A. C., Felce, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 281289.Google Scholar
Van Houten, R., Axelrod, S., Bailey, J. S., Favell, J. E., Foxx, R. M., Iwata, B. A., & Lovaas, O. I. (1988). The right to effective behavioral treatment. The Behavior Analyst, 11,111114.Google Scholar