Protective procedures in functional analysis of self-injurious behavior: An updated scoping review

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Michelle A. Frank-Crawford, Drew E. Piersma, Nathalie Fernandez, Savannah A. Tate, Erik A. Bustamante
{"title":"Protective procedures in functional analysis of self-injurious behavior: An updated scoping review","authors":"Michelle A. Frank-Crawford,&nbsp;Drew E. Piersma,&nbsp;Nathalie Fernandez,&nbsp;Savannah A. Tate,&nbsp;Erik A. Bustamante","doi":"10.1002/jaba.2906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite the efficacy of functional analyses in identifying the function of challenging behavior, clinicians report not always using them, partly due to safety concerns. Understanding how researchers employ safeguards to mitigate risks, particularly with dangerous topographies like self-injurious behavior (SIB), is important to guide research and practice. However, the results of a scoping review of functional analyses of self-injurious behavior conducted by Weeden et al. (2010) revealed that only 19.83% of publications included protections. We extended the work of Weeden et al. to determine whether reporting has improved. We observed increases in all but two types of protections reviewed by Weeden et al. Additionally, we included new protections not reported by Weeden et al. In total, 69.52% of the studies included at least one protective procedure and 44.39% specified that the protections were used for safety. It appears that reporting has increased since Weeden et al. called for improved descriptions of participant protections.</p>","PeriodicalId":14983,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","volume":"57 4","pages":"840-858"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.2906","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the efficacy of functional analyses in identifying the function of challenging behavior, clinicians report not always using them, partly due to safety concerns. Understanding how researchers employ safeguards to mitigate risks, particularly with dangerous topographies like self-injurious behavior (SIB), is important to guide research and practice. However, the results of a scoping review of functional analyses of self-injurious behavior conducted by Weeden et al. (2010) revealed that only 19.83% of publications included protections. We extended the work of Weeden et al. to determine whether reporting has improved. We observed increases in all but two types of protections reviewed by Weeden et al. Additionally, we included new protections not reported by Weeden et al. In total, 69.52% of the studies included at least one protective procedure and 44.39% specified that the protections were used for safety. It appears that reporting has increased since Weeden et al. called for improved descriptions of participant protections.

自我伤害行为功能分析中的保护程序:最新范围综述。
尽管功能分析在识别挑战性行为的功能方面很有效,但临床医生表示并不总是使用功能分析,部分原因是出于安全考虑。了解研究人员如何采用保障措施来降低风险,尤其是像自伤行为(SIB)这样的危险地形,对于指导研究和实践非常重要。然而,Weeden 等人(2010 年)对自伤行为的功能分析进行的范围审查结果显示,只有 19.83% 的出版物包含保护措施。我们扩展了 Weeden 等人的工作,以确定报告是否有所改善。此外,我们还纳入了 Weeden 等人未报告的新保护措施。总之,69.52% 的研究包含至少一种保护程序,44.39% 的研究明确指出保护措施用于安全目的。自 Weeden 等人呼吁改进对参与者保护措施的描述以来,报告似乎有所增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of applied behavior analysis
Journal of applied behavior analysis PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
20.70%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信